The character of the Paladin is just a soldier doing his job. The monster in this book is Owl, who justifies any number of crimes he forces the young hero to commit "for England." Of course assassinating enemy personnel is no shock during war, but the early sequences where Paladin is ordered to murder a bunch of English and Dutch citizens (including a young woman) who have totally unwittingly stumbled onto an important war secret are repugnant and insane in their rationalization. Apparently Owl had never heard of the word "internment" until Churchill himself points out how such things should be handled. Also, please enjoy the part where English commandos in training are ordered to practice their killings techniques on German POWs. Poor Owl missed his calling -- he would have been right at home in the Gestapo.

The Paladin is supposedly a novel based on facts, as told to the author by "Christopher Creighton." Creighton, the paladin, was recruited as a teenage boy by Winston Churchill during WWII and sent around the world on missions of state -- usually violent missions. The premise of this novel seemed very appealing to me, as I am a big fan of WWII novels. However, overall, I was disappointed in this novel. To me, the book reads more like a CHRONICLE of Creighton's individual, exciting missions rather than a good NOVEL. I found the book just adequate (at best) in terms of plot development, character development (particularly regarding the secondary characters), and believable dialogue. There's no question that the missions Creighton supposedly carried out for his country were extremely heroic. If these supposedly previously untold missions were written as a non-fiction historical biography about Creighton, I would have had different expectations going in and might have enjoyed the book more. In a good novel, however, as mentioned, I'm looking for more than just an interesting chronicle of facts.

I think this book is the best one I've ever read, although it may not be true and the hero's name is not Cristopher Creighton I still enjoy the book all the same. I also am amazed on how well it tied in with acual history.

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?

This sounds like THE CRISIS by the American novelist Winston Churchill; surely not THE WORLD CRISIS by Winston Spencer Churchill. R. Langworth Editor FINEST HOUR Churchill Center www.winstonchurghill.org

Hundred year-old books often make for difficult reading, and this is no exception, but the story at the heart of it is one that you probably haven't heard before - especially if you went to elementary school in the North. On the surface it's a sentimental Civil War romance novel: Northern boy with an abolitionist mentor meets Southern girl from old, aristocratic, slaveholding Virginia family in antebellum St. Louis Missouri. Get beyond it.
Get deeper into it though and we meet Ulysses Grant, not as a General but as a failed businessman. We meet Sherman before he got his stripes. We meet Abraham Lincoln during the period of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and the author takes the time and respects his readers' intelligence enough to get into the philosophical and rhetorical merits of Lincoln's debating techniques and the Republican Party's platform. The title of the books is drawn from a question put by Lincoln to Douglas at their Fairfield, Illinois debate. In developing his thesis on the Civil War, the author goes into great detail to explain how a desire for Liberty drove a wave of German immigrants to American shores in the mid-1800s where, as war approached, they displayed pro-Union sympathies. The author's thesis itself is that the American Civil War was not an indigenous event but was rather an chapter in an ongoing struggle between factions of the Anglo-Saxon race, a struggle between Cavaliers and Puritans going back to the days of King Charles I.
All-in-all, a book that opens the eyes to different ways of thinkin'. Readers looking for expressions of true equality of the freedmen or non Anglo-Saxon Europeans will not find these.

This account of the Civil War was written by the American author Winston Churchill, whose poularity at the turn of the century was apparently enough that a young englishman though it necessary to add his middle initial "S" to his name. This book is set in St Louis, covering the period from 1852 to 1865. By today's standards in politically INcorrect as all get-out. But is still an interesting look at the Civil War and a look at turn-of-the-century America's view of the conflict and its protagonists.

This is a great book for people who care about our future in this world. For millions of Americans and people all over this world Britain is our forgotten motherland. It is a nation that should be very proud of its history and culture. The modern trends of relativism and multiculturalism are killing Britain and doing what Hitler, Napoleon, and the Kaiser could never have dreamed of doing. Mr. Hitchens illistrates how every traditional aspect of Britain is under attack: The Church, the schools, and the very virtue of the young British who feel marriage is not nessary to begin a family. The Left is making Britain very un-British. It is a very sad book and it is a call to people to not stand idle while their own country is given away and handed to chaos. Americans should read this book because it is all happening here and we should not sit by and let it happen anymore. It was very informative and shocking. I would read anything Mr. Hitchens has written after reading "The Abolition of Britain". It is a brillant assault on apathy.

Peter Hitchens' passionate polemic looks at certain aspects of Britain's culture, particularly our education system, the Church of England, morality, the family, censorship and television. He has strong opinions, as when, possibly surprising some people, he attacks Thatcherism: 'In search of a guiding ideology, the Tories could come up with nothing better than the brute force of the market, whose inhuman logic of course ignores patriotism, morality, tradition and beauty.'

He also makes some strong arguments against US-style ideologues of 'political correctness' who denigrate Britain's history, our literature and our traditional standards of courtesy and restraint. He argues for Britain's unity and against relativist multiculturalism.

He links all these matters to the overriding question of whether Britain should join the euro: 'In the tremendous debate which must now begin on this, the most important decision the British people will take in this generation and many others, all the other reforms and upheavals in our daily life are involved. If we are what we used to be, then this is a last unrepeatable moment at which we can halt our extinction as a culture and a nation.'

Hitchens concludes, 'The history of the world so far suggests that the nation-state is the largest unit in which it is possible to be unselfish to any effect. Within that state, of course, family disagreements can freely continue. But if we give up our nationhood, as the government now wants us to do, we will all of us, socialist or conservative, lose the right to influence the fate of our country. It will not matter if we want lower taxes or higher ones, more hospitals or more warships, smaller school classes or a new selective state education system. Under the plans for Economic and Monetary Union, we will pass these decisions to a supranational power where we will always be a minority voice, and where our specific British traditions are despised or unknown.'

I think, with the lack of reviews from actual British people resident in Britain under customer comments upon this book, it behoves me to put across the viewpoint that other reviewers seem to have been asking for.

The cover of Peter Hitchens' book shows the Union Jack, the flag of Great Britain, flown at half-mast. The image comes from the days after Princess Diana died and part of a nation mourned. Notably, however, another part of it clearly did not. Hitchens takes this fact and runs with it, and he is not wrong to do so. He points out that, as part of Britain poured out its emotion in a tremendous fashion, another part looked on aghast at the nakedness of sentiment being displayed. I am a mere 20 years of age, but as a passionate Brit I do not find it hard to sympathise with the point he is making here.

Most of the time we in Britain look around and things seem okay. Occasionally we wonder whether things aren't just a little bit wrong. In the aftermath of Princess Diana's death, some of us felt like strangers in our own land. The author is right to state that people are asking now and may continue to ask in ever greater numbers: exactly what happened to the country they thought they grew up in? The point is as true for all the other English-speaking nations in the world as it is for Britain.

Certainly, as some reviewers have pointed out, it would have to be conceded that Hitchens on occasion puts on rose-tinted spectacles when examining a British past often characterised by impoverishment and occasionally meaningless sacrifice. But he is no fool, and if he sometimes lapses into sentiment then we ought to forgive him if only for the many other highly relevant and prescient points he makes in this work. Further to that, he may look at Britain and see only England, but to all Americans who might not be aware of this fact (including, apparently, some reviewers here), England is absolutely the dominant constituent part of the United Kingdom and in fact houses 85% of the inhabitants - this much has not changed drastically for a century, so if England is all he sees, he isn't missing too much.

Foremost in Hitchens' firing line is what essentially boils down to the new liberal orthodoxy. To any Americans who have read or might read this book, unless you are a passionate Democrat you might well recognise the point Hitchens is making here. In all its forms, be it in its control of state-run schools, its management of state healthcare, its changes to the justice system, and many others, the politicians who have sought to change things for the better have actually changed things for the worse. In Britain, state education has noticeably collapsed in the quality of its output since the left-wing destruction of selective schools in favour of comprehensives. The National Health Service in Britain has been a monument to folly almost since it started but has become so much the religion of Britain that not even right-wingers would think of challenging its inherent absurdity - that being the misguided that health is a right, and thus free healthcare ought to be a tax-supported provision. In the liberalisation of the justice system following the calamitous abolition of the death penalty, people with good intentions have plainly shown they are willing to sacrifice ever-increasing numbers of innocent lives to criminal whims for their high moral stances. Admirable though this idealism may be, it has caused inestimable downturns in levels of popular intelligence, hopeless health provision and ever-rising levels of crime.

Particularly relevant also is Hitchens' attack upon the denigration of a proud history. Liberals of the modern age have been quick to change the teaching of history in state-run schools, to propagate notions that what the British did in the past was wrong, or that cultural and social history such as how the peasants lived is more important. That is palpably not history, and an essential problem with all well-meaning liberals in Britain today, with their pro-Europe sentiments and socialist inclinations, is they have no sense of history. History is a cycle, and it repeats itself. Attempts to deny a culture, past or present, and to deny the greatness of what it achieved in favour of a lame modern day apologeticism is a recipe for disaster.

The above are simply a few of the arenas upon which Hitchens has decided to wax literal, but throughout on many separate topics his arguments are both coherent and potent. This is a remarkable book from a remarkable mind, and its points about the inherent dangers of the modern orthodoxy and its brutal refusal to accept points of view contrary to its own are exceedingly pertinent to Great Britain and the British people. Britain is a country whose culture has been effectively torn asunder, but not under the arm of foreign invaders or occupiers but paradoxically and almost incomprehensibly by its own natives. The same is true in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a terrible shame, and it is good that we have people such as Peter Hitchens to give voice to an opposition that has been too silent until now.

This is a very good book, with a strong enough story line through Churchill's life that I found it hard to put down. It captures much of what readers are looking to know about Churchill.

It is strongest for the insights into WSC's political life (which is quite a strength as that was WSC's core). Jenkins' own political background is no doubt a huge asset. The writing is generally strong, though sometimes idiosyncratic and overgrown. I appreciated the strongly British view and tone, as it provided a feeling of voice for the author and seems necessary for Jenkins' to convey his political analysis.

It is weakest in its ability to convey a complete sense of the heart and soul of the man, something a biography must do to some degree to be wholly successful. For example, WSC's relations with politicians are skillfully described, but his family and personal relationships are sketchy. Also, the book sometimes assumes a detailed understanding of the background historical events, so it may help to have another reference source to fill in the gaps if you aren't up to speed on, say, the points at issue in the Suez crisis. A couple dozen sentences would have gone a long way to fixing this. It also gets bogged down at times in the discussions of WSC's books, and in parliamentary details.

So I'd underscore the Booklist and Publisher's Weekly descriptions (see them here in Editorial Reviews), as well as the comments of some reviewers here. The New York Times review gushes and glosses over some of the limitations of the book; it's not much of a guide.

This book is a valuable supplement to readers who wish to broaden their knowledge of Churchill. If you were to read only one biography however you should make it Martin Gilbert's, Churchill: A Life. Jenkins' book gives more detailed information about the events that were happening around Churchill while Gilbert's tells history strictly as it involved Churchill. Oddly Jenkins' book gives more detail about his personal life. Neither however seems at all complete in that respect. In order to get that you might have to read Gilbert's full eight volume treatment which is available through used book dealers (try ABE.com to find a dealer - no, I am not affiliated).

Jenkins' book offers valuable insight into the causes of the resentment and animosity which Churchill aroused in others. These were basically that Churchill was not a good listener and was too successful at polemics.

Probably the most controversial part of Churchill's life was his role in the Dardanelles campaign during W.W.I. For those who want fuller information on those events I strongly recommend they supplement their reading with David Fromkin's, A Peace to End All Peace.

Where Jenkins' book most fails the reader is that it gives little hint to how Churchill became a lasting inspirational figure. Gilbert puts Churchill in a much wider perspective and helps you appreciate what was unique about his role in world events. Churchill combined not only great courage and intellect, which Jenkins acknowledges, but also compassion and foresight to a degree that he was not only a great Englishman, but also a great human being and citizen of the world. His memory inspires people of all nations who dream of a better, more peaceful future for mankind.

This is a wonderful biography. Jenkins has an easygoing story style that is fun to read. He also opens the door and shows the internal workings of Churchill's greatness.

So many "great man" biographies concentrate on great events and great decisions, to the exclusion of understanding the unique contributions of the man. This book examines the political and literary education which Churchill brought to the table in World War II, the great and small dramas which marked his long accomplished life.

Writing a master work on Marlborough was a form of self-education, as was Churchill's history of the English Speaking Peoples. Both elevated his expectations for the British people in war, and he lead them to fulfill his elevated expectations. The historian as leader....

Endless parliamentary debates, including some very real humiliations, gave Churchill a tempered sense of what he could accomplish -- this idealist was probably only ready to lead at age 65, because this education broke against the prow of his stubborn sense of right and wrong.

Jenkins captures these formative influences with nuance and drama. This book is an excellent one-volume biography, and provides a daunting argument that life's challenges educate a great leader in a rough and tumble; that self-education also plays a role; that meeting great challenges is the work of a lifetime; that losing and defeat play their role...

By the way, this book is not bloated, as one review says, unless you prefer the comic book approach.

This reviewer has read many books about Franklin Roosevelt, but not many recently because they are too repetitious. What did I find out here that I didn't read before?- Roosevelt's last evening on earth seemed to be somewhat pleasant. Although he looked tired, after a drink he spoke with animation about his forthcoming trip to the San Francisco United Nations Conference. The following afternoon, April 12th, his next to last words were "I have a terrific pain in the back of my head." His last words as he was carried to his room were "Be careful." A statement on page 51 about the religions could be interpreted as biased or prejudiced. However, he appointed men of all major religions to high office. So in this case actions spoke louder than words.

The title of the new book from Michael Beschloss is completely accurate, once you understand the meaning of THE CONQUERORS: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler's Germany, 1941-1945. The key word in that title is not "conquerors"; very little attention is given to Bradley, Patton and the military efforts to defeat the Axis Powers. The focus of the book is not on the disposition of forces, the overall grand strategies, or the use of air power. Beschloss concentrates not on the destruction of German military might but on the destruction of the idea of Hitler's Germany. The conflict in THE CONQUERORS is intellectual rather than physical. It is not about the battle for Germany but the battle for the hearts and minds of postwar Germans. The challenge, as the Allied leaders saw it, was how to prevent another war and how to ensure that Germany could not and would not trouble the peace of the world again.

THE CONQUERORS is primarily the story of the Morgenthau Plan, an ill-starred attempt by Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, to impact American policy in postwar Germany. The plan involved the wholesale destruction of German manufacturing capacity and the immediate execution of Nazi leaders; opponents described it as "Carthaginian." Beschloss describes how Morgenthau, Roosevelt's closest Jewish friend, was influenced by early reports of the Holocaust and frustrated by his failure to convince FDR to take action to stop the grisly machinery of the concentration camps. Morgenthau is the primary character in the book; his private letters and papers are the main source of material for Beschloss. As a result, the focus of THE CONQUERORS is Morgenthau's experience, which primarily consists of bureaucratic infighting among the Treasury, State and War Departments, as well as the new Truman Administration.

The result is a masterful work, yet it is a little dry for the casual reader. Moreover, Beschloss provides little in the way of second-guessing, preferring instead to let the story of the Morgenthau Plan explain itself. This allows the reader to see the problems of postwar Germany the way that Roosevelt and Truman saw them --- complete with asides about Roosevelt's boyhood vacations in Bavaria and Truman's reflexive anti-Semitism. However, aside from a brief introduction and conclusion, Beschloss provides little analysis of the mistakes, if any, that were made by Roosevelt, Truman and Morgenthau. Furthermore, Beschloss provides little or no detail about the crucial issue of how and why the Morgenthau Plan was dropped in favor of the more lenient (and ultimately more successful) Marshall Plan.

THE CONQUERORS is a valuable book, if a little frustrating in spots. It sheds light on a period only dimly understood by most and it does a good service by putting Henry Morgenthau in the spotlight of history once more. While it may not be as meaty as a good rehash of the war in the European theater, it is still important and vital.

--- Reviewed by Curtis Edmonds

Michael Beschloss, in his new book The Conquerors, tells the tale of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and their roles in the defeat of Hitler's Germany during World War II.

The book focuses on the period 1941-1945, and Beschloss' writing style makes for easily understood reading. Although the book seems to spend a tremendous amount of time discussing Henry Morgenthau (Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury), this is easily understood as the plot unfolds.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book and would recommend it to everyone interested in the political history of the World War II era. I feel that the only drawback to the book is that there is an entire chapter devoted to post wartime activities in Germany. In my opinion, this chapter is unnecessary, since neither Roosevelt nor Truman was strongly involved in the daily operations in Germany after the war ended.

Rose does a good job of providing a one volume biography of Churchill. However, it was obvious to me that he was neither as familiar with Churchill as Martin Gilbert nor as talented a writer as Manchester. His strength is in his objectivity which yields a fair view of the giant.

I am a great fan of Churchill and am always expanding my collection of books about and by the great man. I purchased this book shortly after its publication. I was impressed by Rose's crisp narrative and ability to describe the salient points of Churchill's life. He is able to do this in one volume - not easy to do when the offical biography runs 8 volumes! The only negative about this work is the length to which Rose goes to remain as impartial as possible. I say this is a negative because oftentimes there is much enjoyment to be gotten by reading a book about Churchill where the author's bias is clear. (Since most Churchill biographies are written by obvious admirers - like the yet incomplete William Manchester series; or evident detractors like Charmley.) This work is, sometimes painfully, without bias. This attribute makes "Churchill: The Unruly Giant" a fine introductory work for any reader wanting to learn more about Churchill; and form their own opinion on the greatest man of the 20th Century.

This book concludes Churchill's four-volume history of England and to a lesser extent, the U.S. (and to a much lesser extent, Canada, South Africa and Australia).

Although generally good, at times Churchill's pro-English biases shine through. In a way, the whole set seems to be the story of a country growing up and the end is kind of a happy arrival in adulthood. It is interesting to read an "outsider's" view of American history, however.

I had been meaning to read this book for a number of years. It has sat in my book shelf collecting dust. The pity is that I did not read it sooner.

Churchill provides a lively and readable account of the great democracies of the 19 th Century. He starts with the years following the Napoleonic Wars and concludes with the Boer War. In between, he covers the American Civil War in some detail as well as progress in the other English speaking nations of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. He also touches on other issues in Europe, particularly the rise of Germany under Bismarck.

I can thoroughly recommend this book to the reader of general history. It has whetted my appetite to go back and read the earlier volumes. If they should be half as good as this one, it will be a pleasant journey.

Steven Hayward places Churchill's experience and approach to executive problem solving into historical context. This is a must read book for students of leadership & management as well as fans of Sir Winston. A relatively short book about such a significant topic, but well worth the time

I read this book without having known anything about Chruchill, as a lesson on leadership under stress. I learned a lot, but I also became very interested in the man. He is fasinating and very brave. I'm very gald I read this book.

The main idea is to study how Churchill made his leadership decicions, and what the reason for that decision was. It's an informative study of the man, and even funny at times. It's always entertaining, but somewhat short of a great story (so 4 stars).

By all means read this book. It's a great way to begin to learn about Churchill, aside from the 3 or 6 volume works available at the bookstore. It's also a good study on decision making based on principles and honest living, strength, and forward thinking. There are good lessons here as well a good reading. I recommend it highly.

I have been a manager for over 10 years, and have worked in different industries and different countries. And I gladly admit I still have a lot to learn concerning management. This book talks about concepts we know we should all be applying, such as learning from mistakes, responsibility and organization, attention to details as well as to a master plan, communication, etc. However understanding how Churchill put these concepts to work is fascinating. I did not know that much about Churchill in the first place, perhaps that is why I enjoyed the book so much. It is a nice change from CEOs' biographies. And yes, I am putting some of what I read to work, so it was worth my time and money !

As I read the author's account of Superman Churchill, passing lightly over Churchillean stumbles such as putting Britain on the gold standard, Gallipoli, holding badly needed troops in northern Norway, etc., I realized I was reading hagiography and not history. The abhorrence of unpleasant stuff extends to Hitler. It's hard to believe that anyone could write a book about the dictator and never even mention the Holocaust, but Strawson did, without explanation or apology. I'm surprised he didn't omit World War II.

I am a Churchill admirer and was anxiously to read Strawson's book. I was a bit disappointed once I finished it. I had hoped for a detailed description - by a military man - of the war and Churchill's and Hitler's role leading their nations. Strawson spends almost half of the book "setting up" the war. This may be a good tack for those who might not know much about the background of the two protaganists. But, if you do know anything about Churchill's and Hitler's youth and rise this is needless filler. Also, Strawson seems to draw quite extensively from Isiah Berlin's "Churchill in 1940" and Allan Bullock's "Hitler" as sources. Having read both I am a little disconcerted that Berlin's work (a short but brilliant monograph) figures so prominently. And although Bullock's work is also well done, there are other superb Hitler biographies - like Joachim Fest's. I am additionally disappointed that Strawson's editors did not put full citations in the work - as foot or endnotes. Overall, this book didn't give me all I wanted. But, it is an admirable effort by an aging general who wants to leave his mark on modern military history.

this book does a fairly good job in paralleling the lives of hitler and churchill.the authors objectivity,however is clouded by his unbridled admiration for churchill.i was a bit disappointed in this because in order to get the full flavor of a person a balance of negatives and positives must be met.yet i admire the authors military acuman.he tells a good one of the north african campaign how the british rolled up the italian army,capturing no less than 10 divisions only to be repelled by rommels panzer forces.one of the best parts of the book to me was when the author did a comparison of leadership and temperaments between rommel and montgomery.he did a good job in explaining the might of the german army,and how it was developed in the 1930's.indeed one is left with the impression that german leaders like rommel and guderian were among the most innovative of the war.the author illustrates how hitler though a master of stragedy and creating bold concepts,gave in to his megalomania,and eventually lead the wehrmact to disaster.stalingrad is a case in point.overall i enjoyed the book, particularly the battle of britain, and despite the possibility of imminent invasion,churchill was eager to get the british back on the offensive.this book makes clear how important the meditterean was to the british empire.for history buffs this book may be a revisit of old territory.yet for students of military history this book is worth a read because he describes several of the campaigns so well,like the allied landing in anzio, and how general lucas waffled;blowing the allies chance of walking into rome with little german resistance.still this book disappointed me in one respect.the author fails to explain how hitler became the monster who caused the death of millions.there is little description of his childhood.