Take a photo of a barcode or cover
8 reviews for:
Six Minutes in May: How Churchill Unexpectedly Became Prime Minister
Nicholas Shakespeare
4.01 AVERAGE
8 reviews for:
Six Minutes in May: How Churchill Unexpectedly Became Prime Minister
Nicholas Shakespeare
4.01 AVERAGE
Excellent, thorough and forensically detailed account of Churchil's ascent to the top.
It took a 6 minute debate about a botched Norway mission toppled the Chamberlain government and launched Churchill to Prime Minister.
This book starts with a mission. First Lord of Admiralty, Winston Churchill, was determined to prevent the Nazis from taking Norway. One, was to rescue a nephew who had been captured. Second, hoping for a victory to change the tide. It failed miserably on all fronts. The British, including Churchill, talked about it so much that it was common knowledge. Especially to the Germans, who were there when the British arrived.
The House of Commons was going to hold the government accountable. The buck stopped with the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Hours, days, Chamberlain tried to hold on. Next, to convince Lord Halifax to take it and finally in a room of three people it was decided to be Churchill.
I love this book because it isn't solely focused on Churchill. It places a number of people who led to Chamberlain's fall and the aftermath of who would be next.
Notes:
All roads lead to the Mitfords, this story included.
Nicholas Shakespeare (writer) Uncle Geoffrey worked for Churchill when he was First Lord of the Admiralty.
This book starts with a mission. First Lord of Admiralty, Winston Churchill, was determined to prevent the Nazis from taking Norway. One, was to rescue a nephew who had been captured. Second, hoping for a victory to change the tide. It failed miserably on all fronts. The British, including Churchill, talked about it so much that it was common knowledge. Especially to the Germans, who were there when the British arrived.
The House of Commons was going to hold the government accountable. The buck stopped with the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Hours, days, Chamberlain tried to hold on. Next, to convince Lord Halifax to take it and finally in a room of three people it was decided to be Churchill.
I love this book because it isn't solely focused on Churchill. It places a number of people who led to Chamberlain's fall and the aftermath of who would be next.
Notes:
All roads lead to the Mitfords, this story included.
Nicholas Shakespeare (writer) Uncle Geoffrey worked for Churchill when he was First Lord of the Admiralty.
I found this detailed account of the events leading up to Churchill's assumption of the premiership really riveting, with some eerie echoes of the recent events in the UK Parliament. It is quite difficult to believe that at a time when Hitler was on the verge of over-running Western Europe, and maybe the UK too, MP's were intent on their own internal power struggles rather than concentrating on the prosecution of the war, but so it seems from this account.
The Norway campaign and ensuing debate in Parliament are described practically minute by minute, and I must confess I got bogged down in the military part but it is of huge importance in assessment of how the person behind the mess-up (Churchill) was able to overcome the consequent reservations. To some extent this was balanced by Lord Halifax's evident reluctance to assume the premiership, and the author goes into this in great detail too.
There are some passages in the book that really bring you up short, especially the description of the events of Friday 10th May 1940 when the news arrived of the invasion of Holland and Belgium, with rumours that Canterbury had already been bombed. You suddenly realise how incredibly bleak the future must have looked. But in spite of this, all the main players took time off to have lunch. A different world!
The Norway campaign and ensuing debate in Parliament are described practically minute by minute, and I must confess I got bogged down in the military part but it is of huge importance in assessment of how the person behind the mess-up (Churchill) was able to overcome the consequent reservations. To some extent this was balanced by Lord Halifax's evident reluctance to assume the premiership, and the author goes into this in great detail too.
There are some passages in the book that really bring you up short, especially the description of the events of Friday 10th May 1940 when the news arrived of the invasion of Holland and Belgium, with rumours that Canterbury had already been bombed. You suddenly realise how incredibly bleak the future must have looked. But in spite of this, all the main players took time off to have lunch. A different world!
hopeful
informative
tense
slow-paced
Factually interesting yet narratively it failed to grip. I can't help but feel that this could have been done so much better.
Though I thank god he did, how Churchill became the UK PM on May 10, 1940 remains a mystery. On May 7, there seemed to be no chance for a challenge on Chamberlain. When the impossible happened, and he was challenged, the unanimous opinion seemed to be Lord Halifax as PM. Yet Churchill emerged as the PM. I have read many books on this, but this one is awesome.
The selection of Winston Churchill as Neville Chamberlain's successor in May 1940 is regarded today as one of the most pivotal moments of the 20th century. With his elevation to the premiership Britain was committed to a course of action in the Second World War that ended with victory over Nazi Germany. Given his role in the Allied triumph and subsequent anointing as the greatest Briton ever, such a choice can be perceived as inevitable. Yet was it?
One of the great merits of Nicholas Shakespeare's account of the events surrounding the decision is in his detailing the views of the key actors in the spring of 1940 and the choices available to them. In the process, not only does he demonstrate that Churchill's selection was far from ordained, but he also shows that it was more than a simple choice between Churchill and Lord Halifax traditionally described in most accounts of the event. As Shakespeare explains, ministers and Members of Parliament had several alternatives available to them. For many of them, Churchill was an unacceptable choice for the top post given his recklessness and adventurism, while others seemed much more appealing candidates. Even the very notion that Chamberlain needed to be replaced because of the military debacle in Norway the month before was not generally accepted, and only emerged over the course of the "Norway debate" and the subsequent division that exposed the weakness of Chamberlain's support.
To detail the events of May 1940 and uncover the thinking of the various people involved Shakespeare went beyond the traditional accounts in memoirs and biographies and undertook additional archival research and interviews. This he knits together in a narrative to which he brings all his skills as a novelist, making for an account that is highly engaging. By comparing the at times conflicting accounts and retrospective explanations, he has produced a very detailed description of how it came down in the end to Churchill. Yet it is also an incredibly chummy account, almost exclusively focused upon the actions and decisions of a select group of elite men (and even a couple of women). While this is understandable given the small circle of people in politics and media at the time, the weaknesses in this approach are more evident in the account of the Norway disaster that precedes it. Given its importance to the events that followed Shakespeare spends a third of the book describing its failings, yet his account of events concentrates on the experiences of key officers and government officials, creating the impression that it was merely their personal experiences which drove their objections to Chamberlain rather than the broader defeat that informed their criticisms of his handling of the war.
By narrowing his focus to a group of elite figures (one that includes his own uncle), Shakespeare trivializes the motivations of many of the men involved in the decision to turn out Chamberlain. It's a glaring flaw in what is in many respects an excellent book, one that details the chain of events that would define the course of world history. It is especially unfortunate, given that Shakespeare's extensive research and ability as a writer have produced what is the best account yet of how Churchill became prime minister in those fateful weeks in the spring of 1940. Its weaknesses, however, cause it to fall short of the definitive account it could have been with just a broadening of its scope.
One of the great merits of Nicholas Shakespeare's account of the events surrounding the decision is in his detailing the views of the key actors in the spring of 1940 and the choices available to them. In the process, not only does he demonstrate that Churchill's selection was far from ordained, but he also shows that it was more than a simple choice between Churchill and Lord Halifax traditionally described in most accounts of the event. As Shakespeare explains, ministers and Members of Parliament had several alternatives available to them. For many of them, Churchill was an unacceptable choice for the top post given his recklessness and adventurism, while others seemed much more appealing candidates. Even the very notion that Chamberlain needed to be replaced because of the military debacle in Norway the month before was not generally accepted, and only emerged over the course of the "Norway debate" and the subsequent division that exposed the weakness of Chamberlain's support.
To detail the events of May 1940 and uncover the thinking of the various people involved Shakespeare went beyond the traditional accounts in memoirs and biographies and undertook additional archival research and interviews. This he knits together in a narrative to which he brings all his skills as a novelist, making for an account that is highly engaging. By comparing the at times conflicting accounts and retrospective explanations, he has produced a very detailed description of how it came down in the end to Churchill. Yet it is also an incredibly chummy account, almost exclusively focused upon the actions and decisions of a select group of elite men (and even a couple of women). While this is understandable given the small circle of people in politics and media at the time, the weaknesses in this approach are more evident in the account of the Norway disaster that precedes it. Given its importance to the events that followed Shakespeare spends a third of the book describing its failings, yet his account of events concentrates on the experiences of key officers and government officials, creating the impression that it was merely their personal experiences which drove their objections to Chamberlain rather than the broader defeat that informed their criticisms of his handling of the war.
By narrowing his focus to a group of elite figures (one that includes his own uncle), Shakespeare trivializes the motivations of many of the men involved in the decision to turn out Chamberlain. It's a glaring flaw in what is in many respects an excellent book, one that details the chain of events that would define the course of world history. It is especially unfortunate, given that Shakespeare's extensive research and ability as a writer have produced what is the best account yet of how Churchill became prime minister in those fateful weeks in the spring of 1940. Its weaknesses, however, cause it to fall short of the definitive account it could have been with just a broadening of its scope.