This is the first book I have read about Sir Winston Churchill and I'm glad to have picked one
written by Sir Max Hastings, another first. Sir Hastings is British, and many
would expect him to therefore have a great command of the language, but not all
British can write like him. His arsenal of vocabulary and elements of the
language is impeccable. He was able to summon the right words and phrase them
in ways that express precisely what he was trying to convey. It was not only on
the one or two occasions when you would see the gems, it was peppered
throughout the book. But I could have been too easily impressed, not being a
native speaker.
Most readers probably knew Winston Churchill as the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the Second World War despite his service to the nation prior to and after that. For that reason, this book that focuses only on his years as Prime Minister is a good first book to read about him before moving on to other more comprehensive biographies. Instead of just the events, the author showed how the fortunes of the man rose as he led Britain as the sole nation to stand up against Hitler and fell as he found himself losing influence over the conduct of the war once the Americans entered the war and the Russians' fortune took a turn for the better.
The Americans' involvement in the war was featured throughout the second half of the book and it was important because the depth of America's involvement in the Second World War was in direct proportion to the decline in Churchill's influence over its conduct. One cannot help feeling a little indignant over the American's handling of their allies; it is easy to feel that when the British were suffering alone (and at one point was on the brink), the US was dragging its feet and seemed almost ready to let Britain meet its 'fate' in the hands of Hitler, and yet once they themselves were attacked, they were almost reckless in wanting to bring retribution to their enemies. But this narrative would be simplistic. The US is a huge country, and huge countries have huge buffers to shield them from what is happening around the world, even the eastern side of the country is rather different from its west, it is therefore hard to feel the urgency of things happening across the Atlantic. On top of that, the democratic system in the US probably mean that as much as the President himself wanted to enter the war, he would be up against many opponents.
I always put the US' involvement in Europe against the backdrop of the 'Europe first' policy. Japan was the one that violated the US, not the Germans, even though Hitler perplexingly declared war against the US after Pearl Harbor, a sneak attack by an ally for which he received no prior notification. Selling the 'Europe first' policy to Americans in general would have been hard when it was Japan that they wanted to go after, and yet the Americans were persuaded. For that, Americans deserve credit.
The portrayal of Stalin was more straightforward, although there was nothing straightforward about him. Desperate at first, he emerged the master of realpolitik as his own army prevailed over the Germans. His treatment of Churchill was harsh, not in the sense of being rude, but he knew exactly how to 'play' with Churchill. He probably had respect for Churchill in recognising that if anyone, Churchill could see through his own designs on Eastern Europe after the war. But he knew that Churchill had no chips with which to bargain and so would not be able to do anything about it. So he just led Churchill along, giving some hope whenever it suits him, and needling Churchill when he felt like it. I doubt Stalin had more respect for Roosevelt, he probably respected the US' industrial and therefore military might, but at the same time he was cordial with Roosevelt because he thought Roosevelt was not able to see through his ploy and was too idealistic in believing that post-war, countries would behave civilly.
The British lost a part of their empire to the Japanese in South East Asia, together with that a huge number of men (British and soldiers of the Commonwealth), materiel, and even the Prince of Wales. Yet Asia got just but a cursory treatment in the book. I do not think this is a deliberate omission on the part of Sir Hastings, rather I think it reflected the actual sentiments prevailing in Britain then. The enemies were at the gates of the home islands, and even though they did not manage to break through, the British suffered years of uncertainty, deprivation, humiliation, and endured many nights of German bombing. The war almost bankrupt the country and the people were weary, how would some faraway land matter? Sadly, if they prevailed over the Germans, they surrendered their initiatives in the colonies. It would be hard, if not impossible, to hold on to them when most British no longer wish to anyway.
It is hard not to like Sir Winston Churchill. People who worked for him had sometimes been harshly treated, but even they grew to like him. Although we can point to his rather unenlightened attitude towards imperialism, his magnanimity towards the vanquished (and even the French), his unselfish fight for the Poles, alone against Stalin, was really moving. Unfortunately, recognition of his tremendous qualities as a war leader does not automatically confer him another term as prime minister in a parliamentarian system. In his case it was not even because his party could not field enough good MPs to win over their constituencies, the electorate had comprehensively rejected him sensing his lack of interest in running the country as a peace-time prime minister.
At the end of the book Churchill was in the wild, very much alone, like how he was shown on the cover of the Vintage edition. Sir Alan Brooke wrote: ' It was a relief to get Winston home safely...I honestly believe that he would really have liked to be killed on the front at this moment of success." I do not know how to feel about this, there was a part of me that felt that this might just be the most fitting way and time to go. But then, how could I?
(Find this Book at Goodreads)
