John Winston Books

I read the book, "A Seperate Peace", by John Knowles and it was pretty good. It involves two main boys going through high school during World War II. One of the boys,Phineas, is superior at everything involving sports. The other main character is Gene Forrester. He is great at school but not in sports. These boys are roomed together in their prepatory school named Devon and are best friends. Gene starts thinking that Phineas, a.k.a Finny, is trying to hold back him from doing so great at school so he can be the best at everything. So Gene starts hating Finny and ends up creating a horrible accident that ruins Finny's life forever. It shows that there is always some darkness in the back of Gene's mind but never once was there in Finny's. Gene goes to tell Phineas that he created the accident but Finny doesn't belive him. So Gene drops it and hopes Finny won't try to remember what actually happened that one day and remember the truth. Another character in the book is a boy named Leper Lelliper who is always looking to find the best things in life he can look at slowly and not rush anything. He decides to go look at and take pictures of a beaver dam then go and work on the railroads to help the WWII fighters get through the town. But in his childish life he becomes to be the first person in his and Gene's and Finny's class to enlist in the army. After doing this everybody's life takes a turn. Brinker Hadley, the class president, drops out of all extra curricular activites and becomes lazy. Gene starts working at sports and pitys Finny every chance he can. Phineas starts trying to get his life back in order and trys to do all the things he did before the accident. But then one day Gene recieves a letter from Leper asking for help. The army has done something to Leper and tooken something away from him he can never get back. Gene goes to visit him but can't take it and goes back to Devon, never speaking of what happened. Then one night Brinker Hadley and a bunch of other boys awaken Finny and Gene to take them to a trail. A trial that would change Finny's life and Gene's life forever. The whole story is told by Gene Forrester in a flashback fifteen years ago. The story shows great symbolism with tree. And always has great themes, such as:private war versus public war, Gene's view of life vs. Finny's view of life, and a life of conformity vs. a life of freedom.

The Piedmont Triad is a region of North Carolina that encompasses Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Highpoint, Burlington, and a number of smaller towns. Best known for its tobacco and furniture, the area often gets ignored by tourists. However, as this guide illustrates beautifully, the Triad is brimming with fantastic trails and hiking areas.

The book details information on numerous outdoor areas in the Triad. The book claims to include 140 trails, but this total clearly encompasses multiple trails in each area. For example, the Densons Creek Nature Trail map shows a "long loop" and a "short loop." Nevertheless, this guide is the most complete of its type available.

Each hiking area is illustrated in maps featuring the various trails, with numerous pictures throughout the book. De Hart has written brief descriptions of each area, including information regarding the length and difficulty of the hike. The book also contains an Appendix with useful contacts, such as local biking clubs.

This guide will obviously appeal greatly to hikers in the Triad. I purchased this book when I moved to the Triad, and I've used it quite often to find new places to walk and hike. The guide could also be useful for people visiting the area and wanting information. Highly recommended.

Winston Churchill: Soldier, Statesman, Artist, is an outstanding, and easy to read book for young adults. It is very detailed and not hard to follow along. It basically describes the entire life of Winston Churchill starting even before he was born. It is an amazing book, yet does get dry at points.

This was a good book to learn chem from for a high school chem class OR use as a supplement to one's high school AP chemistry class. Good clear explanations. In re one of the previous reviewers comments, I do agree that some answers were wrong. The problems given in the book were of average difficulty, perfect for an average chem student.

Overall, I didn't especially like this book. I used it in high school AP chemistry for an entire year.

First of all, the hardcover edition is very heavy and generally cumbersome to use, and i'd definately recommend buying the paperback edition. The book attempts to cover a huge amount of material, which is overwhelming, and it is too much to cover in the course of one academic year.

The content of this book was of average quality, but at times confusing. Many of the explanations provided seem to require a background in chemistry--not a good thing if this is the first chem course you have ever taken. But if you've studied chmistry previously, this book should be fine, provided that you understand how to do basic calculations using conversion factors and mole ratios.

I was sometimes confused by the more complicated topics. In some cases, the explanations of the topics were fine, but the examples problems went above and beyond the basics, which was confusing. Other times, the explanations were unclear but the examples were fine. Generally, I was able to understand the concept in the end, but at times it was frustrating.

The thing that bothered me the most about this book was that some of the most basic formulas were not explicitly stated. The book would show you how to derive the formulas and do a number of complicated calculations, but the formulas themselves are not always right there, in bold print. I'd be sitting there trying to do my homework, and i'd have to go searching back through the text to find the formulas, which was annoying. I'd recommend writing the formulas out seperatly, of using one of those quick-study guide things that fits into a 3-ring binder.

Also, beware, some of the answers in the back of the book are incorrect and/or don't match what's in the solutions manual.

To tell you frankly I am very poor in Chemistry. This book has been a great help in understanding facts. The book is wonderfully illustrated with examples and sample problems. This is a better or easier reading book than say Brady Senese (which is also a very good book btw)

I had the fabulous experience of using this book at the college of where one of the professors used to teach so it was shoved down my throat how great this book is for two semesters. I have to say it's not too bad halfway through, it uses plenty of interesting diagrams to simplify the material or even add more information that couldn't be put in the text, it has interesting everyday examples of how the concepts fit in, or even easy experiments. One could reasonably get through the first half of the book (up to Chapter 9) without the CD and have a basic understanding of chemistry. The rest of the book goes straight downhill with explanations however. It tends to skip over details. You also need an EXTENSIVE mathematical background to understand even any remote concept past chapter 9, and in the examples showing how to do many of the formulas, steps are skipped leaving you to wonder what is going on. The diagrams get much more involved with way too much detail, or lacking explanation of the detail. The CD is really where the entire package fails though, as the questions for the chapters often do not relate at all, are set up to trick the student because the tiniest detail will be so complex, and when you do get a question wrong, it does not really help you to understand where to look for help or how to fix the problem you made. Most of the problems you're likely to make on the questions are extremely complex mathematical errors. Basically you have to make sure you have a masters in mathematics to even understand some of the examples in the CD, and there's no way to get through it without the help of an actual human being. The book seriously needs a much better editor, there's no need to skip over so many details on a subject that is often very difficult to so many students, especially those lacking a strong math background which is not always required for entry level chemistry.

the international paperback version of this book is exactly the same as the hardback version and it's considerably less expensive. it comes with the CD-ROM but does NOT provide OWL or online access codes to the web based program- but you can purchase those separately at the thomas learning website... and you'd still be saving money.

as for the book, I've only been using it 3 weeks but I like it so far. (much better than chemistry: structure and dynamics which I used last term- blah!). while not for complete beginners the explanations and sample problems are well written and there are lots of homework questions to make sure you really understand the material. (odd answers are in the back of the book). the real selling point for me is that all the pictures are in color (very helpful if you're a visual learner).

Although the intent of this undertaking was most commendable, and with all due respect to Father Bannon, the writing style is disconnected, complex and difficult to follow. Quite understandable when one attempts to cover three and a half centuries of conquest and subjugation into two hundred thirty odd pages. The overabundance of names, events, places and dates generates much confusion.
Nevertheless, I did glean some unknown particulars on the Spanish Borderlands which I previously did not know before.
Five stars for a great bibliography and one star for coherence.

As one of the volumes in the Holt, Rinehart and Winston "Histories of the American Frontier" series, this work provides an extensive look at Spanish expansion and activities in what was called by Herbert Eugene Bolton, The Spanish Borderlands, from the 1513 landing of Juan Ponce de León in Florida, to Mexican Independence in 1821. Utilizing an extensive array of primary and secondary source materials, he traces the history of Spanish northward movement out of Aztec Mexico in three separate pronged movements in time-one up the West coast of Mexico; the second up through what is now New Mexico and the last into Texas. He essentially points out a difference between Anglo-American approaches and the Spanish, seeing the areas of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California which are presented as basically defensive enclaves, especially after the late 18th century. Importantly, those that moved north into what later became part of the United States did not enjoy the overall freedom that their counterparts further north later enjoyed. A basic thesis is that Spain did not allow the "rugged individualism" so notably applicable to the Anglo-Americans. Initially motivated by avarice, the Conquistador's explored great portions of areas now incorporated into the United States. Nonetheless, after 1543, the Spanish were driven more by a genuine religious concern for Amerindians, influenced greatly by the Franciscan and Dominicans, and somewhat the Jesuits. Hence, using the mission church to convert and pacify Indians, the presidio became a support to an essentially religious motive with a civil end-for which they were quite successful until they met the nomadic Indians from the Plains. Bannon's narrative, at times, seems overburdened with details and names, but this is the nature of historical writing. Overall, this book will be more appreciated by those already possessing a good knowledge of American history; in the end, Bannon effectively carried on the work of his mentor, Bolton, providing a more complete look at a part of history that has been essentially overlooked

Bannon writes haphazardly and with no structure whatsoever, all he seems to be concerned with is filling the pages of his borderland history with insignificant missionary characters who play little part in the development of the Spanish frontier. The book is boring and very disjointed and difficult to read.

Originally published by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston in 1970, I first read Father Bannon's history of "The Spanish Borderlands Frontier" while in graduate school in 1980. I recently reread it to see if it still offered a useful overview of the subject. It does, despite the publication of David J. Weber's excellent "The Spanish Frontier in North America" (Yale University Press, 1992), which covers the same period and location and should be read in conjunction with Bannon's work. The Spanish borderlands was first denoted by Herbert Eugene Bolton, the great early twentieth century historian of the Spanish experience in North America, as the region originally settled by Spain but later incorporated into the United States. Bannon was one of his last students and the inheritor of his scholarly mantle.

"The Spanish Borderlands Frontier" presents a balanced and thorough history of Spanish exploration and settlement from Ponce de Leon's landing in 1513 to the end of Spain's North American empire in 1821. It is a magisterial textbook that presents an authoritative account of the Spanish colonial period in North America. It focuses largely on the political, economic, and religious activities of the borderlands, and always explores the relationship of the European conquerors to the Native American population. It takes a largely geographical approach, moving from region to region analyzing the development of the borderlands over time.

Father Bannon's work is still quite excellent and I applaud the University of New Mexico Press's decision to keep it in print more than thirty years after its original publication. Highly recommended!

As I read the author's account of Superman Churchill, passing lightly over Churchillean stumbles such as putting Britain on the gold standard, Gallipoli, holding badly needed troops in northern Norway, etc., I realized I was reading hagiography and not history. The abhorrence of unpleasant stuff extends to Hitler. It's hard to believe that anyone could write a book about the dictator and never even mention the Holocaust, but Strawson did, without explanation or apology. I'm surprised he didn't omit World War II.

this book does a fairly good job in paralleling the lives of hitler and churchill.the authors objectivity,however is clouded by his unbridled admiration for churchill.i was a bit disappointed in this because in order to get the full flavor of a person a balance of negatives and positives must be met.yet i admire the authors military acuman.he tells a good one of the north african campaign how the british rolled up the italian army,capturing no less than 10 divisions only to be repelled by rommels panzer forces.one of the best parts of the book to me was when the author did a comparison of leadership and temperaments between rommel and montgomery.he did a good job in explaining the might of the german army,and how it was developed in the 1930's.indeed one is left with the impression that german leaders like rommel and guderian were among the most innovative of the war.the author illustrates how hitler though a master of stragedy and creating bold concepts,gave in to his megalomania,and eventually lead the wehrmact to disaster.stalingrad is a case in point.overall i enjoyed the book, particularly the battle of britain, and despite the possibility of imminent invasion,churchill was eager to get the british back on the offensive.this book makes clear how important the meditterean was to the british empire.for history buffs this book may be a revisit of old territory.yet for students of military history this book is worth a read because he describes several of the campaigns so well,like the allied landing in anzio, and how general lucas waffled;blowing the allies chance of walking into rome with little german resistance.still this book disappointed me in one respect.the author fails to explain how hitler became the monster who caused the death of millions.there is little description of his childhood.

I am a Churchill admirer and was anxiously to read Strawson's book. I was a bit disappointed once I finished it. I had hoped for a detailed description - by a military man - of the war and Churchill's and Hitler's role leading their nations. Strawson spends almost half of the book "setting up" the war. This may be a good tack for those who might not know much about the background of the two protaganists. But, if you do know anything about Churchill's and Hitler's youth and rise this is needless filler. Also, Strawson seems to draw quite extensively from Isiah Berlin's "Churchill in 1940" and Allan Bullock's "Hitler" as sources. Having read both I am a little disconcerted that Berlin's work (a short but brilliant monograph) figures so prominently. And although Bullock's work is also well done, there are other superb Hitler biographies - like Joachim Fest's. I am additionally disappointed that Strawson's editors did not put full citations in the work - as foot or endnotes. Overall, this book didn't give me all I wanted. But, it is an admirable effort by an aging general who wants to leave his mark on modern military history.

The 'Introduction' says Europeans wondered how the American press was forced into supporting the Warren Report (p.x). Two-thirds of Americans did not believe the Warren Report (p.xi). The reason is the facts belied the lone-gunman theory. Mark Lane (and others) were in the first wave that attacked the Warren Report. In 1975 George O'Toole published "The Assassination Tapes" that provided objective evidence for Oswald's innocence. This led to the House Select Committee that re-opened the investigation; this was followed by a new wave of books. The media's trumpeting of the lone-gunman theory does show their relationship to the Government (p.xii). Both are mostly owned by the corporate ruling class. [Americans learned about government lying in May 1960.]

This is a very readable and detailed book even if it has few photographs. It is a history of Lane's efforts at that time. When the lone-gunman theory was rejected in Europe the public was told Europeans are conspiracy-minded (p.12). When Americans rejected this theory the corporate media claimed Americans are conspiracy-minded! [The Federal government originated in the Philadelphia conspiracy of 1787 when dozens of men plotted to overturn the existing government.] The then unavailable evidence was consistent with innocence while the available statements were consistent with guilt (p.13). Censorship continued (pp.14-16). Marguerite Oswald asked Mark Lane to represent her deceased son before the Warren Commission; this was refused (p.18). The experience at JFK airport sounds like a comedy if it wasn't so serious (p.22). Was Mark Lane banned from the broadcast media (p.25)? Lane tells of other suppressions of his story by the corporate media.

This book is too detailed to mention the many chapters. The appendices reproduce the actual letters with their markings. Part One summarizes Lane's experiences after the assassination and his publishing of "A Rush to Judgment". In Part Two Lane discusses the defenders of the Warren Report and their many mistakes. Part Three discusses the testimony about the Grassy Knoll and the New Evidence about the wounds. The entrance and exit wounds could have only come from the front (neck to below shoulder, Appendix X). Why are these public documents restricted to the public (p.232, 235)?

Around 1976-77 Congress re-opened an investigation into the assassination. More evidence was now available as it was no longer censored. Many more books were published, few defended the Warren Report. One book on the JFK assassination, "The Zapruder Film" by Professor David Wrone, explained that figure in the doorway of that picture was Oswald; two movies taken from across the street showed nobody at that 6th floor window. Oswald in the doorway refutes the Warren Report and proves JFK was killed by a conspiracy that has not been exposed. One book that provided an explanation was "Act of Treason" by Mark North, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin Texas. These later books had more facts and the experience gained from the early critics of the Warren Report.

While it seems obvious that the main reason this book was written was because Mark had a runaway, suprise best-seller with his first book and his publisher wanted a follow-up, this IS a decent volume. There is some intersting info. on Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, as well.
[...]

As I am a longtime admirer of Winston Churchill -- whose face and name is prominently featured on the dust jacket cover -- I eagerly looked forward to receiving this book. However, after reading through several chapters and numerous passages I ended up tossing the book into a pile that will eventually be given away as charity to the local library.

Notably, the title of this book, "The Fringes of Power", is an apt description for this work; and that title should be taken at face value. This book is very much about the people who worked at the fringes of power; not those who truly wielded it. To paraphrase a famous American television hamburger commercial: "Where's the beef?" Colville gives us a "fluffy bun", but precious little beef.

First of all, this diary is not written by Churchill, but by someone who worked with Churchill. We are promised "the incredible inside story of Winston Churchill", yet we get the John Colville story instead. Indeed, we are reading Colville's diary; not Churchill's. These are Colville's thoughts, his impressions, and most notably, the minutiae of his daily life -- where he ate dinner, with whom, and even what the weather was like on a given day. In some passages, this reads more like introspective poetry rather than solid insights into Churchill the man.

Secondly, there are a great many names of people and players who are identified in this diary, some of them quite obscure. But unless you are a Churchill historian, they will likely mean little to the average reader. Indeed, there are esoteric qualities about Colville's writing which seem impenetrable unless you are British, and a scholar of British politics during the run up to and during the World War II era.

Moreover, Colville's recollections of his life as a soldier add little but distraction. His recollections of his work for Neville Chamberlain is of doubtful utility, unless of course Neville Chamberlain is someone you wish to study. On that point, count me out. So, buyer beware: this is not truly a book about Churchill as the dust jacket cover suggests.

Finally, this book did little to satisfy my curiousity about Churchill. Were this Churchill's diary, I would be thrilled. But alas, it was written by a man who was acquainted with and for a time worked with Churchill. But there are many others who worked for and with Churchill who offer much better insights to the man.

As mentioned earlier, if you are a serious historian, intimately familiar with the entire cast of characters in the British political scene during Churchill's tenure in parliament and as Prime Minister, you may find this book interesting and enlightening. But if you are like many of us who want to know Churchill and care little about fringe minutiae, I would respectfully submit that there are much better offerings, including of course, the work of Martin Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer.

This is another of the "short" Churchill books that have become popular over the last several years and are less than full blown biographies but more than just private musings of the author. This author has an engaging style and if you've read any of his previous books on this subject it should come as no surprise that this book is for the most part a positive portrayal. The book covers the several themes stated in the title with a varying degree, (in this reader's opinion), of success. The high points include insight into Churchill's role, (and motivation), as an historian, his role with Stalin and the division of post WWII Europe and the evolution of Churchill's relationship with Eisenhower, (maybe the best chapter in the book). Considering all that has been written on Churchill this reader found some "new" perspectives and food for thought in the above. On the downside, several of the other chapters - the rehashing of Gallipoli, Churchill's "wilderness" years do not provide much detail or insight and the last chapter - a journal entry written contemporaneously describing Churchill's funeral - was little more than filler to this reader. This disparity in the writing is unfortunately one of the salient points I took away from the book. That being said, (written), this book would not be the place to start with Churchill but it is a more than an adequate supplement.

I read this book here in Brazil, last year.It's cheap, concise and easy to understand.There's failures in this book?Yes.
At first, this book is biased.John Lukacs is a Churchill's fan.
To exemple, Mr. Churchill was a deeply eugenist.This book never talks about this.Another exemple is that in 1899, Winston Churchill spoke against Islam something like this:"How dreadfull are the curses which mohammedanism slays on its votaries...No stronger retrograde force exists in the world..."
The core of this book is to show Churchill after 1930.Even this, it fails sometimes.In chapter 4, Lukacs claims that Eisenhower was wrong about than USSR, and Churchill was right.In fact both were right.The american politics for Cold War, was basically the same, for every american president, since Truman,in 1945, to George Bush in 1991.
Churchill also was among the men who created Iraq.Churchill also put the last Iran's Xah in power.All of these Churchill's mistakes aren't in this book.
This is a fan's book, not an unbiased book.

This was my first book by Lukacs and I am not a historical scholar. I picked it up to learn more about Churchill, and where this admirable leader was coming from. If you are looking for a primer or a thorough biography of W.S., this is not the book for you. However, if you are already familiar with his background, ancestry, and accomplishments in detail, this book serves as a kind of postmortem love letter.

It is certainly well-written--Lukacs is a talented writer who knows how to turn a phrase, as he exhibits in his diary entries describing Churchill's funeral. However, for all of W.S.'s greatness, Lukacs seems a doggedly loyal to the man and utterly resistant to any criticism. There is also noticeable resentment toward Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and other American officials, as the author apotheosizes Churchill above any and all other leaders during the most critical time in 20th century history. Regardless of the veracity of his position, I would recommend reading up on other perspectives to temper Lukacs' ode to Churchill's infallibility.

Overall, this is a brief and awe-inspiring read: a worthy eulogy for a worthy man that sometimes sparkles in prose, sometimes fizzles in excessive reverence.

What we have is a series of essays written about Churchill by a man who is both a highly regarded historian and a fan.

The last essay, I found quite moving where he discusses his time at Churchill funeral.

Yet the quality of these essays is not brilliant. In some ways they are repetitive with the same facts repeated again in another essay. Also the writer is also prone to exaggeration eg that the Germans could in June or July 1940 successfully invaded Britain.

I have read much on Churchill and found this book disappointing maybe as from a historian of the quality of John Lukacs, I expected more.

John Lukas clearly states at the beginning of his short book that his collection of essays is neither a biography nor a scholarly study of Winston Spencer Churchill (pg. xiii). Therefore, potential readers of Lukas' book who do not know anything about the key milestones in the life and career of Churchill should not start here. These readers can read books such as "Churchill a Life", "Churchill a Study in Greatness", "Clementine Churchill The Biography of a Marriage", "Winston and Clementine The Personal Letters of the Churchills" or "The Wit & Wisdom of Winston Churchill" to fill in the most glaring gaps in their knowledge of Churchill for that purpose.

Lukas writes to the attention of an audience who has an unquenchable thirst to know more and more about an individual who remains a source of inspiration to many men and women who stand in the way of barbarity and illiberalism around the world.

Although Lukas is generally sympathetic to Churchill, he is not blind to his major shortcomings: impetuosity, impatience, stubbornness and fancifulness (pg. 4, 154). Furthermore, Lukas reminds his audience in his essay "His Failures. His Critics" that Churchill had accumulated errors and mistakes that Churchill critics and detractors were attributing to his flawed character (pg. 129). For example, Churchill's futile fight against granting Dominion status to India from 1929 to 1935 was perhaps compatible with his imperialist credentials but certainly a clear blemish on his record. As a very experienced politician and knowledgeable historian at that time, Churchill should have known much better (pg. 14-15, 24, 135-136). Therefore, Lukas' collection of essays should not be construed as a shameful hagiography.

Furthermore, Lukas reminds his audience in "Churchill's historianship" and "Churchill the visionary" that Churchill was generally cognizant of the lessons that he could draw from past events to articulate his often-visionary policies while reflecting on and shaping history on his turn (pg. 1-18, 47). Churchill was not only a spectator, but also a key actor and play writer of human comedy (pg. 102).

Lukas also explores the ups and downs that Churchill had in his relationships with other history shapers such as Charles De Gaulle, Dwight Eisenhower, Adolf Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin (pg. 19-20). Lukas convincingly explains that Churchill was facing an unpalatable choice between a Europe entirely ruled by Nazi Germany or half of Europe dominated by the Communists in case of allied victory (pg. 11, 27-28, 35). Churchill rightly first gave top priority to successfully fighting Hitler to death before trying in vain to stop Stalin in 1944-1945. Unlike some unimaginative people, Churchill understood right at the birth of the Soviet Union that the Bolsheviks should be stopped immediately before they grew into a gathering threat to the world. War-weary, the victors of WWI, unfortunately, gave only half-hearty support to the White Russians in their desperate fight against the Soviets (pg. 23). Once again, long-term pains were the reward for short-term gains.

Some (American) readers will not be very pleased while reading Lukas' unflattering portrait of Eisenhower and the men around him in "Churchill and Eisenhower." As mentioned above, Churchill was definitely right to try to thwart in 1944-1945 the apparently irresistible advance of the Soviets in Central and Eastern Europe. Churchill clearly understood that geography and territory mattered, not ideology (pg. 42). For that reason, the British army met the Russians east of the entry to the Danish peninsula at the request of Churchill in 1945 (pg. 45). Unfortunately, the American leadership did not want to hear anything about it at that time (pg. 35-40, 46). Some European regions such as former East Germany and the Czech Republic should have been eventually spared the murderous and inefficient rule of the former Soviet Union (pg. 43). The Greeks should continue to be very thankful to Churchill for saving them from a communist tyranny (pg. 41, 48).

In his famous, visionary Iron Curtain speech in 1946, Churchill expressed his concern with the murderous, inefficient embrace of Communism in the European regions under Stalin's control. American reception of this historic speech was at best lukewarm (pg. 47). Churchill knew better and was predicting at the end of 1952 that time was not on the side of Communism (pg. 48, 79).

After the death of Stalin in 1953, Churchill, Prime Minister again, could not convince his friend Eisenhower, who in the meantime became President of the U.S.A., of finding some kind of accommodation with the new Soviet leadership (pg. 70, 73-74). Subsequent events proved that Eisenhower was right when he saw no difference after Stalin was gone (pg. 71, 77). Contrary to what Lukas thinks, Eisenhower should not be described as a leader without any vision under the nefarious influence of men such as John Foster Dulles (pg. 79-80). Many western leaders shared Eisenhower's views on this subject (pg. 81-82). The former Soviet Union was not yet in sufficient decline in the early 1950s to negotiate in a position of force with it as world leaders such as President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher understood very well in the 1980s.

I regard Churchill as one of the alltime overrated figures in history, and certainly enjoy seeing him cut down to size. Charmley provides a veritable all-you-can-eat buffet for Churchill haters, as he recounts in excrutiating detail the extraordinarily flawed personality of Churchill.

After setting the stage by illustrating Churchill's early years as a relentless opportunist and self-promoter, Charmley begins to build his case that Churchill was not the great wartime leader that posterity would have us believe, and in fact did not even have a sound grasp of military operational strategy. The most glaring example is, of course, the Gallipoli Campaign, which was an unmitigated disaster and effectively ended Churchill's political career for more than two decades. Churchill had gotten his shot at the big time (by becoming First Lord of the Admiralty) and had blown it. When he got his second chance, he showed that he had learned effectively nothing in the intervening period about military operations. Throughout World War II, he would attempt to undertake various zany military campaigns, most of which were politely ignored by the Allied commanders.

While demonstrating Churchill's ineptitude in this area, Charmley (clearly a Neville Chamberlain apologist) builds a reasonably convincing case for Chamberlain, arguing that Chamberlain was using appeasement more as a tool for buying time than anything else. Far from being the naive optimist, Chamberlain was quite sure, argues Charmley, that Hitler was not to be trusted in any agreement. While giving Hitler what he wanted, Chamberlain was quietly building up Britain's military strength for the war he was sure to come. Because one cannot create a potent fighting force overnight, Chamberlain knew he had to buy time by whatever means necessary. Churchill, by contrast, was ready to rush into war with Germany in 1937-38, when Britain was in no way prepared to fight a continental war.

Up to this point, Charmley's treatment of Churchill is reasonable from a scholarly standpoint. He can make coherent arguments and back them up with citations and evidence. However, Charmley's main beef with Churchill has never been that he was reckless & impetuous, or that he wasn't the great military mastermind. Charmley's problem with Churchill is that he lost the British Empire. At this point, Charmley's book begins to fall apart.

Charmley is writing from the perspective of someone who thinks the British Empire was a pretty neat thing, and wishes that Britain still had its empire, just like the good old days. In subsequent writings, Charmley has taken his argument even further, casting FDR as an anti-imperial villain who had, as one of his wartime goals, the deliberate destruction of the old colonial empires. In Charmley's opinion, the primary goal of the British High Command during World War II should have been the preservation of the British Empire. The defeat of the Nazis and containment of the Soviet Union? Sure, the British could have tried to do that also, but the preservation of the Empire was the important thing.

In fact, the British High Command was trying to do exactly that, and was continually butting heads with General George Marshall over priorities in strategy. The US wanted as its goal the invasion of Europe proper, and had hoped to launch the Normandy campaign in 1943, a full year before D-Day. The British, by contrast, favored a peripheral approach, sending valuable resources to reclaim portions of British territory that had been seized by Germany & Japan. The British also wanted opportunities for their commanders (such as Montgomery) to win glory on the field. The concessions the US made to Britain, it can be argued, prolonged the war in Europe by up to a year.

So Charmley's argument that Churchill did not do enough militarily to preserve the Empire is not particularly valid. Charmley probably understands this, because he also comes as close he can to stating (without actually doing it) that maybe, just maybe, Churchill might have been well-advised to cut a deal with the Nazis, keep the Empire intact, and focus on the real enemy, which was (in Charmley's conservative viewpoint) the Soviet Union. Charmley does not explicitly say this, because he would then run the risk of being lumped into the same category as the likes of David Irving. However, he makes this argument repeatedly, in as an oblique a fashion as he can muster.

The whole problem is that Charmley bases his argument on the premise that the British Empire could in fact have been saved, and this is where the biggest flaws in this book creep in. Charmley would like to ignore the fact that the British Empire had been slowly coming apart at the seams since the Boer War. Even during Victoria's reign, Britain had been struggling to provide the resources necessary to maintain Imperial control. The attrition of World War I was effectively the final nail in the Imperial coffin; it was only a matter of time before the inevitable occurred. One only has to look at post-war France, which tried to restore its colonial empire by force, to see how things probably would have turned out for Britain.

One can also ask the question, is Charmley's belief that the Empire deserved to be preserved valid? This is definitely a matter of perspective. Did the British Empire ultimately do more harm than good? Conservatives like Charmley and Thomas Sowell may think that the British Empire overall was a good thing, but I do not agree with that at all. When you get right down to it, the Empire was simply the subjugation by Britain of other peoples & cultures by naked military force. I don't recall too many subject people voluntarily entering the British Empire. If FDR wasn't bent on destroying the British Empire, he should have been.

While Charmley does provide some valid criticism of Churchill in this book, overall his most important criticisms are based on some seriously flawed premises. In the end, this calls into question the ultimate scholarly value of the book. While it has certainly been controversial enough, does this book truly contribute much to the scholarly debate over Churchill and the history of the 20th century? I don't believe so.

John Charmley did not do his homework. There are so many things about Churchill he missed. He greatly understates his case that Churchill, by fighting World War II, lost Britain's empire. Far from being a vigorous and foresighted leader, Churchill was incredibly lazy and inept, and Charmley misses this. Churchill failed to prevent the spread of television, failed to stop the invention of the transistor and the integrated circuit, was completely asleep at the switch during the invention of the jet engine and the intercontinental jet airliner. And these are only a few of the things that Churchill didn't stop! Of course, it was these, combined with the continued outward spread of the Enlightenment from Europe, that lost Britain its empire. So, if the lost empire is the "fruit" of Churchill's leadership, at least let's be complete in our condemnation of the man. Otherwise, he might be seen as a leader of bottomless courage, able to inspire an entire nation to rise above itself and distinguish itself for all time, while in the bargain saving Western Civilization. Churchill knew evil when he saw it. Given how difficult it was to launch the D-Day invasion, the mind boggles at what would have happened had Britain gone down.

Charmley, and some his reviewers, have got things wrong. Sure Churchill was an empire man, that is why he got so unpopular between the wars, when he resisted efforts to give India even the most limited self-government.

But Churchill had no war aims, save victory. OK, victory was important, but we would not have had victory on Churchill's watch.

He was terrified of D-Day, believing a re-run of the Battle of the Somme was in the offing.

All his life, he was a side-show man. When troops were needed in Normandy, he pleaded for them to stay in Italy.

In 1939-40 he even floated a notion - you could not call it a plan - to attack Germany via the Caucusus! The small matter of crossing Russia didn't seem to daunt him.

Then there was his little known adventure in the Eastern Mediterranean in 1943: this was an attempt to drag Turkey into the war. It was a dismal and humiliating failure.

Unlike the other two leaders, Churchill lacked post-war aims.

Stalin was quite clear: he wanted to take Communism westwards. He got his way.

Roosevelt had clear war aims: one of which was to break down the system of trade on which the British Empire was based. He got his way, though he did not live to see it. (Globalisation started here.)

Churchill? He basked in glory, a romantic to the end. Was he good for Britain, though?

He got it wrong, very wrong on Europe: one of the biggest lost opportunities in British history was waved away by a nation that ended the war under the killer illusion that it was still a great power.

While Churchill's status as an icon is entirely too uncritical of a brilliant but erratic and flawed statesman, this is hardly a good faith effort to due Churchill justice. Charmley's constant apologies, evasions and outright deception regarding Neville Chamberlain's failed and ongoing efforts at appeasement after Munich & Churchill's opposing efforts clearly stems from an agenda more to rehabilitate Chamberlain's reputation than to do justice to Churchill's actions. Charmley's deception in this area is extreme. His reference more to Chamberlain & Halifax's diaries & letters than to Churchill's for the 3 chapters leading up to Churchill's ascent to Prime Minister doesn't do him much credit nor does his uncritical and adoring acceptance of Chamberlain's evaluations of virtually everything and everyone, including Hitler of all people. To give an example, Charmley, disregards 3 separate accounts of Churchill not rising to applaud Chamberlin's speech in the House of Commons upon his return from Munich as not being either recorded at the time or of being suspect due to malice toward Chamberlain. This same `critical' eye paints Chamberlain as being relentlessly opposed to Hitler after Hitler's entry into Prague in May 1939 in spite of Chamberlin's constant well documented efforts to continue appeasement after that time. He even neglects to mention Chamberlin's efforts to continue appeasement negotiations that continued even after Poland's invasion, not even mentioning something as significant as the Cabinet's revolt and ultimatum to Chamberlain that he must put a deadline on negotiations to Hitler & withdrawal from Poland on the 2nd day after Poland's invasion. All in all this book has some valid debunking of Churchill's myth and questions about the long term costs of Churchill's decisions but it is at times blatantly deceptive and far, far too uncritical of Churchill's rivals, none of whom except Eden are subject to much criticism.

I was sorely disappointed when finishing the book, not because of poor authorship, but, on the contrary, because Charmley's abrupt ending after a laborious examination of Churchill's political career did not seem at all adequate. He begins with a lurid examination of Churchill's early life and transformation into a political maverick, assaying his beginnings as a freshman MP in 1901 to his rise as one of the most powerful statesmen in the world. Among the most engrossing, although not necessarily new, criticisms are the Prime Minister's deference to the Roosevelt administration's foreign policy, which the author believes, with very much justification, was a catalyst that helped to bring about the Cold War and the eventual dismemberment of the British Empire. Charmley also draws parallels with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in 1938 with that of Churchill's handling of Stalin in 1945, and infers Churchill was hypocritical in his criticism of the Munich Pact, in part because of his later policies with regard to the Soviet Union. But after the chapter on the fall of the Churchill government in 1945, the book wraps itself up with a conclusion of little more than two pages; this is hardly befitting such a monumental undertaking. Charmley does not take interest in documenting Churchill's postwar exploits, and makes almost no reference to his Fulton speech or his return to power in 1951. For those already familiar with the standard "song and dance" given by most Churchill biographers, this work is definitely worth your time, but those expecting a more plenary reference on all of Churchill's political career, not just that until 1945, should look elsewhere.