Rating: 
Summary: In 1940, Churchill Did Not Lose the War
Review: The author's premise, correctly stated from the book, is that Hitler never came closer to winning his European war than at the end of May, 1940.A newly installed Prime Minister, Churchill, was presented with: France on the verge of defeat, the BEF bottled up on the coast at Dunkirk, no allies on the horizon once France was gone, an aristocracy that had some members who admired and/or feared Hitler, and a Conservative majority in Parliament which at that point tolerated is presence rather than enthusiastically embracing him. The War Cabinet, Churchill and four other senior members of the cabinet, had to decide whether or not to fight it out no matter what, or inquire of Hitler upon what terms he would allow England to survive. That is at least how Lord Halifax saw the options. Churchill was resolute from the beginning -- any hint try at accommodation would lead to the eventual destruction of Britain and cement the Nazi map of Europe in place. The five days in question follow a long debate among the cabinet, or chiefly among Churchill and Halifax, regarding the issue of whether or not to advance an overture to Hitler. Chamberlain played some role, usually siding with Churchill as the discussions progresssed, but holding the balance of power none the less. Why is this debate important? Well, with the clarity offered by hindsight, it is now easy to appreciate that any attempt at purchasing peace from Hitler would have only meant a thus weakened Britain would have been added to the Third Reich later. In the spring of 1940, serious people seriously discussed this acquiescence strategy in London. If that strategy had been followed, it is possible that the English government of the time could have lost the war for civilization. Thus, the author's important point is correct. During this period -- this hinge of history -- Churchill did not lose the war -- and thus deserves history's gratitude. Why did Churchill simply not force the issue? For several reasons. He was in the PM's chair only a fortnight -- the second choice of the King and the Conservative Party (Halifax, the first choice, had turned it down requiring one to appreciate either his selfless patriotism, divine intervention, or some combination of both). It was probable that a major disagreement within the War Cabinet would have brought him down and proved disasterous for public morale. In addition, any public hint that the War Cabinet was even thinking about an accommodation of Hitler would have quite likely retarded the English people's will to resist. (I can state from personal experience in assuming a political leadership role at the head of a divided caucus that in the beginning one must build political capital until a point is reached where decisive action can be taken by the leader because it will be supported, even it the decision proves costly or presents great difficulty.) Churchill had the wisdom to know that his only choice in making the right choice (ie, rejecting accommodation and fighting to the end), required his moving the War Cabinet decisively behind his position through personal diplomacy and moral suasion. Churchill proved to be a master of this technique (interesting to view because he is remembered publicly for his defiant and blustery leadership, but he was quite the canny politico, too). This book tells the tale in an interesting way. Each day is a chapter. The War Cabinet meeting summaries are nicely interspersed with background discussions of the participants, an overview of the political and military situations and a daily reading of public opinion (as gleaned from an early survey technique employed by the government and some newspaper and diary accounts). I would have preferred more discussion of the cabinet sessions and thought the daily public opinion discussion could have been discarded. However, this is a neat little book that should be of interest to any WWII devotee or political science student. The author does a good job and makes his case well regarding the decisiveness of this time period for human history.
Rating: 
Summary: A detailed look at one key historical moment
Review: Many historical works seek to present the sweep and pagentry of history. This one does something different. John Lukacs focuses on five critical days in May, 1940 and on one key question on which the fate of the modern world depended; would England fight or give? The book returns us to a time when Nazi Germany was sweeping across Europe, France was beaten and England was vulnerable and alone. It was a time when some in England could argued that negotiating with Hitler was a possibly tenable option and maybe the most prudent course. What Lukacs seeks to do is to trace the course by which, over a critical 5-day period, Churchill brought the War Cabinet to an irrovocable "no negotiation" stance. It is an almost hour by hour chronicle of who did and said what and how Churchill and Lord Halifax dueled. The book has some weaknesses. It includes extensive focus on the general mood of the country during this five-day period. It's fascinating information but it isn't so clear that this mood was central to the Cabinet's eventual decision to fight. Also, did the author really make the case that those at least toying with the idea of negotiation were doing more than trying to keep options open? Lord Halifax comes across as very tentative in his position and surprisingly unwilling to confront Churchill at a time when the latte was at his weakest. It was never clearly shown (in this book) that those favorable to the negotiation position were doing more than hunting amid back channels for some slim hope of peace. Yet, even so, the argument goes that any move towards negotiation would have sucked England down a road where the will to fight would have been lost and eventually terms--whatever Hitler would eventually have offered--would have had to be accepted. Thus, even the tentative moves towards negotiation had to be stopped and the process of how this was accomplished--how a "no negotiation" postion was forged--is very interesting. Not everyone will enjoy this book. The very narrow focus and the documenting of each meeting and cable may not excite all readers. For me, however, it was exactly that kind of "behind-the-scenes" detail that made the book so interesting. Recommended for those who already know something about the period, who love history and who find the political nuances as exciting as a heroic battle.
Rating: 
Summary: It changed my perception of Churchill
Review: John Lukacs delves into minute detail of events over five key days around one of the key turning points of the war. The details is fascinating, because it gives the reader a fascinating glimpse of the attitudes and expectations of key individuals and the broader population day by day, and is something which would be impossible to achieve for a history on a broader scale. This book demonstrates that momentous events are determined by a combination of chance, hard work, and at times by the convincing argument and reason of individuals. It demonstrates the power of individuals to change the world. For anyone (Scot, Irish, Welsh, Australian, Kiwi) who remembers the skeletons in Churchill's closet this book shows Churchill's redeeming side, and may change your mind about someone the English revere as a great man.
Rating:
Summary: Much more than five days
Review: Lukacks' book focuses on the meetings that took place during the last days of May 1940 at the War Cabinet in London. Chamberlain, Halifax and Churchill discussing the convenience of provoking Hittler to offer the UK good peace conditions once France had been defeated. Churchill opposing to any deal of that sort, Halifax favouring it through the Italian Ambassador. The book deeply describes the great political obstacles that Churchill, at that time a weak Prime Minister, had to confront in order to convince his own government to resist Nazi expansion. The book describes also the status of british public opinion at the time. Aditionally this history book is written with clarity and intensity. Critical historical facts told in an absorbing style.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent book
Review: I found this to be an excellent book that changed my view of the early days of WW II. While some of the other reviewers are correct that there is obscure material in the book and many footnotes, this is irrrelevant. Like a great Shakespearean history play you do not have to understand every line in order to appreciate the events and characters. By reading this book I began to appreciate how difficult and courageous taking a stand against Hitler was in spring of 1940. We lose a sense of that looking back from our victorious standpoint decades later. The actions and decisions of Churchill and others in the British War Cabinet were truly admirable and memorable. Lukacs' book is a worthy tribute to them.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling History, Cumbersome Read
Review: Lukacs has certainly zoomed in on a critical week in determining the course of World War II, and this work is no doubt an important academic contribution. I am glad I read it. That having been said, it was one of the longest 220 page books I've ever read, with all of the intriguing characters and developments of the week diluted in an ocean of the author's analysis, quotes from secondary sources and extreme textual footnoting. The result is a work of storytelling that doesn't live up to the story.
Rating:
Summary: Great concise history with an ominous last paragraph.
Review: A very good book for someone who does not have the time to invest in one of the massive Churchill bios ( this includes many of us, I suspect). Lukacs is concise for the most part, however I do agree with others that the footnotes are intrusive - and a bit of a distraction. Churchill is the epitome of leadership in these pages and even predicts the future ( we learn he felt the collapse of communism would come in the 1980s, for instance). If I read the last paragraph correctly Lukacs credits W.C. for saving the world from tyrany in the Soviet and Nazi forms , but predicts a new threat from others 'without as much armed might, but bringing the clouds of a dark new age'. Reading this, in our post 9-11 world, I found such an inclusion to be eerily prescient. This is a clearly written and always focused book. It provides one with a good overview of the most crucial period of the 20th century in fast paced manner, but never sacrifices important details. Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Driven to distraction
Review: After reading this book I was left with little doubt that John Lukacs has an encyclopaedic knowledge of events of the period covered by it, and when the text was allowed to flow I found it easily comprehensible and quite readable. However, I would have to say that this is possibly the WORST organised volume of serious history that I have ever read. Professor Lukacs has undoubtedly done a great deal of research in preparing this and his other books on the period at the start of WWII, and he seems determined to prove this to the reader at every opportunity. Such is his academic obsession with quoting references and footnotes that on many pages the footnotes take up far more space than body text, and many of them are vital to understanding the flow of the main story - so you can't just ignore them. Surely, if a footnote is worth 3/4 of a page it is worth incorporating in the main text. In short, an interesting tale about a vital period of WWII, but the constant interruptions to the flow for references & notes drove me to distraction.
Rating:
Summary: read this book
Review: nothing to add to what many others have said. Just wanted to give it five stars. Very timely book (post 9/11).
Rating: 
Summary: Poorly written, mostly rehashed
Review: I love war history, and was looking forward to this book, based on the fascinating idea, and some new documents, that Hitler convinced some people in the Churchill cabinet to surrender, and Churchill just barely held them off. It should've been fascinating. Instead, it reads as if a college professor just dictated his notes into a dictaphone. It rambles. It zigs, it zags. At times, it seems almost stream of consciousness. Most of it is a hodge podge cut and paste from prior books. The oral tone (the author constantly says things along the lines of, "Well, now I have to dealt with this and would like to go back and say x about y") is distracting and symptomatic of someone who didn't spend much time on prose. What new information there is, is unfocused and spewed out in disorganized fashion. Very, very disapointing.
| 
