Though I tend to steer clear of majisterial accounts of great events, Five Days In London successfully seduced me with its intriguing premise, that, during five days in May 1940, Winston Churchill and Lord Halifax represented two very different views of how the Second World War should be fought. Churchill believed in fighting on, no matter the cost, while Halifax sided with the appeasers of the German chancellor. Mr. Lukacs argues that, had Churchill not been victorious in setting British policy during these vital five days, Halifax would have prevailed, only to set up an eventual betrayal of Britain by Hitler which would have lead to subjugation of Europe and perhaps the rest of the world by the Nazis. It is a convincing argument and it is told with admirable clarity and brevity.
It is my view that statesmen do not win wars; soldiers win wars. Leadership matters; organization matters; policy matters, but they wouldn't make a bit of difference if soldiers refused to fight, if soldiers did not believe in the cause. And so I am reluctant to venerate men like Churchill who already have all the admirers they will ever need. And yet even I cannot deny that these five days may have changed history. Most soldiers do not wish to throw away their lives needlessly. If offered the alternative of not fighting, they would probably accept it. Had Halifax won his argument with Churchill and instigated an appeasement policy, there might have been relief in Britain, relief which would have eventuated in horror when Hitler betrayed them as he had so many before them. It's hard to say. But this is at the core of what makes speculative histories like these so thrilling. It is the fascination of the counterfactual, the path not taken, and Mr. Lukacs does not disappoint. (3/5 Stars)
No comments:
Post a Comment