What do you think?
Rate this book
Britain's War #1
Britain's War: Into Battle 1937-1941
On June 18th, 1940, shortly after France fell to Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill delivered his "finest hour" speech to the House of Commons. The speech galvanized and inspired the country as it prepared for the cataclysm that was upon them. This thrilling and compendious account of the first years of World War Two chronicles the coming of the war, the fall of France, and the pivotal Battle of Britain, ending with America's entrance into the struggle. Not only tales of battle but stories of industrialization, full employment, food rationing, Westminster politics, and the mobilization of a global empire are woven together to show just how desperately high the stakes of the struggle and how uncertain its outcome.
Here are the Blitz, political turmoil, the Home Front, and more, linking together cultural, economic, and military history. Here, also, are Churchill, the pilots of the RAF, and the sailors at Dunkirk, not pursuing a pre-determined outcome but caught up in the maelstrom. Todman brings to vivid life the many dramatic and unexpected disruptions that changed the course of the war in ways none at the time could foresee.
This first volume of a brilliantly fresh retelling of a story most of us know only in parts, Britain's War: I: Into Battle,1937-1941, gives readers a full account of the entire conflict as it was experienced by all the people of Britain and its Empire.
Here are the Blitz, political turmoil, the Home Front, and more, linking together cultural, economic, and military history. Here, also, are Churchill, the pilots of the RAF, and the sailors at Dunkirk, not pursuing a pre-determined outcome but caught up in the maelstrom. Todman brings to vivid life the many dramatic and unexpected disruptions that changed the course of the war in ways none at the time could foresee.
This first volume of a brilliantly fresh retelling of a story most of us know only in parts, Britain's War: I: Into Battle,1937-1941, gives readers a full account of the entire conflict as it was experienced by all the people of Britain and its Empire.
848 pages, Hardcover
First published May 26, 2016
116 people are currently reading
2083 people want to read
About the author
Daniel Todman
5 books26 followersDaniel Todman is professor of modern history at Queen Mary University of London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
October 20, 2025
The End of the Beginning
I have avoided reading this book, but I don’t know why as it is something that I love. It’s a detailed look at Britain in the Second World War, with an ambitious scope, meticulous research, and most importantly quietly revolutionary in interpretation. I have to say Daniel Todman’s Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 is truly excellent and must be considered a landmark work of modern British history. The first volume of a two-part history, it traces Britain’s experience from the late 1930s through to the early years of WWII, from the hesitant drift toward conflict to the nation’s near-isolation after the fall of France and the onset of the Blitz.
I am a fan of revisionist history (if done in the right way) and Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 offers it here. For example, he revisits one of the most mythologised periods in modern history; the ‘Finest Hour’ and asks readers to see it anew: not as a moment of effortless unity and heroism, but as a time of confusion, division, and improvisation.
Todman’s narrative moves fluidly between the high politics of Whitehall, the grand strategies of war, and the everyday lives of ordinary Britons. Drawing on a vast range of archival sources, official documents, and personal testimonies, he reconstructs the complex interplay between military necessity, political calculation, and social change. The result is a deeply layered portrait of a nation learning, often painfully, how to wage total war. Yet Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 is not content merely to describe. It challenges, corrects, and reframes offering a version of wartime Britain that feels at once more human and more historically truthful.
As I have mentioned above the subtle revisionist elements of the book are what I love about it and I will highlight some of them here. For example, Todman dismantles of the enduring myth of ‘national unity’. Contrary to the nostalgic image of a country united under Churchill’s leadership, Todman depicts Britain in the late 1930s as fractured and uncertain Appeasement, he argues, was not the product of moral weakness but a rational response to Britain’s material and psychological unreadiness for another catastrophic war. When war came, unity was fragile, uneven and dependent as much on circumstance and propaganda as on conviction. Todman’s Britain is a nation improvising its way through crisis, its cohesion neither automatic nor assured.
Todman’s treatment of Winston Churchill also exemplifies his measured revisionism. Far from denying Churchill’s brilliance, Todman situates him within the messy realities of coalition politics and wartime administration. Churchill emerges as energetic and inspiring, but also impulsive and sometimes erratic, a man whose strategic instincts were as often flawed as they were visionary. By peeling back the layers of postwar hero-worship, Todman restores historical texture to Churchill’s leadership, showing how victory was a collective and contingent achievement rather than the product of a single man’s genius.
Another target of the revisionism in Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 is the romanticised idea of the People’s War the notion of a society united in classless solidarity beneath the bombs. Through detailed social history, he reveals a more complex reality marked by ongoing inequalities, bureaucratic confusion, and social tension. Evacuation policies, rationing, and the management of morale all exposed fault lines between regions, classes, and communities.
Solidarity existed, but it was hard-won and imperfect, the result of negotiation and adaptation, not a natural state of national character.
Furthermore, Todman challenges traditional military histories that cast Britain’s early war effort as either heroic defiance or strategic inevitability. He demonstrates how decision-making was shaped by uncertainty, resource scarcity, and competing global priorities. Britain’s survival in 1940–41, he suggests, owed more to contingency and improvisation than to preordained strength or moral destiny.
In doing so, he replaces triumphalist narratives with a more dynamic sense of historical contingency: one that recognises how close Britain came to failure.
Finally, Todman situates the conflict within a broader story of Britain’s social and administrative transformation. He explores how the demands of total war, such as mass mobilisation, bureaucracy, propaganda, and technological innovation, all reshaped British society and laid the groundwork for postwar reconstruction. The war, in Todman’s telling, was not merely an interruption of normality but a crucible in which a new kind of modern state was forged.
Todman’s writing is excellent. His prose, while academically precise, has the rhythm and vitality of good storytelling. He balances sweeping argument with sharply observed human detail, ensuring that the human experience remains central even amid complex strategic debates. In historiographical terms, Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 stands as both a synthesis and a challenge and is part of a broader movement in modern British history that seeks to integrate political, military, and social perspectives. It complements but also revises the work of earlier historians like A.J.P. Taylor, Angus Calder, and Richard Overy, rejecting both the heroic exceptionalism of mid-century accounts and the overly deterministic analyses of later decades.
In conclusion, Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 is an exceptional achievement, as it is a history that both enriches and unsettles our understanding of Britain’s wartime experience. Daniel Todman invites readers to look beyond the comforting mythology of unity and inevitability, revealing instead a society marked by contradiction, anxiety, and remarkable adaptability. By combining exhaustive research with interpretive originality, Todman has written not just a new history of Britain’s war, but a new kind of wartime history; one that restores complexity to courage and contingency to survival.
I have avoided reading this book, but I don’t know why as it is something that I love. It’s a detailed look at Britain in the Second World War, with an ambitious scope, meticulous research, and most importantly quietly revolutionary in interpretation. I have to say Daniel Todman’s Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 is truly excellent and must be considered a landmark work of modern British history. The first volume of a two-part history, it traces Britain’s experience from the late 1930s through to the early years of WWII, from the hesitant drift toward conflict to the nation’s near-isolation after the fall of France and the onset of the Blitz.
I am a fan of revisionist history (if done in the right way) and Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 offers it here. For example, he revisits one of the most mythologised periods in modern history; the ‘Finest Hour’ and asks readers to see it anew: not as a moment of effortless unity and heroism, but as a time of confusion, division, and improvisation.
Todman’s narrative moves fluidly between the high politics of Whitehall, the grand strategies of war, and the everyday lives of ordinary Britons. Drawing on a vast range of archival sources, official documents, and personal testimonies, he reconstructs the complex interplay between military necessity, political calculation, and social change. The result is a deeply layered portrait of a nation learning, often painfully, how to wage total war. Yet Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 is not content merely to describe. It challenges, corrects, and reframes offering a version of wartime Britain that feels at once more human and more historically truthful.
As I have mentioned above the subtle revisionist elements of the book are what I love about it and I will highlight some of them here. For example, Todman dismantles of the enduring myth of ‘national unity’. Contrary to the nostalgic image of a country united under Churchill’s leadership, Todman depicts Britain in the late 1930s as fractured and uncertain Appeasement, he argues, was not the product of moral weakness but a rational response to Britain’s material and psychological unreadiness for another catastrophic war. When war came, unity was fragile, uneven and dependent as much on circumstance and propaganda as on conviction. Todman’s Britain is a nation improvising its way through crisis, its cohesion neither automatic nor assured.
Todman’s treatment of Winston Churchill also exemplifies his measured revisionism. Far from denying Churchill’s brilliance, Todman situates him within the messy realities of coalition politics and wartime administration. Churchill emerges as energetic and inspiring, but also impulsive and sometimes erratic, a man whose strategic instincts were as often flawed as they were visionary. By peeling back the layers of postwar hero-worship, Todman restores historical texture to Churchill’s leadership, showing how victory was a collective and contingent achievement rather than the product of a single man’s genius.
Another target of the revisionism in Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 is the romanticised idea of the People’s War the notion of a society united in classless solidarity beneath the bombs. Through detailed social history, he reveals a more complex reality marked by ongoing inequalities, bureaucratic confusion, and social tension. Evacuation policies, rationing, and the management of morale all exposed fault lines between regions, classes, and communities.
Solidarity existed, but it was hard-won and imperfect, the result of negotiation and adaptation, not a natural state of national character.
Furthermore, Todman challenges traditional military histories that cast Britain’s early war effort as either heroic defiance or strategic inevitability. He demonstrates how decision-making was shaped by uncertainty, resource scarcity, and competing global priorities. Britain’s survival in 1940–41, he suggests, owed more to contingency and improvisation than to preordained strength or moral destiny.
In doing so, he replaces triumphalist narratives with a more dynamic sense of historical contingency: one that recognises how close Britain came to failure.
Finally, Todman situates the conflict within a broader story of Britain’s social and administrative transformation. He explores how the demands of total war, such as mass mobilisation, bureaucracy, propaganda, and technological innovation, all reshaped British society and laid the groundwork for postwar reconstruction. The war, in Todman’s telling, was not merely an interruption of normality but a crucible in which a new kind of modern state was forged.
Todman’s writing is excellent. His prose, while academically precise, has the rhythm and vitality of good storytelling. He balances sweeping argument with sharply observed human detail, ensuring that the human experience remains central even amid complex strategic debates. In historiographical terms, Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 stands as both a synthesis and a challenge and is part of a broader movement in modern British history that seeks to integrate political, military, and social perspectives. It complements but also revises the work of earlier historians like A.J.P. Taylor, Angus Calder, and Richard Overy, rejecting both the heroic exceptionalism of mid-century accounts and the overly deterministic analyses of later decades.
In conclusion, Britain’s War: Into Battle, 1937–1941 is an exceptional achievement, as it is a history that both enriches and unsettles our understanding of Britain’s wartime experience. Daniel Todman invites readers to look beyond the comforting mythology of unity and inevitability, revealing instead a society marked by contradiction, anxiety, and remarkable adaptability. By combining exhaustive research with interpretive originality, Todman has written not just a new history of Britain’s war, but a new kind of wartime history; one that restores complexity to courage and contingency to survival.
May 22, 2016
This is a first in a pretty hefty two volume history of WWII told from a strategic, political, economic, military, cultural and social perspective and with the emphasis on the war from the point of view of Britain and the British Empire. In order to set the scene, the author actually begins in 1937, with the Coronation of King George VI, after Edward VIII’s abdication. At this point, relations with Germany were still formally polite, if not warm, and Adolf Hitler sent the new King his best wishes. It is interesting to wonder what could have happened had Edward VIII kept the throne; especially as he made a very ill-advised visit to Berlin and met the Fuhrer in 1937.
The author takes us through every major (and most minor) events from 1937-1941; painstakingly setting the scene and leading us through appeasement, rearmament and preparing for war. Personal views and comments come through polls conducted by the British Institute of Public Opinion (BIPO) which was founded in 1936 and Mass Observation.
As Britain prepared for war, it was initially an anti-climax for most of the population, with the Phoney War. We hear of the formation of the War Cabinet, Churchill becoming Prime Minister, with ‘astounding popularity’ by the autumn of 1940 and of the threat of invasion, Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. Oddly, in places that had not been bombed, people were more in favour of reprisal bombing and there was a lot of fear in government that the population would not cope with being bombed constantly. However, it seems a new normality came into being – people formed committees, organised themselves and endured.
Much of what interested me in this book was less the battles, but the government coping with the everyday reality of war. The difficulty of feeding a nation, the shortages of food, the frustrations of wartime life that meant people were willing to cope but expected fairness and an equality of sacrifice. You can see from reading this why there was a Labour success after the war, as it was obvious that people wanted a better life if they were expected to endure so much.
The German attack of the Soviet Union led to global war, with America and Japan involved directly and the book ends on the 11th December, 1941, with Germany declaring war on America. Of course, I have not (and could not) mention all the detail in this book. It really does cover a huge amount, but always keeps the perspective firmly on Britain and how the country was affected by events, plus their response. I enjoyed all the personal snippets, views and comments as the book unfolded and I look forward to reading the second volume very much. Lastly, I received this book from the publisher, via NetGalley, for review.
The author takes us through every major (and most minor) events from 1937-1941; painstakingly setting the scene and leading us through appeasement, rearmament and preparing for war. Personal views and comments come through polls conducted by the British Institute of Public Opinion (BIPO) which was founded in 1936 and Mass Observation.
As Britain prepared for war, it was initially an anti-climax for most of the population, with the Phoney War. We hear of the formation of the War Cabinet, Churchill becoming Prime Minister, with ‘astounding popularity’ by the autumn of 1940 and of the threat of invasion, Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. Oddly, in places that had not been bombed, people were more in favour of reprisal bombing and there was a lot of fear in government that the population would not cope with being bombed constantly. However, it seems a new normality came into being – people formed committees, organised themselves and endured.
Much of what interested me in this book was less the battles, but the government coping with the everyday reality of war. The difficulty of feeding a nation, the shortages of food, the frustrations of wartime life that meant people were willing to cope but expected fairness and an equality of sacrifice. You can see from reading this why there was a Labour success after the war, as it was obvious that people wanted a better life if they were expected to endure so much.
The German attack of the Soviet Union led to global war, with America and Japan involved directly and the book ends on the 11th December, 1941, with Germany declaring war on America. Of course, I have not (and could not) mention all the detail in this book. It really does cover a huge amount, but always keeps the perspective firmly on Britain and how the country was affected by events, plus their response. I enjoyed all the personal snippets, views and comments as the book unfolded and I look forward to reading the second volume very much. Lastly, I received this book from the publisher, via NetGalley, for review.
July 1, 2021
This is the only book I know of to give us a wide-ranging view of the second world war for Britain. Oh, I’ve seen books on wartime Britain and regimental histories of the British army, but those are on narrow aspects of the war. This book aims to include everything that matters about Britain’s wartime experience. Military, socially, politically, economically. It’s a tall order, and one I don’t always think it manages, but only because it set the bar higher than any one tome can reach. Even in a fairly large book, that’s waaay too much information to cover.
One thing I really like is that this book is focused on the start and early years of the war. This is important since this is a period too often ignored. You read a standard book on the war and it jumps from the Battles of France and Britain straight to Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor. There’s an entire year in the middle there that gets skipped over completely. I get why of course. The period wasn’t exactly edifying for anybody – Germany was advancing everywhere, Britain was struggling to nibble away at the edges with minimal force, and France was fighting on the German side (or at least against the Allies). That last point is really interesting and was the subject of an entire book (England's Last War Against France) which unfortunately left much to be desired. I wanted this book to fill that gap.
One interesting aspect of this book is that the author really hates Churchill. Worse than that, he just doesn’t respect him at all. What is it specifically he so loathes about Churchill? Racism certainly, but he also thinks him thick – a bad planner, poor tactician, worse politician, who lucked out by benefiting from the situation at hand. As far as he’s concerned, Churchill was a blundering nincompoop who only stayed in power because all the capable people had too many enemies while Churchill was someone with a finger in all the pies. While I admire Churchill, I don’t have a problem with this. It’s a good thing to get different viewpoints on people and events and given the amount of hero worship Churchill inspires it’s probably time for someone to take him down a peg. Even his admirers recoil from some of his views on empire (racist SOB, even for his time). And for all those Churchill fanciers, it’s good to remember that the man was basically a failed politician before the war who lost his first election after in a landslide. Where Churchill excelled, perhaps the only place he did, was in his dogged determination and ability to inspire the same in others (which Todman criminally underrates). The exact man you want leading your war effort, but a tremendous burden in times of peace (as Britain would discover in 1951).
A big part of this revisionism is that one of his goals is to undermine a lot of unexamined national myths. One of the big ones is the idea of a plucky little island nation defending itself against a massive imperialist empire. As he points out, Britain was the largest empire in the world. “Little” Britain imported more oil themselves than the entire Axis. Their army was far more mechanized than the Germans at the start of the war. Britain’s failures were strategic and political, not innate. This focus on empire is a big part of the book, as it should be when considering Britain’s resources. And their resources were considerable. Yet to any careful observer it should have been clear the empire was slowly dying. The wave of anti-imperial sentiment after World War I (surely imperial ambitions were what they’d been fighting against?) shifted the empire from permanent dominance into a form of temporary stewardship – just until the natives had been civilized enough to assume home rule. India had been promised independence as early as 1919 (though somehow actual independence remained just out of reach) and Ireland and Egypt achieved it in 1922. In practical terms this meant little for most of the empire, but ideologically it was huge and opened up a lot of native movements. And this perspective (which an old Edwardian imperialist like Churchill could never accept) defined Britain’s approach to the war.
Of course, another national myth is of a more negative kind – the cowardice and timidity of the British appeasers. Todman views this as much more rational than it is often depicted. In fact, he’s very generous to Chamberlain, though not to a fault (and sometimes it seems only in comparison to Churchill). He does make quite clear that the idea that Chamberlain bought Britain time to rearm is a myth. After all, he refused to accelerate rearmament after Munich and only gave in under pressure. The reasoning, as he sees it, was simple – full rearmament meant national service which would require empowering unions in order to access the necessary manpower of labor organizations. In short, it meant social revolution, and a dyed-in-the-wool aristocrat like Chamberlain would almost rather face national annihilation than risk social revolution. But of course those were literally his choices, and once he accepted that the almost meant a great deal.
As Todman sees it, Chamberlain’s chief political failing was not appeasement but that he was snide and dismissive to his opponents, which meant that when the war came they were unwilling to work with him. Which (combined with his early death) is really what did him in as far as the history books are concerned. This is also what defines Todman’s depiction of Churchill. Churchill had been a Liberal and he was certainly not a solid Tory – thus he was one of the few prominent Conservative politicians equally acceptable to all parties. The labor unions would work with the old ex-Liberal and Labour supporters saw that he would let them advance their own policies if couched in war rhetoric, while to Conservatives he was still (just) one of their own. This is probably the clearest explanation I’ve seen for Chamberlain’s fall, which otherwise seems rather odd in timing. Switching governments just as the hot war was starting seems a poor decision.
Another interesting view is the one he provides of Clement Attlee (the Labour leader and Churchill’s successor as PM). As Todman sees it, Churchill’s nondogmatic approach (which he naturally presents as ignorance or negligence) allowed Attlee and the other Labour leaders to revolutionize the country. From within the government he secretly expanded socialist interests and welfare programs using the (genuine) excuse of the needs of the war, while the Tories were weakened by shortsightedly planning for the moment. This makes sense to me. When people’s houses are bombed out on a massive scale some sort of welfare programs will be necessary if the country is to continue fighting, and who better to take on that role than Britain’s socialist party? I am, of course, less convinced that Churchill was ignorant of all this. Likely he too saw it as necessary and I can admire his practical viewpoint on wartime necessity without needing to see it as naive. Obviously he miscalculated the popularity of expanding such measures after the war, but one of the few nice things about total war is that it makes social support necessary for victory and I have a hard time seeing it as a negative for Churchill’s government that he provided it.
One important way of measuring all of these social changes is through his use of surveys of the national mood. These often provide the closest thing we get to personal journeys. These opinion surveys are very interesting and can be informative. “It’s a f—ing mess, ain’t it?”, seems to me about as accurate a description of European diplomacy in the late ‘30s as any politician’s statements. While these anecdotes are useful, he frequently uses them as his chief weapon against nationalist myths. He loves pointing out examples of people who reacted in an opposite manner to how we believe people reacted today. But I remain unconvinced that his anecdotes are any more universal than the myths he’s undermining. He seems comfortable cherrypicking examples and leaving it at that. Sometimes his use of statistics and broad surveys can be misleadingly confident also. For example, he notes that 54% of casualties in London during the Blitz were killed in their home while only 32% died in bomb shelters and concludes that most people didn’t use shelters. But surely if the shelters worked at all the numbers should be lower (possibly much lower) regardless of how many used them? It’s like saying most people who died from Covid were unvaccinated, therefore the majority of people weren’t vaccinated.
As you might gather from all this big picture/wide focus coverage there’s not a lot amount of room left for low level tactics or even maneuverings outside the UK (which means I still haven’t found the book I’m looking for). On strategy though, the book does a good job of outlining the administration’s war aims. The strength of the Royal Navy, and its effectiveness in WW1, means that the natural British strategy was to starve the Germans out by denying them food or supplies. As such, control of the Mediterranean, to secure rapid British supply lines from the empire in Asia, dominated the thinking of the early war. These considerations are very clearly laid out here. This also dominated German decision-making, with Hitler’s drive east depicted as driven by the need to acquire resources cut off by Britain. This naturally leaves one with the impression that Hitler was being defensive and responding to Britain rather than the other way round, and I don’t like how it ignores the Nazi’s ideological obsession with lebensraum, but it is logical within the narrow perspective of British strategy.
It also has to be said that the Churchill bothering can get a little old. This may be a useful counterpoint to the overly adulatory hagiographies he still attracts (particularly from those with a nationalist bent) but the idea that the man could do nothing right and only accidentally led Britain through its greatest crisis seems a parody at times. Blaming Churchill’s optimism for losing the empire? What alternatives could he suggest given the circumstances? More to the point, given his views, isn’t this a good thing? He only defines this as a policy failure because Churchill tried and failed to preserve the empire. But surely the problem there isn’t excessive optimism but the efforts themselves? The empire was dying, and from an imperialist perspective the most sensible thing to do seems to have been to wring what they could from it and worry about the consequences after they survived. Which is what they did. Same goes for the social reforms. And cherrypicking critics of his every decision is hardly reasonable. He undermines Churchill even in his finest hour by pointing out reaction to his radio speech was muted by the cigar he refused to remove. And he can be just as snarky to others he dislikes. Basil Liddell Hart, for example, he describes as a military ‘expert’ (quotes his). The man may have been a shameless self-promoter who used access to German generals after the war to “remind them” that blitzkrieg was inspired by his own teachings, but he was undeniably a military expert. The snark is cruel and unwarranted.
This book is a big picture view of the conflict from Britain’s perspective, and that accounts for many of the book’s strengths as well as its failings. A lot of the Churchill bashing comes not so much from personal loathing as from the need to tear big man historiography down to provide a more longue durée or sociological approach. As he sees it, the societal changes that transformed Britain during the war were due not to one great man rewriting the world but a whole series of interactions from people at all levels. This is certainly true, even if I remain unconvinced that the chief measure of a leader’s success should be defined by whether he fully controlled (or even wanted) the changes he enabled. For the same reason, the book’s strengths in economics and political strategy are offbalanced by weaknesses in the exploration of lived experiences and the actual conduct of the war. That said, for the former you really can’t do better. And I don’t see how you can present both viewpoints simultaneously. This book is insanely ambitious and really does cover a lot of material that you won’t find elsewhere. Worth a read and it will make you question many of your underlying assumptions. It is also prone to snark and amusingly caustic putdowns that cracked me up. Worth a read, though it will often be rough going.
One thing I really like is that this book is focused on the start and early years of the war. This is important since this is a period too often ignored. You read a standard book on the war and it jumps from the Battles of France and Britain straight to Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor. There’s an entire year in the middle there that gets skipped over completely. I get why of course. The period wasn’t exactly edifying for anybody – Germany was advancing everywhere, Britain was struggling to nibble away at the edges with minimal force, and France was fighting on the German side (or at least against the Allies). That last point is really interesting and was the subject of an entire book (England's Last War Against France) which unfortunately left much to be desired. I wanted this book to fill that gap.
One interesting aspect of this book is that the author really hates Churchill. Worse than that, he just doesn’t respect him at all. What is it specifically he so loathes about Churchill? Racism certainly, but he also thinks him thick – a bad planner, poor tactician, worse politician, who lucked out by benefiting from the situation at hand. As far as he’s concerned, Churchill was a blundering nincompoop who only stayed in power because all the capable people had too many enemies while Churchill was someone with a finger in all the pies. While I admire Churchill, I don’t have a problem with this. It’s a good thing to get different viewpoints on people and events and given the amount of hero worship Churchill inspires it’s probably time for someone to take him down a peg. Even his admirers recoil from some of his views on empire (racist SOB, even for his time). And for all those Churchill fanciers, it’s good to remember that the man was basically a failed politician before the war who lost his first election after in a landslide. Where Churchill excelled, perhaps the only place he did, was in his dogged determination and ability to inspire the same in others (which Todman criminally underrates). The exact man you want leading your war effort, but a tremendous burden in times of peace (as Britain would discover in 1951).
A big part of this revisionism is that one of his goals is to undermine a lot of unexamined national myths. One of the big ones is the idea of a plucky little island nation defending itself against a massive imperialist empire. As he points out, Britain was the largest empire in the world. “Little” Britain imported more oil themselves than the entire Axis. Their army was far more mechanized than the Germans at the start of the war. Britain’s failures were strategic and political, not innate. This focus on empire is a big part of the book, as it should be when considering Britain’s resources. And their resources were considerable. Yet to any careful observer it should have been clear the empire was slowly dying. The wave of anti-imperial sentiment after World War I (surely imperial ambitions were what they’d been fighting against?) shifted the empire from permanent dominance into a form of temporary stewardship – just until the natives had been civilized enough to assume home rule. India had been promised independence as early as 1919 (though somehow actual independence remained just out of reach) and Ireland and Egypt achieved it in 1922. In practical terms this meant little for most of the empire, but ideologically it was huge and opened up a lot of native movements. And this perspective (which an old Edwardian imperialist like Churchill could never accept) defined Britain’s approach to the war.
Of course, another national myth is of a more negative kind – the cowardice and timidity of the British appeasers. Todman views this as much more rational than it is often depicted. In fact, he’s very generous to Chamberlain, though not to a fault (and sometimes it seems only in comparison to Churchill). He does make quite clear that the idea that Chamberlain bought Britain time to rearm is a myth. After all, he refused to accelerate rearmament after Munich and only gave in under pressure. The reasoning, as he sees it, was simple – full rearmament meant national service which would require empowering unions in order to access the necessary manpower of labor organizations. In short, it meant social revolution, and a dyed-in-the-wool aristocrat like Chamberlain would almost rather face national annihilation than risk social revolution. But of course those were literally his choices, and once he accepted that the almost meant a great deal.
As Todman sees it, Chamberlain’s chief political failing was not appeasement but that he was snide and dismissive to his opponents, which meant that when the war came they were unwilling to work with him. Which (combined with his early death) is really what did him in as far as the history books are concerned. This is also what defines Todman’s depiction of Churchill. Churchill had been a Liberal and he was certainly not a solid Tory – thus he was one of the few prominent Conservative politicians equally acceptable to all parties. The labor unions would work with the old ex-Liberal and Labour supporters saw that he would let them advance their own policies if couched in war rhetoric, while to Conservatives he was still (just) one of their own. This is probably the clearest explanation I’ve seen for Chamberlain’s fall, which otherwise seems rather odd in timing. Switching governments just as the hot war was starting seems a poor decision.
Another interesting view is the one he provides of Clement Attlee (the Labour leader and Churchill’s successor as PM). As Todman sees it, Churchill’s nondogmatic approach (which he naturally presents as ignorance or negligence) allowed Attlee and the other Labour leaders to revolutionize the country. From within the government he secretly expanded socialist interests and welfare programs using the (genuine) excuse of the needs of the war, while the Tories were weakened by shortsightedly planning for the moment. This makes sense to me. When people’s houses are bombed out on a massive scale some sort of welfare programs will be necessary if the country is to continue fighting, and who better to take on that role than Britain’s socialist party? I am, of course, less convinced that Churchill was ignorant of all this. Likely he too saw it as necessary and I can admire his practical viewpoint on wartime necessity without needing to see it as naive. Obviously he miscalculated the popularity of expanding such measures after the war, but one of the few nice things about total war is that it makes social support necessary for victory and I have a hard time seeing it as a negative for Churchill’s government that he provided it.
One important way of measuring all of these social changes is through his use of surveys of the national mood. These often provide the closest thing we get to personal journeys. These opinion surveys are very interesting and can be informative. “It’s a f—ing mess, ain’t it?”, seems to me about as accurate a description of European diplomacy in the late ‘30s as any politician’s statements. While these anecdotes are useful, he frequently uses them as his chief weapon against nationalist myths. He loves pointing out examples of people who reacted in an opposite manner to how we believe people reacted today. But I remain unconvinced that his anecdotes are any more universal than the myths he’s undermining. He seems comfortable cherrypicking examples and leaving it at that. Sometimes his use of statistics and broad surveys can be misleadingly confident also. For example, he notes that 54% of casualties in London during the Blitz were killed in their home while only 32% died in bomb shelters and concludes that most people didn’t use shelters. But surely if the shelters worked at all the numbers should be lower (possibly much lower) regardless of how many used them? It’s like saying most people who died from Covid were unvaccinated, therefore the majority of people weren’t vaccinated.
As you might gather from all this big picture/wide focus coverage there’s not a lot amount of room left for low level tactics or even maneuverings outside the UK (which means I still haven’t found the book I’m looking for). On strategy though, the book does a good job of outlining the administration’s war aims. The strength of the Royal Navy, and its effectiveness in WW1, means that the natural British strategy was to starve the Germans out by denying them food or supplies. As such, control of the Mediterranean, to secure rapid British supply lines from the empire in Asia, dominated the thinking of the early war. These considerations are very clearly laid out here. This also dominated German decision-making, with Hitler’s drive east depicted as driven by the need to acquire resources cut off by Britain. This naturally leaves one with the impression that Hitler was being defensive and responding to Britain rather than the other way round, and I don’t like how it ignores the Nazi’s ideological obsession with lebensraum, but it is logical within the narrow perspective of British strategy.
It also has to be said that the Churchill bothering can get a little old. This may be a useful counterpoint to the overly adulatory hagiographies he still attracts (particularly from those with a nationalist bent) but the idea that the man could do nothing right and only accidentally led Britain through its greatest crisis seems a parody at times. Blaming Churchill’s optimism for losing the empire? What alternatives could he suggest given the circumstances? More to the point, given his views, isn’t this a good thing? He only defines this as a policy failure because Churchill tried and failed to preserve the empire. But surely the problem there isn’t excessive optimism but the efforts themselves? The empire was dying, and from an imperialist perspective the most sensible thing to do seems to have been to wring what they could from it and worry about the consequences after they survived. Which is what they did. Same goes for the social reforms. And cherrypicking critics of his every decision is hardly reasonable. He undermines Churchill even in his finest hour by pointing out reaction to his radio speech was muted by the cigar he refused to remove. And he can be just as snarky to others he dislikes. Basil Liddell Hart, for example, he describes as a military ‘expert’ (quotes his). The man may have been a shameless self-promoter who used access to German generals after the war to “remind them” that blitzkrieg was inspired by his own teachings, but he was undeniably a military expert. The snark is cruel and unwarranted.
This book is a big picture view of the conflict from Britain’s perspective, and that accounts for many of the book’s strengths as well as its failings. A lot of the Churchill bashing comes not so much from personal loathing as from the need to tear big man historiography down to provide a more longue durée or sociological approach. As he sees it, the societal changes that transformed Britain during the war were due not to one great man rewriting the world but a whole series of interactions from people at all levels. This is certainly true, even if I remain unconvinced that the chief measure of a leader’s success should be defined by whether he fully controlled (or even wanted) the changes he enabled. For the same reason, the book’s strengths in economics and political strategy are offbalanced by weaknesses in the exploration of lived experiences and the actual conduct of the war. That said, for the former you really can’t do better. And I don’t see how you can present both viewpoints simultaneously. This book is insanely ambitious and really does cover a lot of material that you won’t find elsewhere. Worth a read and it will make you question many of your underlying assumptions. It is also prone to snark and amusingly caustic putdowns that cracked me up. Worth a read, though it will often be rough going.
December 6, 2022
Torn between 4 and 5 stars. Raised to 5 stars after reading the second part.
This is some hefty reading. 720 pages and this is only the first half, the first 5 years in the somewhat arbitrary timeline from 1937 to 1947.
In these 720 pages, Todman doesn't really stick to the timeline but spends some time in the years before the 1937, trying to encompass the whole war experience of Great Britain during the World War 2. This is 'heavy history' as in it's not filled with quotes and narratives of certain people, but tries to cover all the aspects of society. To understand my point better, the 'we shall fight on the beaches' speech is barely mentioned in the book, maybe twice and not really quoted. It's actually somewhat refreshing that you don't get the usual quotes that are all too familiar to anyone reading military history.
This is also very much not your typical military history, this is a country at war history. Military tactics and battles are barely discussed(compared to the scale of the book) and more is spent on explaining what happened in party politics or in economics of the nation. To someone not familiar with British politics it was on occasion very confusing. So this is not a book one should start their journey to World War 2. Then again this is a book anyone more interested in the topic should read, it's more about money, resources, politics than great action stories about good guys beating the bad guys. Even if you're not per se interested in Great Britain, this will most likely increase your understanding of world politics in 1930's and during the World War 2.
If the time frame is one thing to nitpick, the other one is the cultural aspect. I felt that more than enough was spent on many aspects of political decisions and committees etc. but not a lot was spent on what the people were actually doing and feeling. There's quite a lot of quotes from polls and MOA but it mostly covers things like bombing and what original people thought about events and politics. The book doesn't really dive into what was the everyday life in factories, bar rooms, movie theaters and homes. I did get some idea of their nutrition though. As someone who's not from GB and find their life simply foreign the book let me down on that aspect.
This is some hefty reading. 720 pages and this is only the first half, the first 5 years in the somewhat arbitrary timeline from 1937 to 1947.
In these 720 pages, Todman doesn't really stick to the timeline but spends some time in the years before the 1937, trying to encompass the whole war experience of Great Britain during the World War 2. This is 'heavy history' as in it's not filled with quotes and narratives of certain people, but tries to cover all the aspects of society. To understand my point better, the 'we shall fight on the beaches' speech is barely mentioned in the book, maybe twice and not really quoted. It's actually somewhat refreshing that you don't get the usual quotes that are all too familiar to anyone reading military history.
This is also very much not your typical military history, this is a country at war history. Military tactics and battles are barely discussed(compared to the scale of the book) and more is spent on explaining what happened in party politics or in economics of the nation. To someone not familiar with British politics it was on occasion very confusing. So this is not a book one should start their journey to World War 2. Then again this is a book anyone more interested in the topic should read, it's more about money, resources, politics than great action stories about good guys beating the bad guys. Even if you're not per se interested in Great Britain, this will most likely increase your understanding of world politics in 1930's and during the World War 2.
If the time frame is one thing to nitpick, the other one is the cultural aspect. I felt that more than enough was spent on many aspects of political decisions and committees etc. but not a lot was spent on what the people were actually doing and feeling. There's quite a lot of quotes from polls and MOA but it mostly covers things like bombing and what original people thought about events and politics. The book doesn't really dive into what was the everyday life in factories, bar rooms, movie theaters and homes. I did get some idea of their nutrition though. As someone who's not from GB and find their life simply foreign the book let me down on that aspect.
November 5, 2016
A hefty tome, but fast moving and very well written.
The book is expansive with 1937 to 1941 strategic, political, economic, military, cultural and social commentary covered in equal measure.
Todman covers details of the period generally ignored by many volumes. Whilst this might appear to be a dry subject he manages to inject a very readable style with many eyewitness accounts. The book continues to the end of 1941 with a second volume to follow covering the remainder of the war.
A thoroughly fascinating read - Highly recommended.
The book is expansive with 1937 to 1941 strategic, political, economic, military, cultural and social commentary covered in equal measure.
Todman covers details of the period generally ignored by many volumes. Whilst this might appear to be a dry subject he manages to inject a very readable style with many eyewitness accounts. The book continues to the end of 1941 with a second volume to follow covering the remainder of the war.
A thoroughly fascinating read - Highly recommended.
October 3, 2016
long but fast moving so the page turn by themselves and a book that is a real pleasure to read as well as being how popular history books should be written; not really much new but lots of detail, vignettes and quotes, illustrating clearly both the fallacy of hindsight and the fallacy of the road not taken being necessarily better (for whatever values of better one wants to use as in history those are not always clear); also a very interesting read for today's concerns for obvious reasons;
highly recommended and very curious if the presumed part 2 will keep same "as it happened, not how it should have been in hindsight" approach
highly recommended and very curious if the presumed part 2 will keep same "as it happened, not how it should have been in hindsight" approach
May 11, 2021
An exhaustive (and exhausting!) account of the years immediately prior to and the first 2 years of the Second World War from Britain's point of view.
In the first part of a two volume history, the author provides a welter of economic facts and figures mixed in with quotes from the "ordinary" people who lived through the most terrible time in the country's history and the actions of politicians at a local as well as national level throughout the 1930's into the year of the "Bore War" (or Phoney War as it came to be known) on to the Fall of France and the "miracle" rescue of the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) at Dunkirk before the months of Germany's heavy bombing of London and many other cities as civilians became part of the war's front line casualties.
Further afield, there were the effects of the war on Britain's Empire, with India's struggle for independence and the problems faced in Palestine, alongside the reaction to Hitler's war in Western Europe from British dominions, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Throughout, there are in-depth accounts of how the British (and German) economy fared as military rearmement increased in the late 1930's and both countries faced bankruptcy as war broke out and both tried to break the deadlock with economic blockades - the British with their all powerful Royal Navy and huge merchant fleet and Germany with its use of submarines to sink British convoys.
The attitudes of the British people over several years are captured polls conducted by the British Institute of Public Opinion (BIPO) which was founded in 1936 and Mass Observation - both of which provided insights into the feelings of various parts of British society in the 1930's and early 1940's.
We also learn of the diplomacy which saw Britain's politicians divided on matter of the appeasement of Hitler which eventually led to the fall of Britain's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the succession of Winston Churchill.
We read of the latter's bid to get America involved in the war and how the U.S. President Roosevelt reacted to that prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
This is not just a military history but, overwhelmingly, a detailed socio-economic study of the effect of the early years of the Second World War on Britain, its Empire and Dominions and on the people who lived through it.
In the first part of a two volume history, the author provides a welter of economic facts and figures mixed in with quotes from the "ordinary" people who lived through the most terrible time in the country's history and the actions of politicians at a local as well as national level throughout the 1930's into the year of the "Bore War" (or Phoney War as it came to be known) on to the Fall of France and the "miracle" rescue of the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) at Dunkirk before the months of Germany's heavy bombing of London and many other cities as civilians became part of the war's front line casualties.
Further afield, there were the effects of the war on Britain's Empire, with India's struggle for independence and the problems faced in Palestine, alongside the reaction to Hitler's war in Western Europe from British dominions, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Throughout, there are in-depth accounts of how the British (and German) economy fared as military rearmement increased in the late 1930's and both countries faced bankruptcy as war broke out and both tried to break the deadlock with economic blockades - the British with their all powerful Royal Navy and huge merchant fleet and Germany with its use of submarines to sink British convoys.
The attitudes of the British people over several years are captured polls conducted by the British Institute of Public Opinion (BIPO) which was founded in 1936 and Mass Observation - both of which provided insights into the feelings of various parts of British society in the 1930's and early 1940's.
We also learn of the diplomacy which saw Britain's politicians divided on matter of the appeasement of Hitler which eventually led to the fall of Britain's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the succession of Winston Churchill.
We read of the latter's bid to get America involved in the war and how the U.S. President Roosevelt reacted to that prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
This is not just a military history but, overwhelmingly, a detailed socio-economic study of the effect of the early years of the Second World War on Britain, its Empire and Dominions and on the people who lived through it.
September 25, 2016
Princess Fuzzypants here:
This book covers a short number of years from 1937 to 1941. While it may not seem like a huge amount of time, it is event packed and pivotal in understanding not only the Britain of WWII but what followed in the Post War years.
It starts with the Coronation of KIng George VI, the man who was not supposed to be King. Thankfully his brother misjudged his own importance and public opinion. With the sympathies he held, it would have been a much weakened Britain that would have faced the Nazi hordes. Who knows how much that might have impacted the results.
Without being ponderous or too scholarly, the book looks at the events and people leading up the outbreak of war. It neither deifies not vilifies the characters. Even the most important man of the 20th Century, Winston Churchill, is shown with both his strengths and weaknesses. It allows the reader to make his or her own judgements.
We follow all the false starts and mistakes that lead up to the isolation of Britain. With the exception of her Commwealth countries, she stood alone until events finally merged and brought in other Allies. The reader can see how the other members of the Government Coalition introduced concepts that evolved into the Welfare State. We see how the citizens, perhaps not as good naturedly as the Information folks would have had us believe, bore the trials and tribulations of shortages, bombings and tough situations. It is not without a sense of awe that we realize how they survived and thrived. It was a nation finally led by the right man with a public with the right amount of stiff upper lip.
I can recommend this book for both the student and the casual reader. While it is crammed with facts and not light reading, it is written in a way that makes it accessible to all.
Five purrs and two paws up.
This book covers a short number of years from 1937 to 1941. While it may not seem like a huge amount of time, it is event packed and pivotal in understanding not only the Britain of WWII but what followed in the Post War years.
It starts with the Coronation of KIng George VI, the man who was not supposed to be King. Thankfully his brother misjudged his own importance and public opinion. With the sympathies he held, it would have been a much weakened Britain that would have faced the Nazi hordes. Who knows how much that might have impacted the results.
Without being ponderous or too scholarly, the book looks at the events and people leading up the outbreak of war. It neither deifies not vilifies the characters. Even the most important man of the 20th Century, Winston Churchill, is shown with both his strengths and weaknesses. It allows the reader to make his or her own judgements.
We follow all the false starts and mistakes that lead up to the isolation of Britain. With the exception of her Commwealth countries, she stood alone until events finally merged and brought in other Allies. The reader can see how the other members of the Government Coalition introduced concepts that evolved into the Welfare State. We see how the citizens, perhaps not as good naturedly as the Information folks would have had us believe, bore the trials and tribulations of shortages, bombings and tough situations. It is not without a sense of awe that we realize how they survived and thrived. It was a nation finally led by the right man with a public with the right amount of stiff upper lip.
I can recommend this book for both the student and the casual reader. While it is crammed with facts and not light reading, it is written in a way that makes it accessible to all.
Five purrs and two paws up.
May 13, 2017
3.5 stars, I rounded up. The strength of this book is it covers the full spectrum of how the war impacted Britain: the disputes about the goals of the war (preserve the Empire or open up self-rule among the Dominions; socialism in the home country versus the stratified class system); gearing up for and sustaining a war (reallocating materials and labor to supply the military; rationing goods as imports fell; prioritizing which supply departments take precedence and how much should the government interfere in a capitalist economy); trying to get America into the war to ramp up its industrial capacity and to share the load in Europe; the political machinations (fall of Chamberlain rise of Churchill); handling morale at home; and of course the battles themselves. The detail is the strongest and weakest part of the book. I felt like some parts were redundant and the book could have slimmed by about 150 pages and been just as effective in its narrative. Overall an enjoyable read if occasionally bogged down in marginalia.
September 17, 2018
A good overview of the interwar 1930s and early ww2 years. Not only a military but also a social and economic history, it is necessarily a mile wide and not quite as deep as some may like. Nevertheless, an outstanding achievement.
June 3, 2017
Very well written. Provides a granular description of UK war effort.
September 6, 2024
Beginning with the coronation of King George VI and ending with the attack on Pearl Harbor, Britain's War provides an accessible and overarching account of WWII within Britain. It is the sort of book I think you should read if you are new to the subject, but maybe less impressive if you already know the drill. I have a feeling that I will have a much better impression on this once I read the second part, beginning at the end of 1941, as that is when the war became a lot more intense and involved for Britain in terms of combat.
I have no complaints with the research or writing as far as I recall, Todman has done quite well. I would only really criticise the fact that I felt there was no opportunity for depth due to him taking such a broad range of areas (sociological, economical, political, etc.) over a period of time. There seemed to be a lot more focus on the government rather than the social impact of the war on the British people, although there were many extracts from public opinions to supplement the commentaries. Another small thing is that like most books claiming to relate to 'Great Britain' or the 'United Kingdom', there is almost only a focus on England. The other countries were only really name-dropped here and there and had no real attention paid to them, which is of course completely typical.
Although he is a British author himself, Todman doesn't pull out excuses for the colonial attitudes and the British Empire. He clearly has little respect for Churchill and the cult of personality that formed surrounding him and still has a hold on the British population today. This was quite refreshing to read from a professional historian's perspective.
Overall, I think this is a good overviewing book when also read with the second part (I haven't read that yet but I can't see the sense in just reading the first part if you are wishing to get a good idea of the topic), but you won't find anything too in depth. It is better to get more specific books on different areas and events within after reading these.
I have no complaints with the research or writing as far as I recall, Todman has done quite well. I would only really criticise the fact that I felt there was no opportunity for depth due to him taking such a broad range of areas (sociological, economical, political, etc.) over a period of time. There seemed to be a lot more focus on the government rather than the social impact of the war on the British people, although there were many extracts from public opinions to supplement the commentaries. Another small thing is that like most books claiming to relate to 'Great Britain' or the 'United Kingdom', there is almost only a focus on England. The other countries were only really name-dropped here and there and had no real attention paid to them, which is of course completely typical.
Although he is a British author himself, Todman doesn't pull out excuses for the colonial attitudes and the British Empire. He clearly has little respect for Churchill and the cult of personality that formed surrounding him and still has a hold on the British population today. This was quite refreshing to read from a professional historian's perspective.
Overall, I think this is a good overviewing book when also read with the second part (I haven't read that yet but I can't see the sense in just reading the first part if you are wishing to get a good idea of the topic), but you won't find anything too in depth. It is better to get more specific books on different areas and events within after reading these.
November 19, 2024
This was a magnificent work of history. Daniel Todman sets out to tell the story of the first stage of Britain's participation in the Second World War, but only about 10% of the book is dedicated to the actions of armies, fleets, and aircraft. The rest is about economics, finance, internal British politics, and Britain's uncomfortable but necessary relationship with the United States.
This book puts paid to the received orthodoxy of Britain as the plucky underdog in World War II. Instead, Todman focuses on the enormous productive capacity the country achieved starting in 1938, to the point where Britain was massively outproducing Nazi Germany in tanks, aircraft, and vehicles by 1941. Britain's sophisticated capital markets, coupled with government creativity, allowed the country to pay the enormous expenses involved in mobilization - albeit at a debilitating long-term cost to Britain's financial standing in the world. A major factor in Britain's survival was her total command of the seas, including her Merchant Navy that kept the war industries supplied and the population fed.
We also get an insight into the ripple effects of the war on the British Empire, with views of the conflict from the standpoint of India, Egypt, Iraq, and the "white Dominions" of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
Winston Churchill is presented as less than the perfect war leader, although Todman does recognize the positive effect of Churchill's indomitable will on the British populace. Also coming in for praise are the leaders of the Labour party, especially Clement Atlee and Ernest Bevin, who helped mobilize and motivate the masses to support the war effort.
Finally, the author makes good use of the reports of the Mass Observation movement to illustrate the views of the man and woman in the street and their take on the momentous events taking place in the five years covered by the book.
I am very much looking forward to Todman's second volume of this history, covering the years 1942-47.
This book puts paid to the received orthodoxy of Britain as the plucky underdog in World War II. Instead, Todman focuses on the enormous productive capacity the country achieved starting in 1938, to the point where Britain was massively outproducing Nazi Germany in tanks, aircraft, and vehicles by 1941. Britain's sophisticated capital markets, coupled with government creativity, allowed the country to pay the enormous expenses involved in mobilization - albeit at a debilitating long-term cost to Britain's financial standing in the world. A major factor in Britain's survival was her total command of the seas, including her Merchant Navy that kept the war industries supplied and the population fed.
We also get an insight into the ripple effects of the war on the British Empire, with views of the conflict from the standpoint of India, Egypt, Iraq, and the "white Dominions" of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
Winston Churchill is presented as less than the perfect war leader, although Todman does recognize the positive effect of Churchill's indomitable will on the British populace. Also coming in for praise are the leaders of the Labour party, especially Clement Atlee and Ernest Bevin, who helped mobilize and motivate the masses to support the war effort.
Finally, the author makes good use of the reports of the Mass Observation movement to illustrate the views of the man and woman in the street and their take on the momentous events taking place in the five years covered by the book.
I am very much looking forward to Todman's second volume of this history, covering the years 1942-47.
March 1, 2021
This is one of the finest books on the geo-politics, strategies and events of World War 2. The Author looks at a holistic view giving his analysis on the personalities and the decisions that shaped events leading up to the War and until USA joins the War. The world wide picture also gets an in depth view and for us Indians it confirms as well as shows us new vistas. The Author shows what we knew that Churchill was a racist and it coloured his views of India. The present dispensation in the country may not be too happy to learn that while Gandhi's views on agitations were always influenced by his humanity, the steel core and driving force was always provided by Nehru. The British, always willing to play one side against the other, encouraged the Muslims in subtle ways. The Author has been kind to Chamberlain. Much calumnised for his Munich compromise he is shown to have steel core where required and served Churchill loyally despite dying of cancer. The national cabinet of England was a fantastic accumulation of talent who guided the country through very difficult times with Churchill at the helm. He was more concerned about conducting the war, where he did commit mistakes but his bulldog attitude harnessed the spirit of the people for the hard challenges they had to face. Throughout the book the Author includes the views and hardships of the common people as Britain is forced to hostage its wealth to an adamant American bureaucracy, despite Roosevelt's attempts at mitigation. One gets a fair idea of governance in time of war and it can well be a template for nations facing a life threatening situation of this kind. Bureaucrats will learn much from this book. Contrary to views, Churchill trusted his ministers and left them to do their jobs. I look forward to reading the second volume of the history.
December 17, 2021
A big dense book and an academic work that must surely add immensely to historical writings about World War II. I shall be getting the second volume as a Christmas present. As a boomer, I was born nearly ten years after the war finished but it casts a long shadow and must have been immensely formative for my parents and their generation. So I knew lots of bits from other reading and popular culture. This book tied it all together; the Mass Observation and other contemporary diaries were excellent sources.
The twenties and thirties were a little hazy but now much less so and it was important to contextualise the war. Chamberlain was about so much more than appeasement and Churchill was a bull in a china shop in many ways, surrounding himself with cronies, only some of whom were particularly capable. Beaverbrook! And the hopeless performance of the RAF in the first years of the war, the Luftwaffe not vastly better. And the Americans, determined to dismantle the British Empire, so difficult for Roosevelt to govern.
The twenties and thirties were a little hazy but now much less so and it was important to contextualise the war. Chamberlain was about so much more than appeasement and Churchill was a bull in a china shop in many ways, surrounding himself with cronies, only some of whom were particularly capable. Beaverbrook! And the hopeless performance of the RAF in the first years of the war, the Luftwaffe not vastly better. And the Americans, determined to dismantle the British Empire, so difficult for Roosevelt to govern.
November 19, 2020
The first half of a thorough look at WW2 from a British perspective. It starts in 1937 with the coronation of George VI (but obviously referring to earlier events to explain how things came to be) and ends in December 1941, when Germany declares war on the USA. It proceeds chronologically, looking at different aspects in parallel.
It covers, among other things, politics, the economy, industry, diplomacy, and societal change, as well as the war itself. I found the parts about politics and society (the latter often using vox pop) of particular interest. It presents a more balanced view of Churchill than normal, showing how difficult he was to work with and subject to impetuous ideas, often misguided. But his personality, optimism and energy were great assets.
It is a well-written book, and deserves to be read by anyone with an interest in the period.
It covers, among other things, politics, the economy, industry, diplomacy, and societal change, as well as the war itself. I found the parts about politics and society (the latter often using vox pop) of particular interest. It presents a more balanced view of Churchill than normal, showing how difficult he was to work with and subject to impetuous ideas, often misguided. But his personality, optimism and energy were great assets.
It is a well-written book, and deserves to be read by anyone with an interest in the period.
September 6, 2025
As other reviewers mentioned, the differential of this book is to tell the history of the second war from the British point of view (also not the well-known Churchill point of view). I could learn new things and it was quite refreshing, for example, to know that Pearl Harbor as an important but passing event when Eden was in a train station just before his trip to Moscow. Two subjects that are well treated in this book and I do not recall seeing anywhere else: the relationship between the Conservative and Labour parties within the government and also all the issues related to industrial organization, manpower etc. From the British point of view, the speed of America's mobilization was much slower than it was necessary, and Roosevelt is presented as a very slippery figure. Looking forward to reading the next in the series.
August 16, 2020
This book is big one which is also content rich. This means it is a book that need the reader to take time over to get the best out of it. This is the first volume of a two part survey by the author from the British perspective of events during the ten years stretching from 1937 to 1947.
This includes, of course, World War Two. I starting reading it to gain a better understanding of the war especially the home front which is well covered. The book also covers the international picture in some detail. The lead up to the war is also well explained. I am looking forward to tackling volume two.
This includes, of course, World War Two. I starting reading it to gain a better understanding of the war especially the home front which is well covered. The book also covers the international picture in some detail. The lead up to the war is also well explained. I am looking forward to tackling volume two.
November 30, 2020
Daniel Todman has written a superb history that truly fits an epic story of the beginning of WWII and Great Britain's position and role in this coming global conflict. Todman covers in an interesting, informative and perceptive manner, the entire range of economic, social, cultural, strategic and military history that was taking place during this period, 1937-1941. His insights into the rapid industrialization, food-rationing, social disruption and the mobilization of Great Britain's empire, are creatively woven together with the major opening battles of the war. He also brings into his narrative a number of key individuals, through their diaries and letters, the politicians, the industrialists, pub- owners, housewives, pilots of the RA, and soldiers and sailors caught in the Dunkirk evacuation. In my opinion, this is one of the finest books written about this period of history, from a grand perspective that brings the life and light of the key players, whose decisions laid the groundwork of the ultimate victory of the allies during WWII.
I am eagerly looking forward to reading Todman's second volume in this series, A New World, 1942-1947.
I am eagerly looking forward to reading Todman's second volume in this series, A New World, 1942-1947.
June 17, 2022
This concise history of the Second World War up through 1941 focuses on the political side to the story in Britain, and the public’s response to the politicians … the analysis is completed by a companion volume, “Britain’s War: A New World, 1942 - 1947,” by the same author …
by Daniel Todman (no photo)
by Daniel Todman (no photo)April 2, 2025
It is extraordinary that amongst the thousands of books written about World War 2, there has never been one quite like this. It's the first of a two-part history that examines the war from an exclusively British standpoint. It covers all the obvious points - Chamberlain's attempts to maintain the peace, the phoney war, evacuations, Dunkirk and the Blitz. But all this is detailed alongside the political machinations - the attempts by both the Left and Right to manoeuvre the government towards their way of thinking - and the effects of the war on public opinion.
Todman's control of his material is masterful. I look forward to reading the second volume.
Todman's control of his material is masterful. I look forward to reading the second volume.
February 4, 2018
a panoramic study of both the lead up to hostilities and then the start of the conflict itself, this made for a thoroughly engaging read despite its hefty weight and is well worth the readers time. Todman covers in a tremendous amount of detail a multitude of different subjects, public opinion surveys, production statistics and the political wrangling of the prewar years with nothing truly feeling rushed and given the space it needs to be fully explained. Very much looking forward to the release of the next volume.
June 6, 2020
Very helpful particularly on the economics, how they hindered working with the USA before their entry into the conflict, and how they impacted British civilians. Not really much of a military focus (selections and training, comparisons of weaponry, the army's organisational changes, etc.) but as is described frankly, British soldiers weren't doing much fighting between Dunkirk and the end of the period covered. Also very interesting and neatly described are the frictions and intrigues in Churchill's government.
February 12, 2020
I received this book in a Goodreads giveaway a few weeks ago and just now getting well into it. It's a hefty read, with a wealth of detail concerning the social, economic, and military aspects that led Britain into WWII. Some may consider there's too much detail, but it is a fairly easy read considering it's over 800 pages. I especially liked the coverage of Churchill. This along with the upcoming second volume should provide the definitive coverage of Britain's involvement in the war.
February 17, 2025
Not as many books focus on the Allied side of the war as the Axis, and this is a good, but not amazing source on the war in the UK
It is fairly light, so good for someone with only a surface knowledge of WW2
If you can identify Churchill, and Dunkirk, you've got enough to read this book.
It will tell you about the Norway campaign, Munich, Anschluss etc... so you don't have to know them already
It is fairly light, so good for someone with only a surface knowledge of WW2
If you can identify Churchill, and Dunkirk, you've got enough to read this book.
It will tell you about the Norway campaign, Munich, Anschluss etc... so you don't have to know them already
February 9, 2021
Todman's book covers the well-known bases of the major political, diplomatic, and military events of the years 1937-1941, but where it shines is in its account of the social history of the period. Good insight into purely domestic politics and how the early stages of the war changed English society and led to the demand for increased post-war social services and spending. Very thorough.
July 6, 2021
Excellent. While it touches on some of the combat through 1941, this primarily concerns politics and the British society. Lots of books about military exploits, not so many about the "behind-the-scenes" impact on the people, mostly middle to working class, and the politics along with conflicting opinions in Parliament. I found it fascinating although I can understand if others find it dry.
October 17, 2022
Hugely detailed read. Gave sense of reality to the day to day political situation of a country on the brink of war. The uncertainty over Churchill's election as prime minister and his conduct of the war in its early stages. Highly recommended as one of the best books describing the situation from a purely British perspective.
February 8, 2024
Entertaining and detailed.
This account of the years leading up to and just into WW2 is written in an entertaining and informative style that i found held my attention. The book looks at the inter relationships between events, generals and politicians 5o bring the account alive. i really enjoyed it.
This account of the years leading up to and just into WW2 is written in an entertaining and informative style that i found held my attention. The book looks at the inter relationships between events, generals and politicians 5o bring the account alive. i really enjoyed it.
July 8, 2019
A good book tells you something new about a subject you already knew a great deal about. A great book tells you something new about a subject you already knew a great deal about, AND gives you a new perspective on that subject.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews