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.

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.

I think people of European descent should ask the question too often avoided by "respectable" intellectuals. Was the destruction of much of Europe and the conservative forces there worth the price of defeating Hitler? In point of fact, once the liberal democracies decided to confront the evil Nazi regime, it was too late. Along with the defeat of Hitler, the anti-communist conservative Christians, who were no friend of Hitler, were mortally wounded. Decent conservatives ended up powerless. The radical socialists in the West crept into power inexorably. The end of a war that saw American involvment only ended up paving the way for an even more evil communist regime in the East and the complete evisceration of Christian Europe. Keep in mind that the "victory" over Germany meant fighting another 45 years of global cold war whose total destructiveness probably exceeds that of WW II itself. Charmley dares to suggest that Churchill, a Christian, was completely out of his depth when he tried to match wits with the Roosevelt administration...an administration that trusted Stalin more than Churchill. The truth hurts. In hindsight, it is clear that the USA is not the torchbearer of Western Civilization, however you may define it. We are the torchbearer of something entirely different...a relentless democratic egalitarianism propelled by the power of free market enterprise. Charmley is passionate about this subject, and is saddened by the downfall of a Europe which he feels was betrayed by poor leadership and myopic statesmanship. The feckless Europe of today is the result, and we may be witnessing the final decades of what was once known as Western Civilization. What will it be replaced by?

John Charmley has a thesis that he has tried to hammer home repeatedly: that Britain should not have intervened in the Second World War and that, by doing so, Winston Churchill succeeded in mortgaging Britain's future to America, losing the Empire, and ushering in decades of social democracy in Britain. In other words, Charmley thinks Britain would have been better off if it had turned an even blinder eye to Nazism.

This book is nominally about Chamberlain, but we see a lot of Churchill and Charmley tries to bring in his arch-villain whenever possible. This visceral dislike for Churchill - combined with a fawning admiration for Chamberlain - is troubling in that it prevents Charmley from acknowledging that one was ever right and that the other was ever wrong. This book is about as partisan as possible.

His ultimate argument, that Nazi Germany posed no threat to Britain is absurd. Charmley does not even bother to examine Hitler's ambitions; had he done so, his argument would have fallen apart. Germany sought to be an Atlantic power, as well as a European power. Ideological bias blinds Charmley from the fact that a triumphant Germany would have effectively emasculated Britain and encouraged Italy and Japan to poach London's colonial possessions. He despises America enough to blind him to the fact that there were far more rapacious powers operating in the 1940s (see some of the letters Charmley has written to the Daily Telegraph)

All in all, this book is best read as an example of modern-day Tory cynicism and contempt for the past. As a chronicle of the years before the war it has little to recommend it.

English historian John Charmley has disturbed World War II "establishment historians"--and established myths--by his iconoclastic re-interpretaion of the origins and beginning of the 1939-1945 war. Yet, in a series of closely reasoned studies he makes telling points that reveal a number of missed opportunities, in the months and weeks before and even after the outbreak of war, to have secured a satisfactory resolution of the growing hostility between the UK and Germany. He does not say that this resolution would have been permanent in the long run; indeed, the two powers may have eventually ended up in conflict. Nevertheless, the possibility that Britain could have kept out of a general war for another couple of years, while Germany was expending its resources and materiel in a war in the East, might well have changed the course of history. The "war hawk" party in London, egged on surreptiously by the Roosevelt administration and ideological "anti-fascists," managed to get Britain mired in a conflict for which it was not ready and which in the end totally exhausted it, which ended its role as world power, and that meant the destruction of the "empire." Churchill's vaunted promise to "defend the empire" was made hollow as he presided over the very destruction of that empire--and of historic Britain. Charmley offers ample notes and primary sources for his interpretation. While certainly not a new view--Barnett, Taylor and others have made similar points--Charmley's points deserve respectful consideration--not the "Establishment" condescension (and apparent fear!) that some have exhibited.