Binding: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 327
EAN: 9780300084665
ISBN: 0300084668
Label: Yale University Press
Manufacturer: Yale University Press
Number Of Items: 1
Number Of Pages: 256
Publication Date: 2001-09-01
Publisher: Yale University Press
Studio: Yale University Press

The days from May 24 to May 28, 1940, altered the course of the history of this century, as the members of the British War Cabinet debated whether to negotiate with Hitler or to continue the war. The decisive importance of these five days is the focus of John Lukacs's magisterial new book.
In his six-volume history of World War II, Winston Churchill deemed the year 1942 as "the hinge of fate," the year in which the German and Japanese armies began to be turned back. John Lukacs suggests that the last days of May 1940 were more important still in turning the tide of war in democracy's favor, for it was in those few days that Churchill convinced his cabinet that Britain should fight on, alone, if need be, against Adolf Hitler's regime. Even as a quarter of a million British troops were being evacuated from Dunkirk, Churchill struggled to reverse the British government's policy of appeasement. In this, he faced opposition from several quarters, including prominent figures within his own Conservative Party. Writing with evident admiration for Churchill--who, he points out, was not well liked, and who had been prime minister for only two weeks when war broke out--Lukacs gives his readers a fly-on-the-wall view of the heated conferences between such well-known participants as Harold Nicholson, Lord Halifax, Neville Chamberlain, and Alexander Cadogan.

"Churchill understood something that not many people understand even now," Lukacs writes in the closing pages of his book. "The greatest threat to Western civilization was not Communism. It was National Socialism. The greatest and most dynamic power in the world was not Soviet Russia. It was the Third Reich of Germany. The greatest revolutionary of the twentieth century was not Lenin or Stalin. It was Hitler." By convincing his government that his view was correct, Churchill afforded Western civilization a slim chance at survival--no small achievement, and one well worth honoring with this fine study. --Gregory McNamee

Customer Rating:
Summary: Five Days in London-Good for History Majors
Comment: This book is about the period between 24 May and 28 May 1940-just after Winston Churchill was voted in as Prime Minister and just before the complete evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk. The book covers the discussions in the British War Cabinet regarding seeking peace terms from Adolf Hitler. The author states that Hitler came closest to actually winning WWII at that point. Had Britain sought peace terms (Lord Halifax, an opponent of Churchill wanted to seek terms through Mussolini), Hitler could have dominated Europe. As it was, Churchill came to the conclusion that Britain would not receive better terms now than after a long conflict, and that the conflict, at least, offered the opportunity to improve Britain's position. In my mind, this was a bold position on Churchill's part, as they stood to lose the entire 300,000 man BEF at Dunkirk, and an invasion of Britain was a real possibility. It was at this point, that Churchill made his famous, "We will fight on the beaches, ..." speech.

One comes away from the book with an understanding of just how close Hitler came to dominating Europe, and how one man, Winston Churchill, stood in his way. And as the author states, Churchill did not win the war, but he did not lose it at the crucial moment.

In addition, the book offers insights into Lord Chamberlain. He appears to have learned from his interactions with Hitler, and ended up being a supporter of Winston Churchill. History seems to have judged Chamberlain harshly, but this book provides a kinder estimate of competence surrounding British foreign policy.

I found the book difficult to read. I read at night, so books can't take too much mental agility for me to enjoy them. This was not such a book. It seemed to be written more for the historian, or at least, for the reader who has read much of the period. I gave it three stars only because it is somewhat of a dull read, but for anyone into WWII history, it's a good one for the shelves.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: Five Days in London May 1940
Comment: December 14, 2008
Ardsley, PA

Winston Churchill became Prime Minister on May 10, 1940. That same day Germany invaded western Europe. Within two weeks The Netherlands had surrendered, Belgium was about to fall and the French Army was in collapse. A quarter of a million men of the BEF were retreating into the channel ports, primarily Dunkirk and were surrounded. In our current era when a new administration is measured on what it accomplishes in its first 100 days all I can think is thank God for Winston Churchill!
John Lukacs begins this wonderfully illuminating book with the premise that "Britain could not win the war ... But in may 1940 Churchill was the one who did not lose it."
Most of the next 200 pages are devoted to explaining the incredible events of a very compact 5 day period May 24 through 28, 1940 and how Churchill prevailed. During these few days Winston Churchill had to master the confusion of events in France and overcome not only the tepid support of his own Conservative Party but also the defeatist sentiments in the highest levels of the British Government.
In these few pages Mr Lukacs paints a incredibly full picture of these dynamic events. The tactical situation in Europe is only a small part of the field on which we are guided. The main players in this drama are Winston Churchill, Neville Chamberlain, Edward Wood (Lord Halifax) and Mussolini. Hitler is in the background, but in reality the events of that May play against the backdrop of incredible German successes.
The central part of this story is the dynamics between Churchill, Chamberlain and Halifax. The extreme danger that Britain found itself in May 1940 is repeated time and time again. The author does a great job of showing just how few people realized it then. Along with the obvious official documents used as sources, I enjoyed the way individuals such as Evelyn Waugh and George Orwell were quoted.
There is extensive use of what we now refer to as pollsters, but in their day were known as Mass Observers to record some of the views of normal English citizens. I didn't find that this information contributed much at all to the story. Mr Lukacs also painted a very dark picture of Joseph Kennedy the American Ambassador as a Nazi sympathizer and Anglophobe.
Finally, the last paragraph of this book is incredibly intriguing. I see many parallels between the English and French approach to Hitler in the 1930s and Western Civilization's approach to Islamic terrorists between 1980 and 2001. In 2001 I believe that America recognized the mistakes of the 1930s must not be repeated and chose another course in dealing with this fanatical threat. I do not know if this is the reference which Mr Lukacs ends with, but I believe it is.
I found this book well written, well researched and well worth my time. I do not believe that this is a good first book for someone unfamiliar with the events that lead up to the start of WWII but it is a worthy read for anyone with an sincere interest in this subject.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: great story, well told
Comment: One of my favourite books. Great story, told with great pace. I am in shock at the minority of people who do not like this. What on earth is their idea of a good book?

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: It's caviar.
Comment: Several reviewers here don't appreciate scholarly writing. Lukacs (and his editor) didn't adulterate concise prose to produce a coffee table book. There are no fictions here; its conclusions are based on carefully and voluminously researched facts. Lukacs HAD to include concrete historical reference; his argument would have been incomplete without it, his conclusions unconvincing.

Yes, he's old fashioned, even Edwardian; he takes care to say only what he knows and nothing more. Yes, the form he insists on for each chapter erects a scaffold that detracts from his aedifice and might better have been removed after construction. His distinction between sentiment and opinion adds little to his argument. But his conclusion is unassailable and as formidable as a Roman arena. If he writes like a scholar, he is one. Those who object should remember that each of us is entitled to one's own style. To hold otherwise is to telegraph envy or confess to low standards.

He might well be the best living historian, for he's a master of his discipline. What he has done here is to write concisely about events that are exhaustively researched and confer new significance. That is what historians are supposed to do. He knows what he's talking about, and, when you finish reading, you know, too.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully conveys the intensity of the situation
Comment: I bought this book some years ago and have read it twice, gripped both times by the situation Churchill and the UK were in, and by Lukacs' skillful writing. Lukacs succeeded in communicating the intensity of the situation whilst not being portentous. I came back to the book because of Ian Kershaw's latest book which includes as its first issue the same decision: whether or not to seek terms from the Hitler through Mussolini's mediation. I shall be intrigued to see if Kershaw can add anything to Lukacs' account.

---