This easy to read book is one of the shortest life descriptions of Churchill there is. It's foreword already tells us that the focus will be on Winstons character, with his career only as background.

If you keep that in mind, and don't expect details on his campaigns, government and financial policy, this is an interesting biography, that depicts Chutchill as a larger than life, somewhat unbalanced and egocentric bully, with some ideologies that on a closer look are a dubious mixture of conservatism and fascism. A man that fortunatly lived in the right time, when there was active need for such a man, to combat Hitler.

The reason I only gave 3 stars for this book, is that I firmly believe that any biography should have footnotes and references to liturature, so that you can check some of the wrirters assumptions, esspecially if the focus is not on facts but on character, as is the case here and that this is completely missing here.

Rather than throwing another heavy scholarly tome at the public, Piers Brendon opted for a short portrait of Churchill, the man. In fact, the cover of the British paperback edition (which, unfortunately, you can not see here) tells the whole story: on the top half is a photograph of a youthful Churchill flaunting an urchin's grin under a flamboyant top hat; on the bottom half is a photograph of Churchill in his sixties squinting against the sun while he inspected a battlefield during WW II.

Churchill was a complex personality, "yet the essence of Churchill, which this book has attempted to explore and to celebrate, was his heightened vitality, the terrific immediacy of his existence. Life as it was ordinarily lived was too tame for him: he needed the stimulus of constant adventure." He was grandiose, yet had self-deprecating charm; he could remark that although we are all worms he really believed himself to be a glow-worm.

Graced with a benign character and a sunny disposition, he nevertheless displayed an authoritarian bent ("All I wanted was compliance with my wishes after reasonable discussion") and was driven by an unabashed, egotistical ambition. His disregard for hierarchies and naval tradition was legendary: "Don't talk to me about naval tradition," was his famous reply, "it is nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash."

Churchill's greatest gift was his "alchemical power with words: by means of fiery eloquence he could transmute the dross of disaster into the gold of triumph." Rhetoric was "the most powerful weapon in his armoury and he took immense trouble with it, constantly practicing: 'Winston leads general conversation on the hearth rug addressing himself in the looking glass - a sympathetic and admiring audience.'" His demagogic skills and self-advertising flair served Britain well at a time when the Nazi tanks seemed unstoppable: "Churchill's well nigh miraculous achievement during the dire summer months of 1940 was to convert the nation to a mystical faith in its own providential destiny. ... Courage is as contagious as cowardice and Churchill infected everyone with his heedless fortitude."

Churchill was a sanguine choleric, if ever there was one. His "scowling sulks made his moods of sunny cheerfulness all the brighter. His charm compensated for his rudeness; his loyalty redeemed his cruelty. His fundamental kindness of heart and generosity of spirit were never altogether obscured by perennial egotism and fleeting rages." Nobody could say of his intellectual arrogance that his brains went to his head: "When the mood took him he bubbled with good humour. He never stood on his dignity. He had once amazed guests by getting down on all fours under the Chartwell dining-room table and shaking swimming-pool water out of his ears like a dog."

Churchill could be charming and demanding, as it suited him. After he had the US safely in his camp, he rejected the advice to approach America cautiously with the comment "Oh! That is the way we talked to her while we were wooing her; now that she is in the harem, we talk to her quite differently." And, a rarity among politicians, he spoke a foreign language: "'Je sweeze oun frair ehnay de la Trinnity'" Churchill, the Elder Brother of Trinity House, was said to have told the French ambassador who supposedly congratulated him on having such distinguished relations.

Piers Brendon's intention was to write a "vivid, balanced, complete but miniature portrait" set against the background of Churchill's career, because "the vast accumulation of knowledge about Churchill is in some ways an obstacle to understanding him. Comprehensiveness impedes comprehension [and] incidental vignettes can often reveal more than reams of pedantry - Churchill's telling Stalin that he was very fond of goldfish, for example, and the dictator hospitably suggesting that he should have some for breakfast."

I understand that some critics may get the impression that this biography is a light-weight when they read a tongue-in-cheek summary like "Winston's fate was determined by his toy soldiers." But that's a question of style, not substance. Don't be deceived. This is a fine portrait of Churchill - a bit brief on the historical background, I admit - but you will have a good time reading it.

And a tolerably worthwhile throwaway, considering Lukacs's knowledge of his subject. If you have decent familiarity with the issues, this book won't weigh you down and it adds nuance to the accepted portrait of Churchill. But this is certainly not an introduction to Churchill and the author's biases, particularly against Eisenhower, mar the presentation. This chafed at me in particular, and I hold no particular brief for Ike. But Lukacs is an historian, yet he swipes at Eisenhower throughout the second half of the book, almost never building an argument but rather using innuendo. He largely assumes that the reader shares his biases, more in the way of punditry than scholarship. I don't regret reading the book, but I am sure I could have made more productive use of the time and money on another Churchill work.

John Lukacs is a Catholic anglophile and a conservative Christian Democrat who fled from Hungary at the beginning of the cold war. At the same time he has never forgiven the Republican party right for its refusal to help Britain (and the rest of Europe) at her darkest hour. Winston Churchill has always been his hero. About fifteen years ago Lukacs wrote a book on the 80 day "duel" between Churchill and Hitler in the summer of 1940. A few years ago he wrote a more popular book that looked at ten of those days. This third book concentrates on Churchill, and it is the most disappointing yet.

Lukacs looks at Churchill "the visionary," and his relationships with Stalin, FDR, and Eisenhower. He then discusses appeasement, Churchill's skill as a historian, his failures, and then concludes with his memories of Churchill's funeral. Basically this book is a shallow collection of essays which add nothing to our knowledge of the man. There are not even many telling details or pungent anecdotes. There is nothing wrong in arguing, as Lukacs does, that Churchill was right not to make a deal with Hitler, and that he is not to blame for the fact that postwar Poland was a Communist dictatorship. But most historians have never doubted these matters, and Lukacs has nothing new to add. Lukacs has never really cared for archival research, nor has he really paid much attention to what other scholars say. At one point he states that the Soviet Union was not really interested in defending Czechoslovakia in 1938, nor was it really interested in negotiating an alliance with France and Britain the following years. Perhaps, but it is important to point out that in recent years Hugh Ragsdale and Michael J. Carley have produced well documented arguments to the contrary, and that Lukacs not only does not refute them, he appears to be unaware of their existence. Likewise, the chapter on Eisenhower and Churchill concentrates on Churchill's proposals in 1953 to try to make a deal with the post-Stalin leadership, which Eisenhower peremptorily brushed aside. Was an opportunity to end, or shorten, the cold war carelessly thrown away? Perhaps, but other scholars, such as John W. Young and Jaclyn Stanke, have discussed the issue in far greater detail than Lukacs. Many scholars dislike Stephen Ambrose for his terminus into plagiarism and middlebrow eminence. Notwithstanding that, his argument that Eisenhower and his small armies could not have snatched the honor of taking Berlin from Zhukov's larger forces still stands, and Lukacs does nothing to refute it.

Lukacs exaggerates Churchill's perceptiveness. Contra Lukacs, Churchill's fears of German revenge in 1924 were not boldly original, but a commonplace among the British. It did not take great insight after the 1930 German elections to realize, as Churchill did, that Hitler was an important politician. And Churchill was not alone in 1935 in fearing a possible war from Hitler. The chapter on Churchill's histories is indulgent and complacent, as Lukacs applauds Churchill for his style and memorable image. Unfortunately, this confuses history with journalism, and Lukacs is less informative on this than David Reynolds and J.H. Plumb. Lukacs mentions Churchill's faults, but his account of the Dardanelles fiasco, the catastrophic return to the Gold Standard and Churchill's opposition to Indian independence are brief and apologetic. Christopher Thorne is more accurate on Churchill's bigotry and the price of his imperialist illusions. David Cannadine is far more acute on his awful family who, with the exception of his wife and his daughter, Lady Soames, were incredibly selfish and irresponsible. Cannadine is also acute on Churchill's ignorance of modern day life, noting that Churchill took the underground only once, and he had to be rescued, because he didn't know how to get off.

"Churchill and Hitler were, at any rate, the two protagonists of the dramatic phase of the last war, even though Roosevelt and Stalin played the decisive role in its epic phase, at the end." As a distinction, this does not work very well. Was there nothing dramatic about the defense of Leningrad and the battle of Kursk? But for Lukacs it is important to view the conflict as one between Hitler and Churchill, even though he is well aware that Churchill could not have won without the USA and the USSR. For Churchill is an icon, a symbol of the liberal, aristocratic order. When Churchill saved Britain in 1940 he redeemed this order's honor. One can only contrast with the actual ruling class of interwar Hungary who led that country into a vicious, genocidal war. That contrast is more interesting than anything Lukacs has to say in this book.

For the record, I admire John Lukacs as a historian... However, this thin volume (essentially a collection of mini-essays) doesn't really do much to add to the already abundant amount of Churchill scholarship... Lukacs clearly worships Churchill and therefore the book comes across as a simple hagiography. Lukacs' strength is his ability to spin a narrative while not getting bogged down with excessive facts. However, sometimes he can seem to wander off on rather obscure emotional tangents...

This book is fine as an introduction to Churchill, but for someone who wants a more in-depth look at the great man, I suggest turning to the rather more weighty biographies by Martin Gilbert and Roy Jenkins, or indeed his own earlier, and infinitely more interesting title, "Five Days in London."

As histories of the U.S. goes, these selected excerpts from the mind-boggling works of the great, the heroic Winston Churchill, is rather skimming and selective (try Paul Johnson's masterpiece "A History of the American People".) What's good fun, however, is that it makes me remember afresh that history has always and will forever be interpretative!! I sometimes forget that fact as American media and academics so often shove "flavor of the month" history, in all its changist glory, down our throats. This early account of American history and current events as written in the early 1900s can be splendidly candid and even startling in its un-PCness. Discover how much and yet how little the American psyche has changed over the decades and exactly what people thought of America and Americans way back then.

A nice overview of American history written with wit and obvious pleasure in the subject. As a collection of essays it is not comprehensive and many details are left out, but the Civil War is dealt with in some depth. I especially enjoyed the 20th century essays from his visits to America and speeches to our Congress. If you're serious about studying American history this book should be supplemented with others (try "A History Of The American People" by Paul Johnson, also British, also very readable, but much more detailed), but this book is certainly a pleasant place to start.

The Great Republic is essentially Churchill's historical overview of America contained within his History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Normally acknowledged as one of the great political statesman of his, perhaps any, age, Churchill was also quite the historian. His complete works span over 50 volumes of material. These excerpts of his larger work provide us with a unique perspective on American history from an alternative vantage point, although not entirely foreign. Churchill was, in fact, intimately connected with Amercia. As the introduction provided by his grandson (appropriately named) Winston S. Churchill reveals, three of Churchill's ancestors were actually passengers on the Mayflower. He had even more recent connections through his mother who was an American. Churchill was a great admirer of what he affectionately called 'the Great Republic' (thus, the title), and so his endearment of our country is also the result of embracing his own heritage.

Only half of this edition is taken from Churchill's original history. Obviously, the work has a Euro-centrist perspective of America and its events. But this is part of its unique charm, added with the fact of the man who had written it is highly regarded world-wide. The span of history covered begins with the Europlean effort to find alternative routes to the East Indies, resulting in America's discovery. It ends at the beginning of the twentieth century having little to say of these times. Because American history was not the focus of the original work, much history must be expected by the reader to be left out. The themes discussed are almost entirely political, as one would expect. The central focus of our history it turns out is our Civil War. It seems that it is not only historians in America who have such a fascination with this epic. More emphasis is given this historic confrontation than that of our Revolutionary War (after all, what Englishman would glory in that story). Nevertheless, the greatness of Churchill as an historian is fully evident here.

The latter half is a collection of Churchill's writings and speeches regarding America covering a span of over 50 years. Here we find how America was viewed by the prominent politian. He is certainly credible enough to have formed an opinion of our American customs and habits considering his background and his numerous trips to the New World. The topics vary covering our eating habits and social customs to our landscapes to our common language and heritage to opinoins on Prohibition and War. These, or course, act as a history of America in the first half of this last century. On the whole, The Great Republic is an exceptional and brief read in American history.

The American Civil War should have been named Robert E. Lee's Civil War. 85% of the books attention is paid to Lee's character, Lee's battles, Lee's brilliance, Lee's nobility, Lee's wisdom. At the end of the War Churchill rightly criticizes Lee for his faulty generalship in sending thousands to die in frontal assaults when the war was clearly lost, but his fixation on Lee still borders on worship. There were other things going on in the War, like the War in the West, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta campaign, March to the Sea, etc., but Churchill concludes these events did not require any full discussion. Either Winston had a deadline to meet and was out of time or he displays a surprising lack of knowledge by leaving out at least half of the Civil War. But of course if you are a Lee fan, then you'll love this one.

Churchill's view of our War Between the States is in keepingwith the most prominent mythologized history of that conflict, onefeature of which is a perception of "near-divinity" inGen. Robert E. Lee. That perception was begun during the war andboosted to completion shortly afterwards by Gen. Jubal Early and hispowerful influence over the Southern Historical Society Papers (amajor source for most Civil War history). An excellent ifcontroversial review of these issues is found in "The Myth of theLost Cause" ed. by Gallagher and Nolan.

One can readilyunderstand the appeal of such a myth to Winston Churchill as he triedto come to terms with his own witnessing of the Fall of the BritishEmpire having just been totally dependent on American aid to survivethe war with Germany.

Joseph Campbell understood "myth"to be a psychosocial system (expressed through the arts) that allows aculture to get into accord with an awful fact that cannot be dealtwith as raw, factual history. It would seem that witnessing one'ssociety crumbling into oblivion calls for such a myth.

Churchill'swork is fascinating. His use of the English language is mostsuperb. This work will provide the reader (or listener) with somepowerful insights into the American Civl War, World War II, and theuse of myth to connect us with the awful human experience of havingthe very structure of one's World vanish forever.

I don't like for a biography to lie, but I think it should portray the subject in a favorable or atleast interesting light. This biography is frustrating because it makes Churchill, who I thought was a very inspiring figure, into a rich spoiled man who stumbles into situations which brought him fame. If he was really as uninspired and unfocused as this biography portrays him then he has a false public reputation.

This is a brief, accurate, excellent summary of the life of Churchill. It's about 100 pages long; you can read it in an evening and still have time to catch the late news. The first duty of a biographer, said Lytton Strachey, is a "becoming brevity" (he was reacting to the huge, ponderous biographies of the Victorian era), and this work fills the bill. I had always wanted to learn more about Churchill, the greatest figure of the 20th century, but I put it off because I didn't have the time or desire to wade through a massive tome. Now, finally, I know how how he arrived at the Prime Ministership at exactly the right time. I know about his incredibly broad training for the leadership position. I know some new things about the Second World War. And so on. This book is part of the "Pocket Biographies" series published by Sutton located in England. I'm sold on the concept; I'm going to buy more in the collection - Lincoln is next and then Beethoven - i.e., people I want to know more about but not necessarily every single time they had toast for breakfast. One of the offbeat things I like about this volume is the quality of paper used for the cover - it's that creamy thick stuff that a lot of smart publishers are using these days.

This novel is by the American Winston Churchill, once a fairly well-known author, not by the now more famous British Winston S. Churchill. Winston S. Churchill's only novel was SAVROLA.

This is another novel by the American Winston Churchill, whose fame was such in the early century that Winston SPENCER Churchill took to using his middle name to distinguish himself. Belongs with "Coniston" and other novels by Winston Churchill the American. R. Langworth Editor, FINEST HOUR Churchill Center

Autobiography by Sir Winston's grandson, Winston S. Churchill. R. Langworth Editor FINEST HOUR Churchill Center www.winstonchurchill.org

Another novel by the American novelist Winston Churchill, distantly related, whose fame was such at the turn of the century that Winston SPENCER Churchill promised to use his middle name to distinguish himself. Belongs with CONISTON, THE CRISIS, A FAR COUNTRY, etc. -R. Langworth, Editor, FINEST HOUR, The Churchill Center, www.winstonchurchill.org

...mr. Jazzman wrote...this rewiew about the book:

Skewed Anglo-historiographics makes a complete and concentric circle when we consider the issue of the Churchill/Mussolini correspondence that went on before and most likely during the war years. Isn't it intriguing that while the UK was throwing its flatulent diatribes against Mussolini with the Abyssinian conflict, all the while Churchill and his new-found enemy were in all likelihood carrying on a few smatterings of prose with one another? Oh yes, I almost forgot WWII was a fight for Democracy vs. Dictatorship. What a farce!!

For those of us assigned to the self-absorption of American politics and history, it should be pointed out that in Italy and Great Britain (who won't admit to this) there is an intricate and brilliantly written book that delves into the matter of this correspondence. The title of this newly published book is "Mussolini-Churchill - Carteggio Segreto" (Secret Correspondence). Written by Fabio Andriola, a researcher and journalist, he has exhausted all data, records and interviews regarding this issue. Naturally, Andriola would have had to have waited until Hell froze over before eliciting any information from the British. The controversy would implicate Churchill in this gloomy, inglorious affair. Andriola's new book supports the contention of the most important Italian historiographer of Fascism and Mussolini, Renzo de Felice.
The following are some interesting facets to this story:

1) According to C.A. Biggini, Minister of People's Education in the Italian Social (Fascist) Republic, Mussolini carried with him papers which proved the British (and Churchill's) responsibility for Italy's entry into the war. The UK persuaded Italy to mount a "phoney war" against the Allies in expectation of a general peace. Hitler would have appreciated Italy's "merits" and Mussolini would have been regaled at a "Munich Summit Two"---helping the UK and France's position.

2) Fact: Mussolini had a file and attempted to save the documents that he expressed would explain Italy's "mistakes" and his own "good reasons." C.A. Biggini was adamant about this file and vigorously stated this correspondence displayed proof of British guilt and complicity in Italy's war declaration.

3) Fact: The British showed, before and after May of 1945, a most curious interest in those papers and expended much effort in attempting to find them.

4) Fact: When Churchill lost the elections of July 1945, he did not give back the papers and files he had kept covering the years of 1940-1945.

5) Fact: Fascists, Germans, Japanese, partisans and even two British individuals explicitly mentioned these papers.

6) Supposition: Renzo de Felice's last book entitled "Red and Black" (1995) maintained the British feared a "Mussolini International trial" and wanted him dead at all costs. Because of the correspondence, Mussolini was aware of some rather volatile information regarding the UK and Churchill.