Rating: 
Summary: A Focus on a Turning Point
Review: In the entire history of the twentieth century world there are really two years that mark points of inflection; 1914 and 1989. John Lukacs in this short book looks at a key moment towards the middle of this seventy-five years, that being the darkest days of Britain's struggle during the Second World War. Avoiding the historian mind game of "what if", Lukacs looks in detail at a few key days just before the "miracle of Dunkirk", when it seemed all but certain that most of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) would be killed or captured in the channel ports of northern France. This would leave 300,000 British men as German prisoners, and deprive Britain of its only available and trained army elements, while at the same time it faced the near prospect of a German assault by airborne or sea borne troops. This terrible deluge of military disasters began on the very same day (May 10) as did a new British government of national unity, headed by the largely untrusted Winston Churchill. With limited support in his own party, Churchill had to persuade the War Cabinet, the Cabinet at large, and the Commons to hold out against the Nazis and not to respond to peace initiatives that were then being proffered in secret by a still neutral (technically, at least) Italy. Lukacs makes the valid point that these events and issues are glossed in Churchill's history of the war, perhaps out of magnanimity to Lord Halifax, who was testing the prospect of negotiations in the War Cabinet. Halifax's view must have seemed most sensible at that hour. Belgium had surrendered. France was being routed. The US could offer no quick (or even certain) military aid to the Allies, and the Churchill/FDR relationship had not yet blossomed. What did Churchill's point of view have going for it? Three points only: 1) Britain was not yet defeated. 2) Hitler's terms were not likely to be worse should Britain subsequently be defeated 3) a view of the war as not merely another European war, but as a struggle for the very future of Western Civilization. This view was Churchill's, and not widely shared at the time. From the perspective of the Millennium, we take for granted that the third point has validity, but in May 1940 only an out-of-date Victorian fool like Churchill could think of the war primarily in these terms. Few as such fools were, within a few months Churchill would find in FDR a fellow Victorian fool who shared his dread of Nazism, and was willing to press his own considerable powers to the limit in order to assist Britain in its elimination. Churchill told the House in May to "prepare for heavy news". The salvation of the BEF at Dunkirk postponed that necessity. Instead, Churchill reported the miracle of Dunkirk to the House in early June. The heavy news would come later that month, when France also surrendered, leaving Britain entirely alone. Yet even then, the key points in favor of Britain continuing the war remained valid. Churchill, while correct in his convictions, was also lucky in his enemy. Certainly allowing 350,000 men to escape across the Channel from France was both a huge and unnecessary blunder, the first of many such that Corporal Hitler would personally make as a commander in Chief. In the case of Dunkirk, the Fuhrer was concerned about overextending his armor, and overconfident in the ability of Goering's Luftwaffe to control the skies and damage British forces from the air. A second and even more strategic blunder followed soon after. This was to transfer the focus of the Luftwaffe's air attacks to London instead of the British aircraft industries. This decision was firmly set in response to the bombing raid on Berlin by the RAF during early September, which had little effect outside of propaganda (and thus illustrates the immense potential value of such propaganda driven military actions). While London burned and bled, Britain was resupplied and rearmed. Had the Third Reich captured the BEF at Dunkirk, and/or established air superiority over Britain, the war could well have been lost militarily and ended shortly. Hitler might have pursued his Soviet campaign with a defeated, vassalized Europe at his rear, and not in the context of any "World War". Instead the Nazis struggled simultaneously in Africa, Italy, and finally in France when the ever-present threat of a second front finally came to fruition in 1944. -Harry Forbes
Rating: 
Summary: Great Story but Desperately in Need of An Editor
Review: Lukacs insists in this title and others he has written that the darkest days of the 20th century were in May of 1940, when Hitler and Nazi Germany were a mere day or two away from conquering continental Europe. The fate of the world rested with Great Britain, and the struggle between Halifax, Churchill and Chamberlain would decide the history of the world for the next 50 years and beyond. Heavy stuff, and absolutely absorbing, but the narrative could most definitely have been spruced up. I agree with other reviewers when they state that it appears that the edtior must have been intimidated by working with Mr. Lukacs and did little to change his prose. The book reads like a first draft, not a complete volume, and the copious amount of footnotes should have been worked into the main body of the text. The way the book stands now it feels unfinished, although the actual events discussed are impossible to find uninteresting if British history or the history of the Second World War is what the reader is looking for. John Lukacs tells a great story, but it could have been a classic if it were more diligently edited.
Rating:
Summary: 5 star subject 2 star treatment
Review: A fascinating period in history that begs for a page turning dramatic rendering is here so turgidly presented that it is difficult to stay awake while reading this. The facts are here but the writing is awful.
Rating:
Summary: To Fight or Surrender
Review: "Five Days in London, May 1940"
John Lukacs
ISBN 0-300-08466-8
1999 There is not much question that the period in May of 1940 when Churchill and his cabinet debated about how to deal with Hitler is a critical period in world history. Certainly, this book is full of insights about the outlook of the British public and its leaders at that time. Excerpts from newspapers of that time and personal diaries of various individuals are used to support them. It is surprising how little the British public recognized in what deep trouble England was with France hanging on the brink of capitulation to the Nazis. Other revelations include that Mussolini was viewed by high officials in the British government as a potential middleman for brokering an agreement with Hitler to avoid further military conflict between England and Germany. It is startling that the issue of a British surrender during the dark days of Dunkirk was very much under consideration by British officials. According to Mr. Lukacs, a great deal of the credit for not going down that road belongs to Winston Churchill, to whom the author feels that western civilization is deeply indebted. I believe Mr. Lukacs' biggest original insight in this book is to point out that Hitler was the most revolutionary leader of the twentieth century. He was a kind of leader that the world had previously not seen, one who introduced a new kind of populist nationalism, evil though it was, which the old world order of Europe was not capable of withstanding. Those things being said, I would like to otherwise comment a little less favorably on some aspects of the book. First of all, John Lukacs' style of writing in this book is extremely tedious. This is a short book that reads like a long one. The term "overanalyze" comes to mind. Although I have great respect for documentation of historical research, it seems to me that the author goes off the deep end here. The text on some of the pages fights with the footnotes for space. I have to wonder for whom the author is writing. It would appear to be academicians. I doubt that George Orwell, who championed straightforward writing and whom the author quotes, would have looked favorably on the overly convoluted manner in which the story is developed here. Mr. Lukacs has found an interesting historical subject on which to focus. My feeling is that in this book the storyteller becomes a bit of an obstacle to the story.
Rating: 
Summary: Terrible, terrible writing on a great subject
Review: One of the most compelling times in history is turned into a nightmare of footnotes, turgid writing, and phony melodrama. At one point the author makes fun of Chamberlain as being a holdover from the Victorian era, yet the writing in this book has all the bad points of writing from that era, and by someone who clearly thinks that he is the greatest historian of this era. You would do better with any of the other hundreds of books on the subject.
Rating:
Summary: Fails to live up to expectations
Review: Based on his comments on his own work, Lukacs must be the greatest living historian. Therefore, one would expect that "Five Days" would be a commendable piece of historical writing. Oh, you would be wrong. It's confusing and dull. How one could make Churchill dull is beyond me, but maybe that is what makes Lukacs great: he can do the unimaginable. As for the confusion, perhaps Lukacs attempted to re-create the fog of war. Regardless, I finished the book and, with regret, felt that I had wasted a couple of hours of my time.
Rating:
Summary: A week at the Beginning
Review: John Lukacs tells us about five days in London, England in May of 1940 in an intelligent and provocative manner. Those five days May 24 to May 28, 1940 changed the entire history of the twentieth century. Lukacs covers the time with breathe and focuses on the importance of the decisions that were made by the British War Cabinet. The London Times called this work a brilliant little book and I would have to agree. Unlike weightier books on the topic of World War II Lukacs gives the reader a glimpse of the behind the scenes activities rather than a blow by blow account of the events in the world. I enjoyed the book and would recommend it anyone who is interested in World War II.
Rating:
Summary: Brief But Self-Indulgent
Review: Lukacs argues that Hitler never came closer to winning WWII than a brief moment in May 1940, when France was falling, Britain's army was seemingly trapped at Dunkirk, and the newly appointed Prime Minister Churchill had not yet stamped his authority over a wavering War Cabinet. It's a good argument, and focusing a short book on five crucial days is a nice approach. Nevertheless, this book disappoints. It is poorly written (or, more precisely, poorly edited). Instead of setting the stage and then telling the story, Lukacs is constantly hopping back and forth in time, which prevents the "five days" from forming a truly gripping narrative. For such a short book, it is laced with minor repetitions. Most annoyingly, Lukacs keeps launching into half-hearted digressions, which he cuts off with disclaimers like "But this is not the place to discuss X". Any reader will realize that this is a short book and that Lukacs knows much more about every detail than he is able to share with us. Why waste the limited space telling us so? On the other hand, there are a few digressions which might have been helpful, particularly to readers who are not already steeped in British political history. For example, Lukacs never explains what the "War Cabinet" is, and what constitutional authority it exercises. It is a crucial omission, since the War Cabinet was the principal theater of the struggle between Churchill and Halifax that forms the core of the narrative. Ultimately, the struggle turns out to be rather gentlemanly--almost sedate--given the stakes. Was it as close a call as Lukacs claims? That depends on whether Halifax's proposal to sound out Germany's peace terms through Mussolini would have ultimately led Britain to give in. Here Lukacs doesn't fully sketch out the argument. Would Germany have offered terms that would have preserved Britain's security and independence, the minimum conditions discussed by the War Cabinet? Churchill thought no. Halifax thought probably not, but worth a try. If the Germans weren't prepared to offer such terms, would the Churchill-Halifax dispute really have mattered? It's hard to tell, because Lukacs barely addresses the question of German intentions. Overall, a decent, thought-provoking read. But I suspect the editor showed too much deference to an eminent historian, and failed to whip this into the excellent book it could have been.
Rating: 
Summary: Peering through a keyhole at history
Review: Lukac's history of Britain's perilous moment of truth is stripped bare of the mythology usually found in World War II history for the vox populi. This is whiskey without the water. A strangely vulnerable Churchill comes across in these pages - tired, too old , and dragging his snail's tail of disasters from Galipoli to his support of Edward the Abdicator. What serendipity led to his summoning to Buckingham, his face splashed with tears, wondering if it was too late? As in almost all of Lukac's works, the multidimensional quality of his insight is truly Shakespearian.
Rating:
Summary: More Than the Title Suggests
Review: This is a political history of a pivotal one-week period on the uphill side of World War II. Filled with much detail drawn from contemporary accounts, it represents a huge amount of research. It brims with interesting tidbits; You get a real sense of what went on at the highest level of British government in those dark, foreboding days when France was collapsing before the Nazi juggernaut and the BEF was falling back towards the Channel with nary a counter-punch. If there is a weakness in this book, though, it is the implied presumption that the reader is already familiar with the key players. >In the end, this is not a book just about Churchill (whom Lukacs clearly admires and, rightly so, finds truly heroic) or his stiffening of the British spirit. It is also a book supporting a central theme in the worldview Lukacs developed over his career. Lukacs holds that "Churchill understood something that not many people understand even now. The greatest threat to Western civilization was not Communism. It was National Socialism. The greatest and most dynamic power in the world was not Soviet Russia. It was the Third Reich of Germany. The greatest revolutionary of the twentieth century was not Lenin or Stalin. It was Hitler. BR>This book is more than its title suggests. More than just fine history, it is history with a message. The last three pages in particular are worth the time it takes read the whole book. I wonder if we in the West are not at such a juncture today. Five stars for this one, Mr. Lukacs.
| 
