Rating: 
Summary: A Precarious Time!
Review: This is a well documented history. It spotlights the precarious postion Churchill was in at a critical point in history. The author makes you aware of how little the general public knew of the country's true situation.
Rating:
Summary: Superb telling that gets the reader into the psych of 1940
Review: Outstanding work of history & narrative that gets the reader into the heads of the major players in the decision of Britain to stay in the war, and the decisions of Germany to hold off at Dunkirk. Lukacs sometimes assumes too much knowledge on the part of readers, even history buffs like me, about the context. It seems I will have to read Lukacs other book on this matter, The Duel, to get the contextual elements I am missing here. The very unique aspect of this book is how well Lukacs gets the reader into the decision matrix, so we understand what "facts" Churchill & others in the cabinet had in front of them, and how they went about interpreting them to form opinions.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but not Great
Review: I bought this book on the strength of a glowing review from my local newspaper. Then, after I read it, I was somewhat disappointed. Perhaps my expectations were a little too high.It was a fair synopsis of five crucial days in which it is demonstrated that Churchill at the very least did not lose the Second World War. From that perspective, the conclusion could be drawn that this one person did make a difference and significant one at that. The politics, the debates, the arguments and the early use of polling data are interesting and do add quite a bit of meat to this book. However, Winston Churchill is a fascinating study as exemplified in the numerous books that have been written about him. No doubt this is a book about Churchill and how he handled arguably the most crucial time in our recent history. For that we can all be thankful. There are, nevertheless, a lot of better "Churchill" books on the market. Overall, it is a well written book, with an easy flowing narrative. Infact the layout and continuity has the feel of an Arthur Hailey novel. However,at times I found the footnotes tended to be both intrusive and tiresome.
Rating:
Summary: I want to read THE DUEL next...
Review: Lukacs' book is an excellent analysis, well worth reading. My only complaints are with his writing style. At times he rambles as though he were giving a history lecture off the top of his head; it charmed me at first, exasperated me after a while, but I was resigned to it by the end. Far more irritating is his habit of liberally sprinkling lengthy footnotes on just about every other page. It's not that the footnotes are boring; it's that they continually interrupt the flow of his narrative. Better, I think, to have either worked the information into the narrative or to have had an appendix at the end. Small quibbles with an otherwise excellent book.
Rating:
Summary: More than history -- decision - makers under pressure
Review: This book is a thrill to read: the crucial five day period during which a very small group of determined people, led by one particularly - determined man, persuaded England and The West to hold the line against Hitler, and at least arguably saved The World... The story is not new, but this presentation of it is. A generation -- or so, now -- raised on Wheeler - Bennett and AJP Taylor, and Nicolson and Namier and all the very many others, knows very well the story of Winston Churchill and his country's lonely stand against the Axis just following the Fall of France. What never has been presented as dramatically as John Lukacs now presents it are the machinations, and the political follies and wisdom, and the ultimately very personal story of just how Churchill and a few others convinced the British at the time to do what they did: not in broad brushstrokes -- those are far easier to paint, as so many have on this topic -- but in the meticulous details which, alone, can show the individual frustrations, fears, jealousies, and uncertainties which characterize any truly historic human situation. Detailed and meticulous as it is, however -- Lukacs is a well - respected historian -- the book is very short, and very dramatic, not at all pedantic or defensive as books about the period increasingly tend to be. His writing style flows smoothly. His aim, the author says in his Preface, is to explore an idea he has held for "forty, perhaps even fifty, years" that the five days specified in the title were critical not only because of the Fall of France but also because, "Churchill's situation within the War Cabinet was much more difficult than most people, including historians at that time, thought". The result is a fascinating, day - by - day, account of how single - minded and occasionally - brilliant but nevertheless inexorably - human politicians maneuvered, and ultimately out - maneuvered, each other into positions -- positions which can be seen to be clear and on the side of the angels, or on the other, only in retrospect. At the time, all was very murky, as it perhaps is at any truly significant historical turning point, and Lukacs the careful historian practically forces us to appreciate this. Defenders of Edward Wood, Lord Halifax will be upset by this book, and so perhaps will be the increasing numbers of armchair revisionists of the period now making historical hay from views ranging from "World War II need not have happened" to "World War II did not happen" to "World War II was not a war". There will be arguments -- there are any time someone saves The World, or is suggested to have done so. There also are heroes, occasionally, or at least heroic actions -- and there are traitors, and cowards and fools -- and always there is foolishness, and some bravery and many errors, committed as much by the heroes as by their counterparts. But Lukacs is not chiefly concerned in his book with such after - the - fact debates -- although he does not avoid them, and although they may engulf him when his critics take on this book simply because he has chosen this particular highly - controversial period. He instead addresses most directly a more immediate and at once a more universal theme: how do people act, and react, under enormous pressure, particularly when the "correct" decisions to make are not popular or, worse, are not clear. Churchill, and Halifax and the others, all were operating under such conditions during these five crucial days in May in 1940. It is instructive for any of us too accustomed to comfortable certainties in history to see just how uncertain all of this was at the time; chastening to be reminded just how imperfect human decision - making processes are; breathtaking to realize how rapidly situations and events unfold for political leaders who in fact often have all too little power really to influence results. This book is a very good read, for anyone interested in its particular war, but also for anyone interested generally in politics, power, or personality.
Rating:
Summary: History as it should always be done
Review: It was no surprise to all those that follows Lukacs work that this book is excellent. He tries to show that during five days in May, 1940, Britain was at the brink of surrender and the war would definitely lost. Lukacs writes so well that you're able to read this book as you read a good fiction novel. I strongly recommend it - as serious study or just history fun.
Rating:
Summary: "He saved Britain, Europe and Western Civilization" Author
Review: "But in May 1940 Churchill was the one who did not loose it" This is the theme of a compact, extraordinary 5 days that decided the outcome of WWII. This is certainly not the only event that brought the allies victory, however Mr. Lukacs demonstrates that while England was never in a position to win the war alone, she was in a position to loose it, and Churchill was the individual who saw that it was not lost. I don't believe he overstates Churchill's role in the slightest. Had the War gone the other way Churchill certainly would have been given all the blame. Churchill was flawed, but during the decade of 1930, in what are often referred to as "His Wilderness Years" the same men who would later owe their existence and that of their Country's continuance to him rejected him out of hand. When he finally became Prime Minister it was when all the disasters had begun or had been completed. Churchill was given the mess that he inherited from Chamberlein and others; Alsace Lorraine gone, Austria gone, Czechoslovakia given away with Chamberlain's active participation punctuated by the "Peace In Our Time" debacle. Further, France was quickly falling apart, as were the Low Countries, Dunkirk loomed, and what is worse, Churchill had to cope with members of his own Cabinet that wanted to negotiate with Hitler as he was storming across Europe. Churchill managed to bring those in government and the public to his side, and the rest as they say is History. Mr. Lukacs provides great additional information, footnotes that are as informative as the body of the text, and an even handed description of those players involved including Churchill. Brilliantly written History, that is also readable, and demonstrates that what we may have thought of as an event that actually did take years to finish, may well have been decided in 5 days. Buy the book you will not be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating and exciting read.
Review: Lukacs sets the five days up for readers like a dramatic play...Churchill, Chamberlin, Halifax, etc are fascinating characters carrying the weight of the world as well as their own political baggage. The English people seemed surprisingly unmotivated to continue fighting after the grim results at Dunkirk. The decision made on those five fateful days changed the history of the world. I am an unlikely history fan, but this book was great!
Rating:
Summary: A fine book and superb analysis of a crucial time period
Review: Professor Lukacs has written another great book.(Hitler of History is essential reading too)His argumentation and particularly his footnotes are a pleasure to read.I read it uninterupted during a flight. He has concinced me that Churchill has saved the world from the Third Reich because he early on recognized that the true danger was Hitler and not communism. He is very good at using counterfactuals (what if )too. Lukacs is one of my favorate historians because he tells us why things happened . I am trying to read all his work.
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.
| 
