Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat: The Dire Warning

This marvelous little book captures the essence of what it must have been like in England in 1940 when Churchill became Prime Minister. The British press had not been candid with the citizenry and it fell to Churchill through his fabulous command of the English language to explain just how dire their situation truly was. He started educating his citizens in a speech where he told them that all he had to offer them was "Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat". The author does an excellent job in showing how Churchill turned the tide of not only public opinion, but the opinions of his colleagues in Parliament, and most importantly of Roosevelt, and ultimately the Nazi's themselves. Josef Goebbels, Hitlers propaganda minister noted in his diary that absent Churchill, Germany would have won the war quickly.

One of Churchill's most famous phrases comes from one of his shortest speeches - his first speech as Prime Minister delivered in Parliament as German forces were literally destroying the French army. The first paragraphs are administrative, describing his assembled government. The last paragraph is gold, pure gold. Churchill lays out his war aims and makes it clear that it will be hard, "an ordeal of the most grievous kind." He identifies the Nazis as "a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime" and notes the policy as victory no matter the cost because "without victory, there is no survival." He bids any and all allies to come join Britain. There, in a few powerful sentences written by Churchill himself (oh, if only that were done nowadays...), is a summary of the situation, the goals and a strategy to win. Unfortunately, it was not broadcast live and only edited snippets were broadcast over the BBC. "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" is a short (147 pages), well-written history of the Churchill's war years. The focus, as the title implies, is his first few days as Prime Minister, but he follows through to the end of the war. Nicely done.

The jacket photograph is not what you are used to seeing as Winston. John Lukacs is here making his contribution to the "Basic Ideas" series put out by the Basic Books of the Persens Book Group. This series is right up his alley, because does best and brightest in the short history form. Five Days in London would be another recent example. He makes the narrow broad rather than what the trendy micro-historians do and do badly. Dr. Lukacs is not timid of the historian to explain, not simply to chronicle. I have great respect for those who chronicle, journal or blog their way through our world. He takes us from his grabber of a title, taken from this now famous speech. I had no idea how little heard it was at the time. BBC made only the shortest quote that evening. We are taken from that speech to the beginnings of his Prime Ministry. This book makes me reconsider what I had thought was a closed subject, the appeasement of Hitler by Chamberlain. This argument says he was right to do so. That delay bought Britain critical time. Another point was how often Churchill failed as a politician. Yet he constantly showed magnanimity to such as Chamberlain on those few occasions when he actually won. We have irrefutable evidence that this was no show, no gesture, but practical conviction. Finally, Lukacs' opening quote from the Odes of Horace, "Behind the Horseman Sits Black Care", is used to great effect overall and at a few crucial points in his work. Only a rare talent and hard working historian may pick such a phrase and make it apt for a whole book.

Once again an astute analysis of the few very grim days in May 1940 when Panzers swept into Western Europe and the British chose a new leader to win the war. Obviously, it's similar to 'Five Days in London'. The message is similar: The selection of a strong, even though flawed, leader to rally the nation in a time of crisis. The heart of this book is the implied contrast between a leader who promises "blood, toil, tears and sweat" and one who responds with a flippant "let's go to the mall' plea. Of course, the Brits have an advantage. Instead of suffering four years of incompetence, bragging, folly and hubris, once a failed leader is persuaded to resign the king asks a new leader to form a new government. It doesn't make Lukacs a 'Barack Obama' or 'John McCain' supporter in any sense; there is no mention of current politics in any country. He merely explains a different form of politics. It marks Lukacs as a great historian with a clear focus on the role of a leader in a democracy. In that, he speaks for all time; his intense focus on Churchill helps explain leadership from the Athens of Pericles to today's world and change we can believe. My picayune complaint is Lukacs' apparent avoidance of a basic quality of the British (and Americans): their stubborn dedication to fairness. The Munich "appeasement" said Sudeten Germans had a right to be part of Germany (which even Churchill supported); occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia infuriated the British who felt the Czechs and Slovaks had a right to independence. Britain declared war on Germany because they felt the Royal Navy could blockade Germany into surrender. When this turned out to be an illusion, due to massive imports from the Soviets, new leadership was vital. Besides, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was literally dying on his feet. 'Five Days in London', very worth reading as a companion to this book, examines the infighting to select a new policy and a new leader. Strangely, he glides over the impact of the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbour. The United States declared war on Japan the next day, but not on Germany. Two days later, Hitler declared war on the U.S. If not ... would the U.S. have joined Britain in the European war? Perhaps this issue will be covered in another volume; Lukacs now has two astute gems analysing the means and impact of Churchill's call to power and greatness. Surely, someone needs to go beyond the Pearl Harbour syndrome and examine the U.S. entry into the European war. What if Hitler had not declared war on the U.S.? Lukacs has written two gems on the role of Churchill, but what if Roosevelt had not been forced into a European war by the folly of Hitler? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thankfully weighing in at only 147 pages, Lukacs looks at Chuchill's speeches during the desperate days of May and June 1940 , puts them in context, and gives us this Big Idea: only Churchill really understood what was at stake and that defeat would mean a new Dark Age. To fight on, even if defeated, would give hope and be a symbol for those hundreds of years later who might rise up and emerge from the darkness. Also of interest: why the way he treated Chamberlin after he was voted out and Churchill voted in made all the difference in preventing a peace at any price with Germany. Churchill was magnanimous to him, and Chamberlin appreciated it and so became an ally(albeit one who did not so much overtly support Churchill as one who did not obstruct his leadership). Lukacs quotes a bit of the speech that Churchill gave after Chamberlin died. I have read it before and it is powerful, the grasping of the gist of this truth: don't second guess, today's hero is tomorrow's goat, and back again. And then this gem:"The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions." Worthwhile read.