There will be no apology for the title. This seems not only a fair question, but an essential one. Unless we can think about Churchill as someone who wasn’t destined, inevitably, to become the saviour of the nation, we cannot think about his pre-1940 life with any perspective. Without the war, it’s fair to say he would have been seen much less favourably, would not have been Prime Minister, and would be remembered as a more reactionary, less reliable figure.
Found the Roberts biography sycophantic as well. Quit the book halfway through for finally admitting that Gallipoli was a mistake and even then Roberts hedged.
Haven't tried to read another Churchill biography since.
Found the Roberts biography sycophantic as well. Quit the book halfway through for finally admitting that Gallipoli was a mistake and even then Roberts hedged.
Haven't tried to read another Churchill biography since.
Found the Roberts biography sycophantic as well. Quit the book halfway through for finally admitting that Gallipoli was a mistake and even then Roberts hedged.
Haven't tried to read another Churchill biography since.
Found the Roberts biography sycophantic as well. Quit the book halfway through for finally admitting that Gallipoli was a mistake and even then Roberts hedged.
Haven't tried to read another Churchill biography since.