Kilzer, a prize winning journalist, has produced yet another revisionist 'history' examining Winston Churchill's pivotal role in the Second World War. His prose can be engaging, his suggestions controversial, his conclusions thought provoking, and his documentation dubious. He jumps back and forth among a variety of persons and topics at a frenetic pace and with a bevy of 'revelations.' His premise is overstated, if not flawed, by the need to rehabilitate Hitler's reputation which he believes "distorted" while Churchill has become "a god." (p. 78) Thus, he endeavors to convince his readers that Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess and Hitler were both profound Anglophiles who wanted to share power with the British Empire while eventually destroying the hated communistic Soviet Union. Unfortunately, so the story goes, Churchill's immense ego, militarism, and Germanophobia compelled him to play a dangerous political game which co-opted the British 'peace party,' lured Hess to entrapment in Britain, induced Hitler to a Russian Gotterdammerung, and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to decisive military intervention; all of which engendered mass genocide in Europe and the ultimate demise of the British Empire! It should immediately be apparent that this cause and effect Tour de Force ascribes far more power and pre-meditation to Churchill than is hardly possible for the embattled head of a tottering empire. Also, Kilzer's over-reliance on numerous works by vehement anti-Churchill 'historians' such as David Irving or the diaries of noted Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels and Walter Schnellenberg is certainly not credible. His numerous errors regarding military history and strategy do not inspire confidence, especially references such as the British assault at Verdun in 1916 (p. 139) when he obviously meant the Somme; his assignation of the sole blame for the Dardanelles Disaster in 1915 to Churchill, a very old red herring; or his continual remarks that the Royal Navy, still the world's foremost naval power, was powerless to resist a German invasion in 1940. Of special amusement is the great strategic weight he assigns to the Iraqi Revolt of 1941 which was, in actuality, little more than a sideshow. CHURCHILL'S DECEPTION is not the worst example of the revisionist excesses regarding the Second World War, Churchill's reputation, or the Holocaust which now abound in print, film, and the Internet. He is also not as vitriolic as Irving and some othes and he does raise important questions regarding reality and perception, then and now, although resolution remains as elusive as ever and subject to fantastic speculation which shows little sign of abating.

The promise of this book, stated on the back cover, is to uncover a "deception [by Churchill] that propelled ... Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union."

That promise is never delivered on. The writing style is merely passable. After a few false starts, the book goes into a very long digression into German and Nazi history which has nothing to do with the book topic.

The author constantly belittles Churchill as the self-indulgent imperialistic "old bulldog," "that damned warmonger at 10 Downing Street." Yet while the author once calls Hitler a "demon," Hitler is virtually praised as the misunderstood hope of a unified Germany, a man who by May 1941 had reached as far geographically as he wanted -- a man who only bombed London in an attempt to reach peace with England, and who was willing to give up France if England would only agree to peace. The holocaust? Why, blame that on Churchill -- the holocaust was started when Germany was tricked into invading Russia.

Why did Hitler invade Russia? The author can't make up his mind. Sometimes the reason for the Russian invasion is to convince England that Hitler's desire for peace with England is sincere, and other times Hitler was tricked into invading Russian because there was ALREADY a de facto peace treaty between Germany and England reached in May 1941. Somehow thrown into the mix is that by reaching peace with Germany and encouraging Hitler's invasion of Russia, this would force the U.S. to come into the war.

Whether Hess' flight into Scotland to meet the supposed leader of the British "Peace Party" came out of Hess' deluded mind, or was a secret mission from Hitler, that surely doesn't translate into either a "secret peace" or an intention on Churchill's part to cause Hitler to invade Russia.

Klizer lost his credibility on page 30 when he quotes Hess saying he turned his plane inverted so he could drop out and parachute down, and while he was dropping out he righted the plane and re-started the engine (so it would "hurtle to earth"). This is physically impossible, and otherwise non-sensical. The uneveness is between the early pages, which have a jerky and coy quality reminiscent of a lot of low end writing, and a marked change in tone to the sweeping style of a professional historian. It seems that two persons are writing the book. Maybe it's the lack of consistency, but I get the feeling that the historian is paraphrasing somebody else. The footnotes are mainly to secondary sources, like newspaper articles. It seems the research was simply compiling statements by others without any independent original work

Having had the opportunity to serve in a number of U.S. Army and Air Force Special Operations Forces(SOF) units during my dual-service career--and therefore having some sensitivity to security concerns in this field--I approach with skepticism anyone making such flashy "I had a license to kill" claims. Beyond the outright wannabes, there is another group that has learned enough of the SOF lingo and lore to give their tales a seeming touch of reality when delivered to those who have never served in the clannish & closed Special Operations community. And as an author myself of three non-fiction SOF books, I find it unsettling when an author claims "writer's license" (Foreword, p. vii) with such apparent ease in writing what he himself admits is a composite picture of his adventures. Who can know what anecdotes actually happened? For all I know Peter Mason is everything he claims and more. But unfortunately what comes across in this book is someone needing to make some money after his military pension was "impounded" as the author reports.

While I don't doubt the author's credentials as a special forces operator and small arms expert, it seems to me that he has taken too many fictional liberties in an attempt to make the book more readable. In the book he tells one (not quite believeable) story of how he killed the nazi war criminal Ortgies, while on the tv documentary about his exploits a completely different version is told. This could have been a major exposé in the tradition of "Spycatcher" and "By Way of Deception", but unfortunately the book is written like a cheap spy novel. However, if the author had found a good ghost writer, I'm sure the book would have been an international bestseller like the two above mentioned books.

I found this book - a few interesting bits heavily padded with material intended to provide color but which failed to engage my interest - to be the literary equivalent of a hamburger sandwich that is long of bun and short of beef.

it is very serious boo

Not only is this the most boring book on the market but it is absolutely ridiculous. Historical facts are completely incorrect,(...)Worst of all, the grammar and vocabulary used in the book are just plain aweful. I have no idea how this book ever got published. Please go get your eyebrows waxed before reading this sad, painful garbage.

I have to agree with the other two reviewers. This is one of the silliest books that I have ever read. The grammar and syntax in this book are lamentable and it is extremely boring. This truly is some of the worst writing I've ever read. My advice is to run from any book that this man has the audacity to publish. Hardly a scholar and nowhere near being a writer, this author should truly give up!!

For as long as I can remember, I have had an interest in the biographies of great statesmen. I wanted to read about the lives of the men that have changed the world and understand what made them unique, what gave them the ability to be such influential historical figures. But reading about the bare-bones facts of a person's life does not reveal their inner motives; it does not tell the reader what forces drove these men to lead such influential lives. It was not until I read Rintala's book about the friendship between Churchill and Lloyd George that I discovered the missing link: combining psychology with biography. Not only does this book give the reader a fascinating perspective into the relationship between these two men, it tells the reader what forces shaped their personalities. I would recommend this book to anyone who is seriously interested in understanding the lives of two of the most powerful people of the 20th century. If you think you know the lives of Lloyd George or Winston Churchill by reading other biographies, your understanding of these two men will not be complete until you have read this book.

This book is not written by Winston S. Churchill. An earlier reviewer has already made this comment. Amazon still shows the author incorrectly in the search listings. I just hope someone at Amazon will take the S. out of the name.

CONISTON is by the American novelist Winston Churchill, not by (Sir) Winston S. Churchill, who wrote only one book-length novel, SAVROLA. -Richard Langworth, Prop. Churchillbooks http://Churchillbooks.home.ml.org

I'm an avid reader of history, especially during the era in question. Unfortunately, this book did nothing to illuminate the deals made behind the scenes between the "Big 3" which had such a profound impact on the second half of the 20th century. For some reason, the author took the highly unusual stance that the subject should not be evaluated with future impact in mind. From this perspective, Mr. Chaimberland would be seen as a peacemaker and not a fool! The only reason I can come up with for this stance is that it was the only way the author could paint Stalin in a positive light (Stalin's pause to allow the SS to decimate the Warsaw Uprising receives an unconscionable defense from the author), as well as justify Roosevelt's naive assertion that he "could handle Stalin". The book is extremely light on source references, and focuses mostly on the (rather uninteresting) opinions of the author. This is a tremendous shame, since the subject matter itself is so promising!