What do you think?
Rate this book
Churchill's Shadow: An Astonishing Life and a Dangerous Legacy
Churchill is generally considered one of the greatest leaders of the twentieth century, if not the greatest of all, revered for his opposition to appeasement, his defiance in the face of German bombing of England, his political prowess, his deft aphorisms, and his memorable speeches. He became the savior of his country, as prime minister during the most perilous period in British history, World War II, and is now perhaps even more beloved in America than in England.
And yet Churchill was also very often in the wrong: he brazenly contradicted his own previous political stances, was a disastrous military strategist, and inspired dislike and distrust through much of his life. Before 1939 he doubted the efficacy of tank and submarine warfare, opposed the bombing of cities only to reverse his position, shamelessly exploited the researchers and ghostwriters who wrote much of the journalism and the books published so lucratively under his name, and had an inordinate fondness for alcohol that once found him drinking whisky before breakfast. When he was appointed to the cabinet for the first time in 1908, a perceptive journalist called him “the most interesting problem of personal speculation in English politics.” More than a hundred years later, he remains a source of adulation, as well as misunderstanding.
This revelatory new book takes on Churchill in his entirety, separating the man from the myth that he so carefully cultivated, and scrutinizing his legacy on both sides of the Atlantic. In effervescent prose, shot through with sly wit, Geoffrey Wheatcroft illuminates key moments and controversies in Churchill’s career—from the tragedy of Gallipoli, to his shocking imperialist and racist attitudes, dealings with Ireland, support for Zionism, and complicated engagement with European integration.
Charting the evolution and appropriation of Churchill’s reputation through to the present day, Churchill’s Shadow colorfully renders the nuance and complexity of this giant of modern politics.
And yet Churchill was also very often in the wrong: he brazenly contradicted his own previous political stances, was a disastrous military strategist, and inspired dislike and distrust through much of his life. Before 1939 he doubted the efficacy of tank and submarine warfare, opposed the bombing of cities only to reverse his position, shamelessly exploited the researchers and ghostwriters who wrote much of the journalism and the books published so lucratively under his name, and had an inordinate fondness for alcohol that once found him drinking whisky before breakfast. When he was appointed to the cabinet for the first time in 1908, a perceptive journalist called him “the most interesting problem of personal speculation in English politics.” More than a hundred years later, he remains a source of adulation, as well as misunderstanding.
This revelatory new book takes on Churchill in his entirety, separating the man from the myth that he so carefully cultivated, and scrutinizing his legacy on both sides of the Atlantic. In effervescent prose, shot through with sly wit, Geoffrey Wheatcroft illuminates key moments and controversies in Churchill’s career—from the tragedy of Gallipoli, to his shocking imperialist and racist attitudes, dealings with Ireland, support for Zionism, and complicated engagement with European integration.
Charting the evolution and appropriation of Churchill’s reputation through to the present day, Churchill’s Shadow colorfully renders the nuance and complexity of this giant of modern politics.
602 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 19, 2021
177 people are currently reading
826 people want to read
About the author
Geoffrey Wheatcroft
18 books7 followersGeoffrey Albert Wheatcroft (born 23 December 1945 in London) is a British journalist and writer.
He was educated at University College School, London, and at New College, Oxford, where he read Modern History.
Publishing and journalism
He started work in publishing in 1968, working for Hamish Hamilton (1968–70), Michael Joseph (1971–73), and Cassell & Co (1974–75).
In 1975 he became the assistant editor of The Spectator, moving to the post of literary editor, which he occupied from 1977 to 1981. During the period 1981–84, he worked as a reporter in South Africa before becoming editor of the Londoner's Diary gossip column in the London Evening Standard, 1985–86. He was a Sunday Telegraph columnist 1987–91, freelance 1993–96; feature writer on the Daily Express, 1996–97; and has since written for The Guardian, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Review of Books, The New Republic, the Boston Globe, the Atlantic, The American Conservative, and other publications on both sides of the Atlantic.
He was educated at University College School, London, and at New College, Oxford, where he read Modern History.
Publishing and journalism
He started work in publishing in 1968, working for Hamish Hamilton (1968–70), Michael Joseph (1971–73), and Cassell & Co (1974–75).
In 1975 he became the assistant editor of The Spectator, moving to the post of literary editor, which he occupied from 1977 to 1981. During the period 1981–84, he worked as a reporter in South Africa before becoming editor of the Londoner's Diary gossip column in the London Evening Standard, 1985–86. He was a Sunday Telegraph columnist 1987–91, freelance 1993–96; feature writer on the Daily Express, 1996–97; and has since written for The Guardian, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Review of Books, The New Republic, the Boston Globe, the Atlantic, The American Conservative, and other publications on both sides of the Atlantic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
December 21, 2021
Over the more than seventy years of my life, reading has been a continuous activity. Amongst all, this effort by Geoffrey Wheatcroft is the worst book that I have read. Mr. Wheatcroft overwhelming arrogance accounts in large measure for this dreadful production. From his seemingly Olympic position, Mr. Wheatcroft slanders not only Churchill but most other political figures and other authors. The last four or five chapters in this book are nothing but a nauseating recitation of Mr. Wheatcroft’s opinions…. He not only knows what people did, but the thought process that underlay their decisions. What is truly amazing is that such a fatally flawed book was ever published.
January 1, 2022
Finally a refreshingly cogent and deservedly critical biography of Winston Churchill. In Churchill’s Shadow Geoffrey Wheatcroft presents a scorching reappraisal of a public figure whose apotheosis ( see Martin Gilbert, Andrew Roberts, Boris Johnson) notwithstanding, got almost everything wrong during his long career. Irish Home Rule, Colonialism, India’s independence, Japan’s military threat, the return to the gold standard, Mussolini, Gallipoli, Narvik, Greece, Crete, Palestine and the Arabs, Stalin. The list is inexhaustible ( and includes his opposition to the Normandy invasion to the day it commenced) But he got two things right: his veneration for parliamentary constitutional democracy and the imminent threat Hitler posed. His consumption of profuse amounts of alcohol clouded his judgement and his self absorption made him a distant parent at best. His racial biases were striking even in his time. Longevity and luck of timing and writing his own history of WWII in which he is the heroic figure have proved enduring in the myth of a great man. This rethink is long overdue and the writing is sardonic and shamelessly opinionated. Must read.
December 19, 2021
Despite Wheatcroft’s cogent analysis of Churchill’s legacy good and bad I cannot give this book more than two stars because of the many prejudices that color his writing.
This book was hard to read for a Jewish American. There is an undercurrent of antisemitism throughout the book as well as little recognition of America’s role in winning WWII. Lend Lease, he claims was a bad deal for Britain and America came into the war with too little too late. D-Day, according to this writer, was unnecessary to winning the war. Despite this he says Britain could not have won the war without the Americans. He credits the Russian’s for winning WWII through shear body count. While this has a kernel of truth, I found his denigration of the British soldier’s fighting ability distasteful and his judgement of America’s generals and fighting men grating. Britain’s generals were, he thinks incompetent. I have read a lot of criticism of Montgomery, so again there is some truth here.
He really hates the Irish with no ability to understand Irish behavior in WWII influenced by centuries of England’s depravations. He forgets many Irish did fight in WWII.
As the book drones on, these types of remarks pile up until I was literally flinching every time the narrator mentioned one of the author’s favorite subjects to savage. In the end I could not stomach this book.
This book was hard to read for a Jewish American. There is an undercurrent of antisemitism throughout the book as well as little recognition of America’s role in winning WWII. Lend Lease, he claims was a bad deal for Britain and America came into the war with too little too late. D-Day, according to this writer, was unnecessary to winning the war. Despite this he says Britain could not have won the war without the Americans. He credits the Russian’s for winning WWII through shear body count. While this has a kernel of truth, I found his denigration of the British soldier’s fighting ability distasteful and his judgement of America’s generals and fighting men grating. Britain’s generals were, he thinks incompetent. I have read a lot of criticism of Montgomery, so again there is some truth here.
He really hates the Irish with no ability to understand Irish behavior in WWII influenced by centuries of England’s depravations. He forgets many Irish did fight in WWII.
As the book drones on, these types of remarks pile up until I was literally flinching every time the narrator mentioned one of the author’s favorite subjects to savage. In the end I could not stomach this book.
March 30, 2022
Cards on the table: I am a great admirer of Winston Churchill. I have read widely about him over many years, including reading many of his own works. I have also studied him, particularly his role in the run up to the outbreak of the First World War. My reading has included several works similar to Geoffrey Wheatcroft's book which home in on the more controversial aspects of Churchill's life and career.
My first point is that in his selective account of Churchill's career, Wheatcroft is not novel. By his own admission, this work is not based on primary source research but is more a survey based on other people's accounts which are deployed to make the arguments about Churchill's life and legacy. I don't particularly object to this, but a reader seeking a balanced and comprehensive account should be wary of relying on this book.
Secondly, the real guts of this book is the discussion of what Wheatcroft sees as Churchill's legacy. Here the author comes out swinging punches all over the place, with modern British and US politicians (especially Blair and Bush junior) roundly castigated. Some good points are made but i think these are the stuff of a separate and more grounded study.
Thirdly, the book is well and amusingly written. Wheatcroft does not stint the wit and outspokeness with which he discusses Churchill and his legacy. Good debating points are made throughout.
Fourthly and annoyingly, there are a few factual errors dotted around the book. For example, when Wheatcroft recounts the attack on De Valera's neutrality during Churchill's Victory broadcast in 1945, he incorrectly says that "Dev" waited some weeks before delivering his masterly rebuttal. In fact, Dev replied three days later. Also, in the film "Young Winston", Robert Hardy played the sadistic prep school head, not the Headmaster of Harrow (who was played by Jack Hawkins). A pity to go into such depth and get it wrong.
Overall, although I found the book frustrating and infuriating, I did enjoy reading this book and would commend it to those who want a different "take" on Churchill. Just be aware of its limitations.
My first point is that in his selective account of Churchill's career, Wheatcroft is not novel. By his own admission, this work is not based on primary source research but is more a survey based on other people's accounts which are deployed to make the arguments about Churchill's life and legacy. I don't particularly object to this, but a reader seeking a balanced and comprehensive account should be wary of relying on this book.
Secondly, the real guts of this book is the discussion of what Wheatcroft sees as Churchill's legacy. Here the author comes out swinging punches all over the place, with modern British and US politicians (especially Blair and Bush junior) roundly castigated. Some good points are made but i think these are the stuff of a separate and more grounded study.
Thirdly, the book is well and amusingly written. Wheatcroft does not stint the wit and outspokeness with which he discusses Churchill and his legacy. Good debating points are made throughout.
Fourthly and annoyingly, there are a few factual errors dotted around the book. For example, when Wheatcroft recounts the attack on De Valera's neutrality during Churchill's Victory broadcast in 1945, he incorrectly says that "Dev" waited some weeks before delivering his masterly rebuttal. In fact, Dev replied three days later. Also, in the film "Young Winston", Robert Hardy played the sadistic prep school head, not the Headmaster of Harrow (who was played by Jack Hawkins). A pity to go into such depth and get it wrong.
Overall, although I found the book frustrating and infuriating, I did enjoy reading this book and would commend it to those who want a different "take" on Churchill. Just be aware of its limitations.
April 19, 2023
Geoffrey Wheatcroft takes the flamethrower to Winston Churchill and his legacy in this highly entertaining but flawed book that is some combination of traditional bio and prosecutor's brief. He leaves no stone unturned in documenting Churchill's foibles and flaws: the atrocities he took part in as a young subaltern in India's northwest frontier, his infatuation with British imperialism, his racist views, romanticism about war, sponsorship of the failed Dardanelles operation in WWI and other zany missions, love of alcohol, and shady financial deals. Wheatcroft even chalks up Churchill's resolute stance against appeasement in the 30s and his leadership of Britain during its "finest hour" as it fought alone against the Nazis in 1940 as the proverbial case of the broken clock being right twice a day. After this most backhanded of compliments, he goes on to detail Churchill's follies during the war: his denuding of the British Africa army of forces at the height of their success to send to Greece, an expedition that ended in failure and invited a counterattack from Rommel's Africa Corps, failure to properly garrison Singapore before the Japanese conquest, aid to Communist partisans in Yugoslavia, as well as lesser-known events like the invasion of the Greek island of Rhodes which saw British forces repelled after taking heavy losses for little strategic reason.
This lengthy charge sheet is hardly new, though. The failed Gallipoli operation long haunted Churchill's career and gibes about his drinking were common throughout his life. Even admiring biographers like Andrew Roberts don't hide Churchill's racism (common for its time) and his love of the British Empire as well as his flights of fancy as a military strategist. There are some things I wasn't aware of though. Churchill apparently pilfered a bunch of classified documents to help write his famous war memoirs, which he then deposited in a literary trust that charged for access to the papers and his family later on sold back to the British government. And the early editions of the books (which were largely ghostwritten) blatantly cribbed whole passages on the Pacific war from the historian Samuel Eliot Morison.
It's in the book's final four chapters about Churchill's legacy that Wheatcroft really manages to land his punches, persuasively arguing that Churchill's name and fame have often been invoked to disastrous consequences. Anthony Eden saw another Hitler in the form of President Gamal Nassar of Egypt when he ordered the ill-fated invasion of the Suez Canal in 1956. Lyndon Johnson in 1965 saw the shadow of Munich lurking as he decided to escalate American involvement in the Vietnam War ("everything I knew about history told me that if I got out of Vietnam and let Ho Chi Minh run through the streets of Saigon, then I'd be doing exactly what Chamberlain did."); so did George W. Bush and Tony Blair in the run-up to the Iraq War. Since 1945, a large number of American and British leaders have looked in the mirror in the prelude to military conflict and convinced themselves Churchill was staring back at them. Wheatcroft is especially keen to highlight the negative consequences to Britain of Churchill's much-vaunted "special relationship" between the US and UK. He argues that postwar Britain effectively outsourced its foreign policy to Washington and let the US drag it into pointless wars, most disastrously in Iraq.
The book ends on the acid note that much of what Churchill believed in either faded away into irrelevance or simply failed: the British Empire that Churchill so fervently admired collapsed within his lifetime while close US-UK relations have proven to be a trap for the latter. It's hard to deny the thrust of this, or his equally keen point that our obsession with reliving the glory years of the war has deluded us into viewing every foreign conflict as a modern-day struggle of Churchill vs. Hitler. It might be time to tuck away that conflict in our collective memory and address the world as it is today, not as our predecessors faced in it in the 1940s.
This lengthy charge sheet is hardly new, though. The failed Gallipoli operation long haunted Churchill's career and gibes about his drinking were common throughout his life. Even admiring biographers like Andrew Roberts don't hide Churchill's racism (common for its time) and his love of the British Empire as well as his flights of fancy as a military strategist. There are some things I wasn't aware of though. Churchill apparently pilfered a bunch of classified documents to help write his famous war memoirs, which he then deposited in a literary trust that charged for access to the papers and his family later on sold back to the British government. And the early editions of the books (which were largely ghostwritten) blatantly cribbed whole passages on the Pacific war from the historian Samuel Eliot Morison.
It's in the book's final four chapters about Churchill's legacy that Wheatcroft really manages to land his punches, persuasively arguing that Churchill's name and fame have often been invoked to disastrous consequences. Anthony Eden saw another Hitler in the form of President Gamal Nassar of Egypt when he ordered the ill-fated invasion of the Suez Canal in 1956. Lyndon Johnson in 1965 saw the shadow of Munich lurking as he decided to escalate American involvement in the Vietnam War ("everything I knew about history told me that if I got out of Vietnam and let Ho Chi Minh run through the streets of Saigon, then I'd be doing exactly what Chamberlain did."); so did George W. Bush and Tony Blair in the run-up to the Iraq War. Since 1945, a large number of American and British leaders have looked in the mirror in the prelude to military conflict and convinced themselves Churchill was staring back at them. Wheatcroft is especially keen to highlight the negative consequences to Britain of Churchill's much-vaunted "special relationship" between the US and UK. He argues that postwar Britain effectively outsourced its foreign policy to Washington and let the US drag it into pointless wars, most disastrously in Iraq.
The book ends on the acid note that much of what Churchill believed in either faded away into irrelevance or simply failed: the British Empire that Churchill so fervently admired collapsed within his lifetime while close US-UK relations have proven to be a trap for the latter. It's hard to deny the thrust of this, or his equally keen point that our obsession with reliving the glory years of the war has deluded us into viewing every foreign conflict as a modern-day struggle of Churchill vs. Hitler. It might be time to tuck away that conflict in our collective memory and address the world as it is today, not as our predecessors faced in it in the 1940s.
August 13, 2022
I listened to the Audible version, narrated by Jonathan Keeble with just the right touch of sardonic weariness yet definite interest. Let’s say Life is the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade (among countless other analogies); Winston Churchill is one of those huge balloons, bouncing along, occasionally blown by the wind, bumping up against buildings, and a pain in the ass for his handlers below. Wheatcroft has a BB gun and is taking pot shots at the big old Winston balloon. Does he bring the balloon down? Hardly. But does he at least blow some holes in the Churchill myth? Most definitely. The book is a study in what Churchill really was, what Churchill wanted the public to believe he was, what Churchill wanted his fellow politicians to think he was, and what the public and fellow politicians thought he was. The “afterlife” section gets a bit long and repetitive - but essentially since Winston Churchill has died, various politicians from around the world, both autocratic and democratic, have tried to tie their own balloons to Churchill’s in various, not always successful, ways.
March 31, 2022
I am not a Churchill scholar and have merely admired the man from a distance as I’ve read his speeches. His role as “savior” of Britain during WW II is probably safe, though this biography of him points out that his errors were many, some egregious. Wheatcroft sums up the man in one brutal sentence near the end of this massive study: “So far from being a universal oracle of wisdom and virtue, few great men have been wrong so often, have made so many mistakes, or have held so many opinions and prejudices which were repugnant even at the time.” (p.534) This was particularly true of Churchill’s racial prejudices—he hated Indians, felt that blacks were inescapably inferior to whites, and that white men were destined to protect history and civilization. At the same time, he was an ardent Zionist. A constant admirer of the US, (his mother was American) he nevertheless tried to use us rather than unite with us. His once-expressed vision was for a United States-European-British union that would protect the peace and he was in favor of the United Nations, at least in concept. A frequent drunk, he was an object of derision in his own government and not a few opposition members (he entered and left British political parties almost habitually so there was always an opposition lurking somewhere) wanted him out of government altogether. The campaigns he was involved with, particularly Gallipoli, were frequently even more than unsuccessful, frequently poised on the edge of disastrous. His sense of tactics and strategy during WWII was frequently faulty, particularly his long-held and defended view that air power was the key to success in world wars. As Wheatcroft points out, more pilots and planes were lost on bombing runs and dogfights than the territory they conquered was worth. Bombing, in the end, was a tool of terror, which at one time Churchill disavowed. Agreeing that “…it was time to give Germany a taste of their own,” he approved of raids such as those on Dresden and other German cities, regardless of military significance. This was a tactic, of course, of Hitler and the Luftwaffe and is currently being used by Putin in Ukraine. What were the differences between Churchill, the war leader, and Adolf Hitler? At one level, very few, except that Churchill was able to convince the US to enter the war and win it for him. Even there, Wheatcroft points out that the Russians actually won the war on the Eastern Front, without being credited by Churchill or admitted to by the US. Wheatcroft is not overly impressed by the American contribution to the war, pointing out that German armies were better-prepared and more professional in fighting than either the Americans or their allies. Of the Italians, Wheatcroft shares the world’s judgment of them as totally inadequate and seems to almost enjoy Mussolini’s role and fatal end. The book is about Churchill’s shadow and how it came to be so long. The post-war adulation of the man and the willingness to overlook his weaknesses, some of which could have been fatal to the Allies’ concerns, is understandable; the Allies won the war and to the victors belong chances to write most of the history and to embellish it to serve various purposes. Most surprising, in Wheatcroft’s analysis, is the role he ascribes to Churchill’s shadow in the emergence of the American neoconservative movement that took over the Reagan and Bush years. They used Churchill as an icon around which to mount a political and philosophical movement of utmost cynicism—a movement that has done no good for American interests since it had its effects. It remains to be seen as to how far into the future the Churchill-mania will last. It has been nourished in strange and varied ways for decades and there is no sign that reality will emerge and that the true nature of Churchill’s shadow can be illuminated. This is a highly detailed study of the man from a skeptic’s viewpoint and as such may be dismissed by the idolaters among us. There is no movement that I can see to tear down his statues, of which there are thousands, or to totally rewrite the history of this strange and, in many ways, extremely lucky man but this volume is a good start.
August 9, 2022
The collective adoration of Winston Churchill has always fascinated me. Churchill’s wartime leadership places him among the special class of leaders of their time. However, one does not need to know much about his life and political presence to realise that he was deeply flawed and even within the context of 1940-1945, he was responsible for many grave errors of judgements and poor decisions. Seeking a balanced view of Churchill is difficult territory given the near hero-worship with which he is presented.
Wheatcroft’s book is less of a biography than a detailed and researched opinion and analysis.
The author focuses on Churchill the myth and the legacy that he has left rather than Churchill’s life.
I was interested to explore how the author discusses Churchill’s long career leading to the Prime Ministership of the UK.
From the perspective of over half a century since his death, it is revealing to explore the long shadow his career and actions have had on the political leadership of western democracies since. The book discusses the profound consequences of his tenure as Prime Minister not only with reference to modern political leaders in the west but also including his impact on policy and action in the developing world, the Middle East and Asia.
With so much written about Churchill and his life, what could be new?
Yet I found “Churchill's Shadow: The Life and Afterlife of Winston Churchill” highly thought-provoking providing many unknown and engaging insights into his life, actions and events during his time as a politician.
Early chapters focus on his long time in politics leading to May 1940. Geoffrey Wheatcroft goes to considerable length to put such events in a broad historical context, making it very readable and offering up the author’s position of the meaning of these details.
Throughout the book, he makes liberal use of quotations from Churchill which are rich sources of detail as to his thinking and rhetoric of the time. I would love to collect many of these together.
His conclusion is refreshing and provides a new way to examine Churchill's Shadow since 1945 which is at some variances with more thrimpural writings.
It’s probably true to say that few world figures and political actors are held in such great esteem and cast in a favourable light, yet Wheatcroft presents his work that helps us bring meaning to the tension between the Churchill myth and the legacy.
The narrative contains considerable detail and is based on significant research. There is much here, yet it is easily digestible.
The text is presented as good historical journalism in addition to being excellent historical commentary in its own right.
“Churchill's Shadow: The Life and Afterlife of Winston Churchill” gives a much-needed balance to discourse about Winston Churchill, separating the man from the myth.
I found it totally engaging and well worth reading.
Wheatcroft’s book is less of a biography than a detailed and researched opinion and analysis.
The author focuses on Churchill the myth and the legacy that he has left rather than Churchill’s life.
I was interested to explore how the author discusses Churchill’s long career leading to the Prime Ministership of the UK.
From the perspective of over half a century since his death, it is revealing to explore the long shadow his career and actions have had on the political leadership of western democracies since. The book discusses the profound consequences of his tenure as Prime Minister not only with reference to modern political leaders in the west but also including his impact on policy and action in the developing world, the Middle East and Asia.
With so much written about Churchill and his life, what could be new?
Yet I found “Churchill's Shadow: The Life and Afterlife of Winston Churchill” highly thought-provoking providing many unknown and engaging insights into his life, actions and events during his time as a politician.
Early chapters focus on his long time in politics leading to May 1940. Geoffrey Wheatcroft goes to considerable length to put such events in a broad historical context, making it very readable and offering up the author’s position of the meaning of these details.
Throughout the book, he makes liberal use of quotations from Churchill which are rich sources of detail as to his thinking and rhetoric of the time. I would love to collect many of these together.
His conclusion is refreshing and provides a new way to examine Churchill's Shadow since 1945 which is at some variances with more thrimpural writings.
It’s probably true to say that few world figures and political actors are held in such great esteem and cast in a favourable light, yet Wheatcroft presents his work that helps us bring meaning to the tension between the Churchill myth and the legacy.
The narrative contains considerable detail and is based on significant research. There is much here, yet it is easily digestible.
The text is presented as good historical journalism in addition to being excellent historical commentary in its own right.
“Churchill's Shadow: The Life and Afterlife of Winston Churchill” gives a much-needed balance to discourse about Winston Churchill, separating the man from the myth.
I found it totally engaging and well worth reading.
December 28, 2021
If the Goodreads system had allowed it I would have given this book by Geoffrey Wheatcroft zero stars. It’s a very gratuitously nasty and unnecessary book. The author’s premise is that Churchill has been so apotheosized by history that he—the author—needs to correct the record and point out all of Churchill’s mistakes and shortcomings. This book made the best 100 books on The NY Times list for 2021 and since I have read other books about Churchill I thought it would be interesting. But turns out the author’s premise was incorrect. I can’t think of any disclosure this author made that hasn’t been fully discussed by others. Last year, for example, I read Andrew Roberts’ one volume biography (Churchill, Walking With Destiny), which book and it’s author were greatly disparaged by Wheatcroft, and it did not shrink from discussing Churchill’s many shortcomings and errors. But this book just repeats all the old stuff we already knew about Churchill and seems intent on completely tearing him down. I think this is a terrible book by an author with a chip on his shoulder. I recommend skipping it. And if you are tempted to read it, you should also read Andrew Roberts’ review of the book in The Spectator. You can find it easily by googling it.
December 3, 2021
If you expect a full throated denunciation of Churchill, then this book isn't for you. If you're looking for a warts-and-all biography, then you've picked the correct book. The last few chapters on the effects of hagiography of Churchill on US and British foreign policy are excellent. I hadn't read much before as Churchill as author which this book covered very well. I did feel the author dipped too much into military history on the chapter on WW2, but I understand why.
December 27, 2021
I thought it would be interesting to read a book by someone who seems to disagree and dislike Winston Churchill, a different perspective. The author seems to admire no one and goes out of his way to write snarky things about people political and non-political. He indicates that Joseph Kennedy, Jr.'s name should not be on a memorial at Harvard of graduates those who died in WWII. The overuse of the word consigliere and those with the root hagi (hagiography) are obnoxious.
December 26, 2021
I hoped much more of the book. To my mind, it's a tedious reading
January 15, 2023
When it comes to military history I am only a very, very, very, very casual consumer. I have an interest in this time period in general but am not, by any stretch of the imagination, any judge of the veracity or quality of books written about the second World War. I have listened to a few of them, along with others that speak to the changes happening from late 1800s to the mid-20th century in terms of culture, society, technology, etc., of which either or both wars tend to be discussed.
Also, I came to this book with the understanding that I too had this 'icon' vision of Churchill, the man without whom history as we know it would have taken a swerve for Nazi-ism in the 1940s. I found myself wondering just what it was about Churchill that cast such a long shadow, if it extended far enough to reach someone like me?
With that in mind, I will say that I found Churchill's Shadow to be too long. Wheatcroft has a tendency to wander around the landscape of his topic which, to be fair given that topic is Winston Churchill, I imagine would have been hard to resist. Still, I wish Wheatcroft had been more disciplined when it came to organizing the topics/themes/events he discussed. He might start off by introducing Gallipoli, for example, then spend the next twenty minutes (in audio book terms) talking about Irish home rule.
Now, those of you far more versed in history (and these events in particular) may not find that a digression but again, from my perspective, I didn't see the connection. Also, I'm definitely willing to acknowledge that the nature of the subject matter (both the man and the times through which he lived) were such that so many things were inextricably tangled and difficult to separate (plus there's just so much going on in this book that I found it easy to get overwhelmed and lose the narrative thread). But it felt to me like Wheatcroft was spending a lot of time going over the same ground many other authors have, especially when it came to the biographical aspects of Churchill's life. Just given the title and summary, I was expecting Wheatcroft to be writing for an audience that knew much of the background and thus would be focusing on particular moments to illustrate his theme(s) of how Churchill was not All That And A Bag of Crisps.
Perhaps as a consequence of Wheatcroft's free-range approach to his writing, I found he was repetitive, stating the same or similar facts, sometimes relatively close to each other, as when he noted that one of Churchill's grandchildren worked as a junior minister in Thatcher's government then, about twenty minutes later (in audio book time) said it again only adding a bit more frill around it. He could have said the same thing in either place; it didn't need to be said twice. This is the kind of thing that, when it comes up multiple times, makes you wonder if Wheatcroft himself found himself a bit lost in his own narrative. Certainly his use of frivolous footnotes caused me to roll my eyes a time or two, particularly the one where he explained what 'khaki' was.
(Aside: In a bit of completely unintentional - and thus hilarious - irony, Wheatcroft criticizes Martin Gilbert's In Search of Churchill: A Historian's Journey for being "absurdly padded" and cites as an example Gilbert's use of a footnote to list the Greek muses and then thank the friend who gave him the names.
Not only does Wheatcroft use a footnote to dunk on Gilbert using a footnote, but our lad seems to have forgotten his own use of footnotes to name check relatives - either his own or of his wife - who had some sort of connection, often distant, to an event or person he was discussing. Yes, thank you for letting me know about that great uncle who, fifty years after, happened to be stationed a few miles away from where Churchill said some great thing. Definitely important information to include in your book.)
Eye-rolling aside, what I did find interesting about Churchill's Shadow was the "afterlife", i.e. the years after Churchill's death when his cult began to take hold in the U.S., particularly (and to some weirdly) amongst Republicans (here Jonathan Keeble's narration was on point when he injected the perfect amount of "WTF?" into his voice). I found it interesting because first, it wasn't a time period discussed in other books I'd listened to and second, it covered years when I was most definitely alive and remembered/lived through the events talked about and was familiar with the people involved. In particular, the discussion of Tony Blair had me listening closely, in no small part to Keeble's narration as he hit the perfect balance between self-importance and prissiness that had me chortling to myself, especially when Blair was quoted as saying he "felt a growing inner sense of belief, almost of destiny...I could see it like...an artist suddenly appreciates his own creative genius." (You can find that quote in an article in the Daily Mail that nicely summarizes this portion of Wheatcroft's book: How Tony Blair hijacked Churchill's legacy to launch a new age of war).
Blair's visions of Churchillian glory aside, I did find that, in expounding on the theme of how Churchill's words and decisions had consequences and influence on the politicians and policies that came in the decades after his death, it seemed to me that a number of them were simply peppering their speeches with choice quotes from the Churchill Greatest Hits collection (Reagan comes to mind here). Again, those who are far more historically knowledgeable than myself may disagree.
Overall, I'd say this is a lot of book to take in, with more than its fair share of digressions and deeper dives into events and/or people that served to muddy the waters of the narrative. Perhaps Wheatcroft himself couldn't stay completely outside of Churchill's shadow. Zing!
Also, I came to this book with the understanding that I too had this 'icon' vision of Churchill, the man without whom history as we know it would have taken a swerve for Nazi-ism in the 1940s. I found myself wondering just what it was about Churchill that cast such a long shadow, if it extended far enough to reach someone like me?
With that in mind, I will say that I found Churchill's Shadow to be too long. Wheatcroft has a tendency to wander around the landscape of his topic which, to be fair given that topic is Winston Churchill, I imagine would have been hard to resist. Still, I wish Wheatcroft had been more disciplined when it came to organizing the topics/themes/events he discussed. He might start off by introducing Gallipoli, for example, then spend the next twenty minutes (in audio book terms) talking about Irish home rule.
Now, those of you far more versed in history (and these events in particular) may not find that a digression but again, from my perspective, I didn't see the connection. Also, I'm definitely willing to acknowledge that the nature of the subject matter (both the man and the times through which he lived) were such that so many things were inextricably tangled and difficult to separate (plus there's just so much going on in this book that I found it easy to get overwhelmed and lose the narrative thread). But it felt to me like Wheatcroft was spending a lot of time going over the same ground many other authors have, especially when it came to the biographical aspects of Churchill's life. Just given the title and summary, I was expecting Wheatcroft to be writing for an audience that knew much of the background and thus would be focusing on particular moments to illustrate his theme(s) of how Churchill was not All That And A Bag of Crisps.
Perhaps as a consequence of Wheatcroft's free-range approach to his writing, I found he was repetitive, stating the same or similar facts, sometimes relatively close to each other, as when he noted that one of Churchill's grandchildren worked as a junior minister in Thatcher's government then, about twenty minutes later (in audio book time) said it again only adding a bit more frill around it. He could have said the same thing in either place; it didn't need to be said twice. This is the kind of thing that, when it comes up multiple times, makes you wonder if Wheatcroft himself found himself a bit lost in his own narrative. Certainly his use of frivolous footnotes caused me to roll my eyes a time or two, particularly the one where he explained what 'khaki' was.
(Aside: In a bit of completely unintentional - and thus hilarious - irony, Wheatcroft criticizes Martin Gilbert's In Search of Churchill: A Historian's Journey for being "absurdly padded" and cites as an example Gilbert's use of a footnote to list the Greek muses and then thank the friend who gave him the names.
Not only does Wheatcroft use a footnote to dunk on Gilbert using a footnote, but our lad seems to have forgotten his own use of footnotes to name check relatives - either his own or of his wife - who had some sort of connection, often distant, to an event or person he was discussing. Yes, thank you for letting me know about that great uncle who, fifty years after, happened to be stationed a few miles away from where Churchill said some great thing. Definitely important information to include in your book.)
Eye-rolling aside, what I did find interesting about Churchill's Shadow was the "afterlife", i.e. the years after Churchill's death when his cult began to take hold in the U.S., particularly (and to some weirdly) amongst Republicans (here Jonathan Keeble's narration was on point when he injected the perfect amount of "WTF?" into his voice). I found it interesting because first, it wasn't a time period discussed in other books I'd listened to and second, it covered years when I was most definitely alive and remembered/lived through the events talked about and was familiar with the people involved. In particular, the discussion of Tony Blair had me listening closely, in no small part to Keeble's narration as he hit the perfect balance between self-importance and prissiness that had me chortling to myself, especially when Blair was quoted as saying he "felt a growing inner sense of belief, almost of destiny...I could see it like...an artist suddenly appreciates his own creative genius." (You can find that quote in an article in the Daily Mail that nicely summarizes this portion of Wheatcroft's book: How Tony Blair hijacked Churchill's legacy to launch a new age of war).
Blair's visions of Churchillian glory aside, I did find that, in expounding on the theme of how Churchill's words and decisions had consequences and influence on the politicians and policies that came in the decades after his death, it seemed to me that a number of them were simply peppering their speeches with choice quotes from the Churchill Greatest Hits collection (Reagan comes to mind here). Again, those who are far more historically knowledgeable than myself may disagree.
Overall, I'd say this is a lot of book to take in, with more than its fair share of digressions and deeper dives into events and/or people that served to muddy the waters of the narrative. Perhaps Wheatcroft himself couldn't stay completely outside of Churchill's shadow. Zing!
December 31, 2021
A brilliantly critical look at Churchill's political legacy from the beginning of his political career to the one time his career peaked when was successful in quelling the Nazis that resulted in the glowing revisionism that modern history has been put through in the subsequent decades, lasting to this day, with him as the central figure. Geoffrey Wheatcroft spares no detail from Churchill's life to illuminate this biography while regimes across both sides of the Atlantic (read UK & US) bathe his legacy in breathtaking adulation, in a partial reading of history that has since been mainstreamed. What Wheatcroft writes in the epilogue pretty much sums up the book's premise: "For so long, a bitterly controversial figure, intensely disliked and distrusted, he was transformed at one extraordinary moment into a superhuman hero and then gradually acquired a mythical status, which made it hard to distinguish the fact from fiction. Adulation has distorted our understanding of him..." A must read.
December 21, 2021
Wheatcroft has given readers a far more complete understanding of Churchill than all the innumerable hagiographies combined. His approach uses Churchill's own words and those of his contemporaries to great effect. Before the war (WW II), he was not much liked and thoroughly distrusted by Tory and Liberal alike. Had he died in 1939, Churchill would have been regarded as the most interesting failure in English political history. 1940 changed that reputation forever.
Churchill is now a mythical figure beyond the reach of mere facts. His legacy, particularly appeasement and 'Munich', has been extended to a ludicrous extent. Failure to exercise military might to every small time challenge to American power is reckoned a new appeasement. The list of *21st* century disasters that can be laid partly at his feet is extensive.
Wheatcroft does have a tendency to occasionally blast away in unrestrained language - and not always explaining what it is that he's so exercised about. Nonetheless, the importance of the book and its immense readability, warrant five stars.
Churchill is now a mythical figure beyond the reach of mere facts. His legacy, particularly appeasement and 'Munich', has been extended to a ludicrous extent. Failure to exercise military might to every small time challenge to American power is reckoned a new appeasement. The list of *21st* century disasters that can be laid partly at his feet is extensive.
Wheatcroft does have a tendency to occasionally blast away in unrestrained language - and not always explaining what it is that he's so exercised about. Nonetheless, the importance of the book and its immense readability, warrant five stars.
May 26, 2022
This book tries to set the record straight on the life and legacy of Sir Winston. It neither idolizes him or slanders him. Well researched and thick with details, a bibliography and index, it is a long read.
Recently published it does take into account the way we look at history thru the lens of contemporary times. Was he a racist or a man of his times? Was he an imperialist or a product of the Victorian age of empire? These are a few of the questions this book asks us to come to terms with when we look at his life. No one doubts his finest hour in WW2 but his many years in public service leaves many other times when his judgement was not so fine.
Recently published it does take into account the way we look at history thru the lens of contemporary times. Was he a racist or a man of his times? Was he an imperialist or a product of the Victorian age of empire? These are a few of the questions this book asks us to come to terms with when we look at his life. No one doubts his finest hour in WW2 but his many years in public service leaves many other times when his judgement was not so fine.
November 18, 2021
Parts of this book were interesting and parts were not.
April 3, 2022
Churchill's myth defenestrated.
Churchill’s Shadow by Geoffrey Wheatcroft is a comprehensive and critical look at Churchill’s life and the leadership myth that he created. In the final chapters of the book, Wheatcroft discusses the lasting leadership myth that lives on, particularly among American neo-cons. Wheatcroft used contemporary sources for his research, so his analysis has credibility, though his disparagement of Churchill and his associates is relentless.
Born during Queen Victoria’s reign, when it was said that the sun never set on the British Empire, Churchill was an Imperialist. He died just after Elizabeth became Queen and the Empire was in the process of dissolution.
Churchill was not particularly well educated. He didn’t go to Oxford or Cambridge and had no family money. A graduate of the Sandhurst Military Academy, he saw action during Britain's Boer Wars. Churchill was brave in the face of exposure to danger in South Africa and throughout his life. He used his experience in South Africa to launch his exceptional writing and political careers.
Churchill’s writing gift was a pivotal tool in the creation of his myth. "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"
Despite his Sandhurst training, Churchill made a lot of disastrous military and political decisions throughout his career. But he was an effective leader and speaker in the Summer of 1940, a critical point for Britain in WWII. He helped rally the country in the face of the defeat by the German army at Dunkirk. “We shall fight on the beaches…” and the Battle of Britain air campaign and subsequent defeat of the German Luftwaffe. “Never in the field of human conflict was so much been owed by so many to so few.”
Flaws that were new to me were Churchill's gambling debts, which drove a lot of his writing commitments. Some of these debts were paid off by his American admirers, including Bernard Baruch. After 1930, Churchill employed a stable of ghost writers, who were able to write in his style. Wheatcroft details how Churchill managed to duck a lot of taxes on his writing royalties. Churchill also grabbed a bunch of government documents on his way out of office for use in his memoirs. (Sounds familiar)
At a political level, Wheatcroft makes the point that the "special relationship" between Britain and the United States was one-sided. Roosevelt made the British pay for all the lend/lease munitions and equipment that the Americans gave Britain. FDR was no supporter of the British empire. Despite Churchill’s imagined special relationship with the United States, Britain stood almost alone against Nazi Germany from August 1939 until Germany invaded Russia in June 1941.
On WWII, Wheatcroft makes the case that Germany was beaten by the Russians and that the US defeated Japan. He disparages Churchill's war plans and generalship. Wheatcroft identifies members of his own family who were taken prisoner or killed as a result of some of Churchill's decisions. He's particularly critical of Britain's night-bombing raids on Germany, which suffered no measurable loss of war-making capability, but resulted in large losses of civilian life. About half of the UK bombardiers were also killed in these raids.
Wheatcroft covers Churchill’s physical health including his WWII heart attack. What's missing is a discussion of his “black dog,” periods in his life when he was depressed. Lord Moran, his personal physician prescribed medicine to treat his depression at the time but, as was common in those years, there was no contemporaneous discussion of his health. Some have speculated that he was a high-functioning person with bipolar disease modulated with copious amounts of alcohol. The Churchill society disputes this view. If there had been a diagnosis, I’m sure that Wheatcroft would have unearthed it.
It's a long book, but engaging and worth the effort. I've only covered a few of the important topics explored by Wheatcroft . If you have limited time, I recommend that you read the last two or three chapters on the Churchill myth and its adoption by contemporary neo-cons.
Churchill’s Shadow by Geoffrey Wheatcroft is a comprehensive and critical look at Churchill’s life and the leadership myth that he created. In the final chapters of the book, Wheatcroft discusses the lasting leadership myth that lives on, particularly among American neo-cons. Wheatcroft used contemporary sources for his research, so his analysis has credibility, though his disparagement of Churchill and his associates is relentless.
Born during Queen Victoria’s reign, when it was said that the sun never set on the British Empire, Churchill was an Imperialist. He died just after Elizabeth became Queen and the Empire was in the process of dissolution.
Churchill was not particularly well educated. He didn’t go to Oxford or Cambridge and had no family money. A graduate of the Sandhurst Military Academy, he saw action during Britain's Boer Wars. Churchill was brave in the face of exposure to danger in South Africa and throughout his life. He used his experience in South Africa to launch his exceptional writing and political careers.
Churchill’s writing gift was a pivotal tool in the creation of his myth. "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"
Despite his Sandhurst training, Churchill made a lot of disastrous military and political decisions throughout his career. But he was an effective leader and speaker in the Summer of 1940, a critical point for Britain in WWII. He helped rally the country in the face of the defeat by the German army at Dunkirk. “We shall fight on the beaches…” and the Battle of Britain air campaign and subsequent defeat of the German Luftwaffe. “Never in the field of human conflict was so much been owed by so many to so few.”
Flaws that were new to me were Churchill's gambling debts, which drove a lot of his writing commitments. Some of these debts were paid off by his American admirers, including Bernard Baruch. After 1930, Churchill employed a stable of ghost writers, who were able to write in his style. Wheatcroft details how Churchill managed to duck a lot of taxes on his writing royalties. Churchill also grabbed a bunch of government documents on his way out of office for use in his memoirs. (Sounds familiar)
At a political level, Wheatcroft makes the point that the "special relationship" between Britain and the United States was one-sided. Roosevelt made the British pay for all the lend/lease munitions and equipment that the Americans gave Britain. FDR was no supporter of the British empire. Despite Churchill’s imagined special relationship with the United States, Britain stood almost alone against Nazi Germany from August 1939 until Germany invaded Russia in June 1941.
On WWII, Wheatcroft makes the case that Germany was beaten by the Russians and that the US defeated Japan. He disparages Churchill's war plans and generalship. Wheatcroft identifies members of his own family who were taken prisoner or killed as a result of some of Churchill's decisions. He's particularly critical of Britain's night-bombing raids on Germany, which suffered no measurable loss of war-making capability, but resulted in large losses of civilian life. About half of the UK bombardiers were also killed in these raids.
Wheatcroft covers Churchill’s physical health including his WWII heart attack. What's missing is a discussion of his “black dog,” periods in his life when he was depressed. Lord Moran, his personal physician prescribed medicine to treat his depression at the time but, as was common in those years, there was no contemporaneous discussion of his health. Some have speculated that he was a high-functioning person with bipolar disease modulated with copious amounts of alcohol. The Churchill society disputes this view. If there had been a diagnosis, I’m sure that Wheatcroft would have unearthed it.
It's a long book, but engaging and worth the effort. I've only covered a few of the important topics explored by Wheatcroft . If you have limited time, I recommend that you read the last two or three chapters on the Churchill myth and its adoption by contemporary neo-cons.
June 16, 2023
This is a debunking of Winston Churchill. He was a racist. He was undisciplined. He was a terrible judge of character who surrounded himself with second rate people. He had a huge ego that needed constant attention. He was spectacularly wrong time after time. The Gallipoli campaign in WW1, which he championed, was a fiasco. He sided with King Edward VIII in the abdication scandal. He misjudged generals and strategy in WW2. He presided over the destruction of the British empire. He was petty, greedy and needy. He was insincere and inconsistent. No one who worked with him had any use for him.
Interestingly, Wheatcroft tries to be fair. He admits that when Churchill became Prime Minister at the beginning of WW2, "for one extraordinary moment, all his defects became qualities. All of his past follies, errors and transgressions ceased to matter. Churchill was like the stopped clock which is bound to be right every twelve hours, and this was that moment: for one he told the right time."
He also admits that Churchill was a great orator. He shows that most of the books and articles "written" by Churchill were based on ghost written versions which Churchill polished with his style. On the other hand, Churchill had no speech writer. He meticulously wrote out his Parliamentary speeches. He had a classic style, based on biblical and classical rhetoric that was compelling.
(I just read a new biography of Martin Luther King Jr. It struck me that someone could write an interesting study comparing the 20th century's best American orator, King, with the 20th century's best English orator, Churchill. They both used classical and biblical rhythms. They both recycled and reworked set pieces in different speeches. They both had characters that came to represent something bigger than one person. Churchill embodied England during the war. King was the symbol of the Civil Rights movement. The fascinating thing is that they were so dramatically different in most ways. They never met, but it is hard to see them enjoying each other's company.)
This is not the first biography of Churchill that you should read, but it is a healthy corrective to some of the Churchill worship in biographies like William Manchester's or his official biography by his son and then Martin Gilbert. Churchill contributed significantly to almost all of the serious problems in 20th century England. He led the fight against an independent India. He battled against an independent Ireland. He argued that the liberal policies of healthcare, pension reform and welfare were 'Communism".
Wheatcroft is an opinionated writer who does not hold back. FDR's son Eliot was "the President's obnoxious blabbermouth son.". Lord Mountbatten "was a courtier, a charlatan, and one of those curious people whose careers see one failure after another, leading every time to higher promotion."
Wheatcroft also does an excellent job tracing Churchill's legacy. He argues that after his death, if Churchill's example was used to support a policy, it is probably wrong. He was used to support the Suez War, the invasion of Iraq, the Brexit campaign and the invasion of Afghanistan.
Churchill was a politician with all the failings of a politician plus several failings peculiar to himself. He was very smart, very ambitious and very hard working, a dangerous combination. England was lucky to have him as a war leader, which probably makes up for all of the damage he did during the rest of his life, but it is close.
This is a fascinating book which is also a shadow history of the first half of the 2oth century through a very peculiar set of eyes.
Fun fact; Wheatcroft points out that English is the only European language with separate words for "history" and "story". For example, French, "historie", German "geschichte" ,and Spanish "historia" all mean both history and story. I am not sure what, if anything, to make of that.
Interestingly, Wheatcroft tries to be fair. He admits that when Churchill became Prime Minister at the beginning of WW2, "for one extraordinary moment, all his defects became qualities. All of his past follies, errors and transgressions ceased to matter. Churchill was like the stopped clock which is bound to be right every twelve hours, and this was that moment: for one he told the right time."
He also admits that Churchill was a great orator. He shows that most of the books and articles "written" by Churchill were based on ghost written versions which Churchill polished with his style. On the other hand, Churchill had no speech writer. He meticulously wrote out his Parliamentary speeches. He had a classic style, based on biblical and classical rhetoric that was compelling.
(I just read a new biography of Martin Luther King Jr. It struck me that someone could write an interesting study comparing the 20th century's best American orator, King, with the 20th century's best English orator, Churchill. They both used classical and biblical rhythms. They both recycled and reworked set pieces in different speeches. They both had characters that came to represent something bigger than one person. Churchill embodied England during the war. King was the symbol of the Civil Rights movement. The fascinating thing is that they were so dramatically different in most ways. They never met, but it is hard to see them enjoying each other's company.)
This is not the first biography of Churchill that you should read, but it is a healthy corrective to some of the Churchill worship in biographies like William Manchester's or his official biography by his son and then Martin Gilbert. Churchill contributed significantly to almost all of the serious problems in 20th century England. He led the fight against an independent India. He battled against an independent Ireland. He argued that the liberal policies of healthcare, pension reform and welfare were 'Communism".
Wheatcroft is an opinionated writer who does not hold back. FDR's son Eliot was "the President's obnoxious blabbermouth son.". Lord Mountbatten "was a courtier, a charlatan, and one of those curious people whose careers see one failure after another, leading every time to higher promotion."
Wheatcroft also does an excellent job tracing Churchill's legacy. He argues that after his death, if Churchill's example was used to support a policy, it is probably wrong. He was used to support the Suez War, the invasion of Iraq, the Brexit campaign and the invasion of Afghanistan.
Churchill was a politician with all the failings of a politician plus several failings peculiar to himself. He was very smart, very ambitious and very hard working, a dangerous combination. England was lucky to have him as a war leader, which probably makes up for all of the damage he did during the rest of his life, but it is close.
This is a fascinating book which is also a shadow history of the first half of the 2oth century through a very peculiar set of eyes.
Fun fact; Wheatcroft points out that English is the only European language with separate words for "history" and "story". For example, French, "historie", German "geschichte" ,and Spanish "historia" all mean both history and story. I am not sure what, if anything, to make of that.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 8, 2022
This very interesting book explores the growth and influence of the legend of Churchill in Great Britain and in the United States. To accomplish his goals the author naturally must provide us with a history of Churchill’s career. This rather quickly reveals that the Churchill legend (my word, not his) is based primarily on his leadership of the people of Great Britain during WWII and his self-serving writings, while ignoring his many mistakes and poor leadership at other times during his career and even the serious errors he made as a wartime leader (it must be noted that some of these ‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’ caused many human lives). The author also points out that some positive lessons that current generations could learn from Churchill are also ignored as various political groups use Churchill for their own purposes. Readers in the US—even those already familiar with Churchill’s faults and blunders—are likely to realize they may have been unknowingly influenced by myths perpetuated in popular culture: not only about the importance of Churchill but also the role of Great Britain and the US in the war in Europe during WWII, blinding them to the role of the Soviet Union. Wheatcroft quotes another author who states that Soviet Union won the war with the Germans, the US won the war with Japan, and Great Britain won the war with Italy. Not the story popular culture tells us, though not 100% true either. One of Wheatcroft’s most interesting observations concerns just why Churchill is so venerated and used politically in the US, suggesting that this is related to the complex histories of the Republican and Democratic parties, which make it easier to venerate a foreigner than an American. The author leaves it to others to explore this interesting issue in more depth. This book does have some flaws. The most important is evident when the author refers to conflicts in the 20th and 21st centuries conflicts where US or British leaders invoked Churchill for their own ends. For example, while he shows sympathy for the Indian victims of British colonialism, he has less understanding of the Irish who suffered far longer under the British yoke or the peoples of the ex-Yugoslavia and the conflicts there. In addition, some sections on Churchill before and after WWII may be tedious for readers unfamiliar with the ins and outs of British politics.
April 25, 2022
Billed as a skewering of the noisy people who would make a saint of Churchill, it is an evenhanded book that also challenges those who would forget that the world needed him or dismiss his important accomplishments. Well written with lots of interesting stories along the way.
In a rare failure for W. W. Norton, the book is 534 pages long, and the proofreading gave out at p. 529 -- on p. 530 we are given "as we all as" when "as well as" was meant, and on p. 534 "at the he one irredeemably sublime moment of his life." The author's conclusion is rendered as "Wrong about much else, was not wrong about 'the tragic simplicity and grandeur of the times' in 1940, and he was not wrong either."
The author made a great deal of the tragic simplicity and grandeur of the times, both in 1940 and in other years, and I think I sort of know what is meant, but I would have liked to hear it in the author's own words and in an actual sentence.
The book also features pointers to many books on specific topics about Churchill that sound fascinating, both in a bibliographical essay and in the text.
In a rare failure for W. W. Norton, the book is 534 pages long, and the proofreading gave out at p. 529 -- on p. 530 we are given "as we all as" when "as well as" was meant, and on p. 534 "at the he one irredeemably sublime moment of his life." The author's conclusion is rendered as "Wrong about much else, was not wrong about 'the tragic simplicity and grandeur of the times' in 1940, and he was not wrong either."
The author made a great deal of the tragic simplicity and grandeur of the times, both in 1940 and in other years, and I think I sort of know what is meant, but I would have liked to hear it in the author's own words and in an actual sentence.
The book also features pointers to many books on specific topics about Churchill that sound fascinating, both in a bibliographical essay and in the text.
May 1, 2023
For me, this is a difficult book to review. When I started reading Wheatcroft's narrative I was impressed with the many sources he cited as he laid out a bill of particulars against Churchill: his racism: his many military misadventures as a soldier, a member of Parliament and Prime Minister; and his carpet bombing of civilian targets in Germany. Wheatcroft sometimes cites two primary sources I read many years ago when I took a course in European Diplomatic History between the World Wars: AJP Taylor (The Origin of the Second World War) and Harold Nicholson (Peacemaking, 1919).
Halfway through the book, I found a review of Wheatcroft's book in the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/bo... that was not only critical of Wheatcroft but cited a scorching review in the Spectator.https://thespectator.com/book-and-art...
I cannot objectively review Wheatcroft's book because I am not an academic historian who can cite many sources and then argue the "historical truth." Thanks to Wheatcroft for piquing my interest in Churchill and the art of citing sources.
Halfway through the book, I found a review of Wheatcroft's book in the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/bo... that was not only critical of Wheatcroft but cited a scorching review in the Spectator.https://thespectator.com/book-and-art...
I cannot objectively review Wheatcroft's book because I am not an academic historian who can cite many sources and then argue the "historical truth." Thanks to Wheatcroft for piquing my interest in Churchill and the art of citing sources.
September 15, 2022
Wonderfully written and well-sourced, the author portrays a determinedly biased picture of a great historical figure. While Churchill’s ‘finest hour’ is undeniable, many have and continue to invoke his name to serve their purpose while they wrestle with world conflict and events. We’re reminded not to overlook serious character flaws and and outright unacceptable societal views. An enjoyable read, I found it a helpful counterpoint to Manchester’s “The Last Lion” trilogy. Both should be read together. In fairness, the author recommends numerous other pieces on Churchill that offer counterpoints to his argument. In pondering how a reactionary racist and imperialist could have been a savior of his country perhaps the most helpful line he quotes is the reply from I. F. Stone who said ‘Because history is a tragedy and not a melodrama.’
September 23, 2023
I listened to the audio book. Nicely narrated and nicely written. Another historian who doesn't much like anyone - certainly not anyone involved in WWII except of course the individual soldiers (except perhaps the Russian soldiers). Maintains that if WC had died in 1939 he would have been thought a failure. Gives enormous credit to WC in 1940 but otherwise not so much. Finishes with the horrible use of the Churchill myth by the likes of U.S. neo-cons, Reagan and the Bushes, Thatcher, Johnson, et al. A helpful antidote to Churchill hagiography - though sometimes he goes a bit too far in my amateurish view.
July 20, 2022
Depressingly predictable in many ways, but such a woeful attempt to revise the view of Churchill. Inaccurate to the point of wondering just where did this person draw their information from. If you are a Churchill scholar then it is worth the time to read to see just what sort of nonsense the revisionists are now resorting to. If you are a general reader looking for insight into Churchill then avoid it at all costs - instead grab a copy of Andrew Roberts, then sit and enjoy a balanced view of a wonderfully flawed individual.
April 12, 2024
This book was truly awful. Not only is the book full of questionable “arguments” that are really just the author’s subjective (highly biased) opinions on nearly everything, it is also full of the author arrogantly proclaiming things as facts that historians continue to argue to this day (I.e. the importance of the Western Front in WWII). It is one thing to push back on Churchill, it is another thing entirely to use that pretense to launch off on diatribes about whatever historical or political event the author wants to rant about next.
January 14, 2022
A scathing review on Churchill his leadership up to his death and everything in between. There is n0 one safe from the vitriol of the author and what he often classifies as myth. This is probably the harshest book I have read to date concerning leadership during World War II and the years that followed. The only person who avoids much of the wrath is Clementine. A hard book to read but it is often good to examine all sides of any story and this book serves this idea well.
July 17, 2022
This book is good for those seeking a more balanced view of Churchill than usually presented in biographies. The author clearly believes Churchill responsible for the rise of Neo-conservatism thus his legacy spawned Tony Blair, George W. Bush and the Iraq war. Bear this bias in mind as you read. Also, he incorrectly states the USAF was created in 1948 instead of 1947, a fact easily googled. It led me to wonder how well researched the book was.
January 28, 2025
With a wealth of resources and razor-sharp wit throughout, Wheatcroft delivers a far more flawed portrait of Winston Churchill, but does so in a way that does not detract from the man's importance in the least. This volume offers a bracingly independent view that should resonate with Churchill fans and foes alike.
-Peggy Kurkowski
Read the full review at: https://www.bookbrowse.com/mag/review...
-Peggy Kurkowski
Read the full review at: https://www.bookbrowse.com/mag/review...
December 12, 2021
This is not a comprehensive Churchill biography. It is episodic, with the explicit intent of debunking, and critiquing, the many legends and myths surrounding Churchill. Readers unfamiliar with Churchill's life would do better to begin with Roy Jenkins's one-volume biography. Wheatcroft's book is lively and entertaining throughout, but it will not please Churchillians.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews