Fascinating read about the people involved in the early decision making in regard to Britain's role in WW2, and how Churchill prevailed over those prepared to consider terms with Germany. ( )

3.5***

Historian John Lukacs has written over twenty books, several dealing with World War II. In this book he focuses specifically on Winston Churchill and the five days from May 24 to May 28, 1940. Churchill did not win the war in those five days, but his actions and leadership ensured that England would NOT lose the war.

Lukacs did extensive research, pouring over diaries, letters, journals, official memoranda and newspaper reports of the time, to illuminate and reconstruct the thought-processes and leadership that ultimately ensured the Allies’ success. We obviously know the outcome already, but Lukacs manages to convey the sense of urgency and tension and uncertainty of this moment in history.

This is a slim volume, but very dense and I had to remind myself a few times that the timespan was a mere five days. ( )

Detailed behind-the-scenes look at London's reaction to this critical period early during WW II. Germany had already taken Poland in a matter of days, and effectively eliminated Belgium and France from the war. With a treaty in force with Russia, England was the sole force facing Germany, and it's forces were trapped and under seige in France, and had not yet been evacuated from Dunkirk. England could have and might have sought terms with Germany, or fought on alone against the mighty German army. This book shows Churchill's determination, leadership, and strength of his convictions as he led the fight to continue the struggle during this critical time. ( )

The late John Lukacs (d. 2019) was an opinionated cuss, so he rubs some folks the wrong way. But, I respect immensely his depth of knowledge on the Second World War, Churchill, and Hitler in particular. (Aside from maybe Ian Kershaw, Richard Evans, or Richard Overy, nobody could touch him on the historiography of Hitler.) Reaching back a bit and forward a bit, Lukacs details the events of May 24 to May 28, five days, in London.

His thesis is that it was in those days that Churchill, through his steadfastness and gumption, won the Second World War, or, rather did not lose it. (Lukacs says only the USA and USSR won the war, but the UK could have lost it. Lukacs also said that Hitler could have come out with a win or draw if he, perhaps, took Moscow and collapsed the USSR or defeated the Western allies at D-Day. But, (p. 189), Hitler could have won HIS war, Lukacs states, if Churchill had capitulated or Halifax had taken over and capitulated. (Dubious, perhaps, as Hitler, even with a defeated UK, probably would have rushed headlong into Russia. Perhaps without US and UK help the Soviet Union may have been defeated. But that's a big if. Ask Napoleon.)

I disagree with Lukacs, though, and wholeheartedly when he says this (p. 217): "The greatest threat to Western civilization was not Communism. It was National Socialism." First, I consider National Socialism and Communist Socialism to be step-brothers, and equally evil. I see not a spit-worth of difference between Hitler controlling Europe and Stalin controlling Europe. Both are totalitarian, statist, and purveyors of executions galore. Both are evil, none more evil than the other. He continues a theme he picks up in The Hitler of History, that (pp. 217-218) Hitler was "the greatest revolutionary of the twentieth century... merging nationalism and socialism into one tremendous force...." On that he may have a point.

But, kudos to Churchill, who was resolute, determined, dogged, and an instrument of Providence. "At best," Lukacs sums up, "civilization may survive, at least in some small part due to Churchill in 1940" (p. 219).

Photos, extensive footnotes (many discursive), bibliography, index. ( )

I wanted to liket this a lot more than I actually did. For some reason I've got in my head that Lukacs is an author I should really enjoy, but this is the fourth book of his that I've tried and I remain somewhat underwhelmed. You never really get the sense of urgency that he clearly wants to convey in this story - I very much found myself wondering what all the fuss was about. The writing is sometimes oddly infelicitous, too, though perhaps that's an English-as-a-second-language thing?

Anyway, I'll probably try one more by him. Maybe. ( )