What do you think?
Rate this book
Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of Leadership
Choosing Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill, two totally opposite leaders—both in what they stood for and in the way they appeared to lead—award-winning historian Andrew Roberts examines the subtleties of political and military leadership. Drawing intriguing parallels with leaders from other eras, and incisively examining those aspects of leadership that Hitler and Churchill had in common, Roberts arrives at a series of fascinating conclusions. Andrew Roberts is the author of Eminent Churchillians and Salisbury: Victorian Titan, winner of the Wolfson History Prize.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published February 1, 2003
112 people are currently reading
950 people want to read
About the author
Andrew Roberts
79 books1,514 followersDr Andrew Roberts, who was born in 1963, took a first class honours degree in Modern History at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, from where he is an honorary senior scholar and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). He has written or edited twelve books, and appears regularly on radio and television around the world. Based in New York, he is an accomplished public speaker, and is represented by HarperCollins Speakers’ Bureau (See Speaking Engagements and Speaking Testimonials). He has recently lectured at Yale, Princeton and Stanford Universities and at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
December 20, 2014
A fairly poor book. The author is a rabid Churchill fan, which would be fine in this context if the book were actually focused on comparison. The comparison segments are relatively few however and poorly constructed (the way a 16 year old might write a comparison paper). The author then spends way too much time defending Churchill from various detractors! I think that is beyond ridiculous since this is not meant to be a biography and since such things are better saved for reviews of the books you feel are inaccurate.
I only made it through it because the facts were correct and I could focus on those and space out during the ridiculous parts (I listened to the audio version, if I'd been reading the text I would have given up on it).
Do yourself a favor and give this a miss.
I only made it through it because the facts were correct and I could focus on those and space out during the ridiculous parts (I listened to the audio version, if I'd been reading the text I would have given up on it).
Do yourself a favor and give this a miss.
February 3, 2022
A great book to understand the character and the leadership style of Churchill and Hitler. Terror and fear were the core of Hitler. Unity and Courage were the core of Churchill. For the first year of The World War 2, Churchill fought courageously despite the uncertainty and the forlorn situation of Britain. A great leader, depsite having detractors and revisionists, remained untarnished and a well-deserved respect given to such a stateman like Winston Churchill.
January 7, 2020
"Churchill's study was a vast room of twelve hundred square feet, adorned with ponderous chandeliers and an immense pastel-coloured carpet. The friezes of three great heads adorned the front panels of the prime minister's huge desk: one of them was that of the Medusa with writhing snakes emerging from her head... Churchill rarely did any work in this study; its sole purpose was to receive visitors and leave them in awe of his charisma and Great Britain's power."
It didn't fool you for a moment, did it? Of course, I've switched the names, and this was really Hitler's office in the Reichs Chancellery, designed by Albert Speer, not Churchill's cosy den in impromptu No 10. It could never be Churchill's study; nothing about it tallies with practical, stoic Winston.
One of the main problems Andrew Roberts faces, in attempting to discover Hitler and Churchill's leadership secrets, is that the smallest details about the two leaders are so well-known that neither of them seems to have any secrets left. In fact, they have become such archetypal figures that anyone, without ever coming across a description or photograph of it before, would know instantly that such a tyrannical study could belong only to the greatest of all tyrants.
Roberts's last book, Napoleon and Wellington, was a first foray into the double-barrelled school of history epitomised by Alan Bullock's Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. In any other form, Hitler and Churchill could, most of the time, be depicted as the opposites we commonly take them to be. But as a result of dealing with lives that run parallel, Roberts's book finds itself in the difficult position of having, again and again, to double back upon itself: "While it is impossible to imagine two men more different than Hitler and Churchill, as leaders they had much more in common than one might think."
Sign up for Bookmarks: discover new books in our weekly email
Read more
The next sentence shows the problems inherent in this approach: "The key attribute shared by both men was an almost superhuman tenacity of purpose that they held on to throughout their long years of adversity and failure." From this we're meant to conclude that Hitler and Churchill, although both sharing a "superhuman tenacity of purpose" were totally dissimilar - more so than, say, Hitler and a man completely lacking any sticking power whatever. (Most people, I think, would be a little more careful using the word "superhuman" around Nazis.)
Both Hitler and Churchill are portrayed as fakers. In what will probably prove the most controversial passage of the book, Roberts asks hypothetically: "Might it be that Hitler actually had nothing personally against the Jews, but just spotted that demonising them would be a rewarding political move?" Churchill's deception, of course, was to more beneficent ends: during the darkest days of 1940, with no clear strategy for winning the war, he still managed to con the British people into believing victory was possible.
On top of the problems inherent in the parallel lives form are those caused by the necessity of dredging up some leadership secrets. Almost all of Roberts's references to this aspect of his project are slighting. He occasionally, with some sarcasm, deigns to use the jargon of "management gurus": empowerment, micromanagement, MBWA (management by walking about), and so on. This is ungracious as, one assumes, managerial applicability was the unique selling point upon which the TV series this book accompanies was pitched.
This approach is likely to make many people think: "Honestly, what next? Seven Habits of Highly Effective Mass Murderers?" Yet the amoral rationale of the book is made clear very early on: "Leadership - like courage and even sincerity - can be completely divorced from the concepts of good and evil."
The deepest intellectual contradiction of this form of historical writing - the school of What Lessons Can We Learn From X and Y? - is that it must treat its subjects on two completely different bases, without the vast gap between them being noticed. One could nickname these two bases the human and the heroic. In the human approach, the subject is a once-living, fallible human being who might at any point have fallen victim to the whims of chance - incapacity, illness, death; whereas in the heroic, the subject is a completed life, a monumental figure, an archetype of the human soul.
As with most didactic history, when the subject is being attacked, the human is used to undermine the heroic. Hence, we learn that "Hitler... can be accused - and indeed convicted - of being an anti-smoking teetotal vegetarian..." As a result, "The ghastly prospect of a low-alcohol cholesterol-free Reich beckoned the aryan peoples after victory". Conversely, when the subject is being elevated, the heroic is used to excuse the human. Hence "The author Clive Ponting has . . . complained that Churchill and Eden drank expensive 1865 cognac together in November 1940, but one might legitimately ask: if they did not deserve the luxury of drinking vintage brandy as they fought to save civilisation, who did?"
In 1999 Roberts got into trouble over the admission that his 400,000-word biography of Lord Salisbury had taken him just eight weeks to write. I have no idea how long it took Roberts to cobble together Hitler and Churchill, but it is shoddy in the extreme. The introduction is only into its second paragraph, asserting the continued importance of leaders, when it po-facedly opines: "Yet the astonishing thing is that even in an age that considers itself sophisticated and correspondingly cynical, in times of peril inspired leadership still relies to a large extent on the suspension of belief."
Not, you will note, "the willing suspension of disbelief", as described by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in Chapter 14 of the Biographia Literaria. It is tempting to call this a schoolboy howler, but that would be letting Roberts off too lightly. (He uses the phrase "suspension of belief" again on page 92.) If we're to take him at his exact word, he means that leadership relies upon a populace that has become incapable of being anything other than cynical - which is nonsense.
Yet it's hard, with a short quotation, to give a clear idea of the extreme nonsensicality of some of the later passages of this book. At one point Roberts quotes Jonathan Meades on some of the weirder explanations that have been forwarded to explain the genesis of Hitler's anti-semitism: "There are, inevitably, one-ball theories and satanic abuse theories. There is the ludicrous tale of the infant Hitler having his penis bitten by a goat into whose mouth he was attempting to urinate."
Roberts then provides a gloss: "This last theory, if true, might explain much about Hitler, but presumably does not explain his anti-semitism. And even if Hitler was monorchid, that does not explain why 13 million Germans voted for the NSDAP in 1932, since they were not told that he was short of a testicle (which, anyhow, he was not)." At this point I half-expected to find that this was actually a garbled quote from Spike Milligan's Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall. But such inspired codswallop would have been a challenge even to the arch-Goon in his prime.
What then, exactly, are the "secrets of leadership" that Roberts has discovered through his study of Hitler and Churchill? Well, on page 65 we learn that "The propensity to interfere and micromanage is not unusual for energetic leaders, nor is it necessarily a bad thing". Whereas on page 89 we read of "a crucial principle of effective leadership. The management gurus call it empowerment: leaders trust their subordinates and rely on their initiative and expertise."
And while on page 107 we find that "willingness to compromise for the greater good is a characteristic of inspired leadership", on page 22 Roberts admiringly quotes Ronald Reagan: "To grasp and hold a vision, that is the very essence of successful leadership - not only on the movie set where I learned it, but everywhere."
Oh, so it's the "micromanagerial-empowering-compromised-vision thing", is it?
It didn't fool you for a moment, did it? Of course, I've switched the names, and this was really Hitler's office in the Reichs Chancellery, designed by Albert Speer, not Churchill's cosy den in impromptu No 10. It could never be Churchill's study; nothing about it tallies with practical, stoic Winston.
One of the main problems Andrew Roberts faces, in attempting to discover Hitler and Churchill's leadership secrets, is that the smallest details about the two leaders are so well-known that neither of them seems to have any secrets left. In fact, they have become such archetypal figures that anyone, without ever coming across a description or photograph of it before, would know instantly that such a tyrannical study could belong only to the greatest of all tyrants.
Roberts's last book, Napoleon and Wellington, was a first foray into the double-barrelled school of history epitomised by Alan Bullock's Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. In any other form, Hitler and Churchill could, most of the time, be depicted as the opposites we commonly take them to be. But as a result of dealing with lives that run parallel, Roberts's book finds itself in the difficult position of having, again and again, to double back upon itself: "While it is impossible to imagine two men more different than Hitler and Churchill, as leaders they had much more in common than one might think."
Sign up for Bookmarks: discover new books in our weekly email
Read more
The next sentence shows the problems inherent in this approach: "The key attribute shared by both men was an almost superhuman tenacity of purpose that they held on to throughout their long years of adversity and failure." From this we're meant to conclude that Hitler and Churchill, although both sharing a "superhuman tenacity of purpose" were totally dissimilar - more so than, say, Hitler and a man completely lacking any sticking power whatever. (Most people, I think, would be a little more careful using the word "superhuman" around Nazis.)
Both Hitler and Churchill are portrayed as fakers. In what will probably prove the most controversial passage of the book, Roberts asks hypothetically: "Might it be that Hitler actually had nothing personally against the Jews, but just spotted that demonising them would be a rewarding political move?" Churchill's deception, of course, was to more beneficent ends: during the darkest days of 1940, with no clear strategy for winning the war, he still managed to con the British people into believing victory was possible.
On top of the problems inherent in the parallel lives form are those caused by the necessity of dredging up some leadership secrets. Almost all of Roberts's references to this aspect of his project are slighting. He occasionally, with some sarcasm, deigns to use the jargon of "management gurus": empowerment, micromanagement, MBWA (management by walking about), and so on. This is ungracious as, one assumes, managerial applicability was the unique selling point upon which the TV series this book accompanies was pitched.
This approach is likely to make many people think: "Honestly, what next? Seven Habits of Highly Effective Mass Murderers?" Yet the amoral rationale of the book is made clear very early on: "Leadership - like courage and even sincerity - can be completely divorced from the concepts of good and evil."
The deepest intellectual contradiction of this form of historical writing - the school of What Lessons Can We Learn From X and Y? - is that it must treat its subjects on two completely different bases, without the vast gap between them being noticed. One could nickname these two bases the human and the heroic. In the human approach, the subject is a once-living, fallible human being who might at any point have fallen victim to the whims of chance - incapacity, illness, death; whereas in the heroic, the subject is a completed life, a monumental figure, an archetype of the human soul.
As with most didactic history, when the subject is being attacked, the human is used to undermine the heroic. Hence, we learn that "Hitler... can be accused - and indeed convicted - of being an anti-smoking teetotal vegetarian..." As a result, "The ghastly prospect of a low-alcohol cholesterol-free Reich beckoned the aryan peoples after victory". Conversely, when the subject is being elevated, the heroic is used to excuse the human. Hence "The author Clive Ponting has . . . complained that Churchill and Eden drank expensive 1865 cognac together in November 1940, but one might legitimately ask: if they did not deserve the luxury of drinking vintage brandy as they fought to save civilisation, who did?"
In 1999 Roberts got into trouble over the admission that his 400,000-word biography of Lord Salisbury had taken him just eight weeks to write. I have no idea how long it took Roberts to cobble together Hitler and Churchill, but it is shoddy in the extreme. The introduction is only into its second paragraph, asserting the continued importance of leaders, when it po-facedly opines: "Yet the astonishing thing is that even in an age that considers itself sophisticated and correspondingly cynical, in times of peril inspired leadership still relies to a large extent on the suspension of belief."
Not, you will note, "the willing suspension of disbelief", as described by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in Chapter 14 of the Biographia Literaria. It is tempting to call this a schoolboy howler, but that would be letting Roberts off too lightly. (He uses the phrase "suspension of belief" again on page 92.) If we're to take him at his exact word, he means that leadership relies upon a populace that has become incapable of being anything other than cynical - which is nonsense.
Yet it's hard, with a short quotation, to give a clear idea of the extreme nonsensicality of some of the later passages of this book. At one point Roberts quotes Jonathan Meades on some of the weirder explanations that have been forwarded to explain the genesis of Hitler's anti-semitism: "There are, inevitably, one-ball theories and satanic abuse theories. There is the ludicrous tale of the infant Hitler having his penis bitten by a goat into whose mouth he was attempting to urinate."
Roberts then provides a gloss: "This last theory, if true, might explain much about Hitler, but presumably does not explain his anti-semitism. And even if Hitler was monorchid, that does not explain why 13 million Germans voted for the NSDAP in 1932, since they were not told that he was short of a testicle (which, anyhow, he was not)." At this point I half-expected to find that this was actually a garbled quote from Spike Milligan's Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall. But such inspired codswallop would have been a challenge even to the arch-Goon in his prime.
What then, exactly, are the "secrets of leadership" that Roberts has discovered through his study of Hitler and Churchill? Well, on page 65 we learn that "The propensity to interfere and micromanage is not unusual for energetic leaders, nor is it necessarily a bad thing". Whereas on page 89 we read of "a crucial principle of effective leadership. The management gurus call it empowerment: leaders trust their subordinates and rely on their initiative and expertise."
And while on page 107 we find that "willingness to compromise for the greater good is a characteristic of inspired leadership", on page 22 Roberts admiringly quotes Ronald Reagan: "To grasp and hold a vision, that is the very essence of successful leadership - not only on the movie set where I learned it, but everywhere."
Oh, so it's the "micromanagerial-empowering-compromised-vision thing", is it?
June 12, 2010
Andrew Roberts takes the concept of how one person can lead millions and compares it to the leadership styles of Hitler and Churchill. Though general parallels can be made of their charisma, oratory ability, use of symbolism, and trademarks they possessed. Both were effective leaders with completely opposite styles of leadership.
Hitler was a “hands off” leader (until the end of the war). Hitler did not get involved in details. He sold a vision and was simply involved in creating a strategy to accomplish that vision. But he gave his commanders and subordinates the authority to accomplish their objectives as they saw fit. Unlike what has been portrayed in movies, many German officers took the initiative in grave circumstances to accomplish their missions. In some cases, they directly disobeyed orders to do so with little or no ramifications. Hitler allowed the experts to handle the details, which afforded him the ability to appear as a symbol at rallies, and focus on strategy. It wasn’t until he stopped trusting his experts and getting involved in details, that strategy fell apart. In addition, he was not a team player as he did not communicate well with his allies (Italy and Japan), who in turn kept him in the dark (invasion of Greece by Italy and attack on Pearl harbor by the Japanese). In fact, because he was not informed of the plans for the Pearl harbor attack, Hitler did not inform the Japanese about his plans to invade Russia, which would have had a different result had their been another front created by the Japanese.
On the contrary, Churchill was a micromanager who had his hands in everything. He wanted to know as much detail as possible and would argue with his experts (Commanders, Generals, etceteras) on major and minor decisions. He would have a report printed every morning about the top decisions that had to be made that day which may involve anything from finances and newspaper column headlines, to armaments and troop movement. His biggest asset was his ability to communicate well with his people and the nation’s allies. Unlike Hitler, Churchill was constantly informing everyone necessary with strategic plans and objectives to come to the best solutions. He turned drawbacks into opportunities, sold the resolve of the Island to his allies for armaments, and mobilized his nation through his words. He sold his vision of victory at any cost to his allies and his nation. Through clear communication with allies and his team, victory was achieved and his vision fulfilled.
Overall, this book was interesting solely through fact. The writing style, book format, and analysis was boring and could have been done in much more interesting ways. I probably will not read this book a second time. However, I will remember the lessons learned from Hitler and Churchill’s leadership styles.
Hitler was a “hands off” leader (until the end of the war). Hitler did not get involved in details. He sold a vision and was simply involved in creating a strategy to accomplish that vision. But he gave his commanders and subordinates the authority to accomplish their objectives as they saw fit. Unlike what has been portrayed in movies, many German officers took the initiative in grave circumstances to accomplish their missions. In some cases, they directly disobeyed orders to do so with little or no ramifications. Hitler allowed the experts to handle the details, which afforded him the ability to appear as a symbol at rallies, and focus on strategy. It wasn’t until he stopped trusting his experts and getting involved in details, that strategy fell apart. In addition, he was not a team player as he did not communicate well with his allies (Italy and Japan), who in turn kept him in the dark (invasion of Greece by Italy and attack on Pearl harbor by the Japanese). In fact, because he was not informed of the plans for the Pearl harbor attack, Hitler did not inform the Japanese about his plans to invade Russia, which would have had a different result had their been another front created by the Japanese.
On the contrary, Churchill was a micromanager who had his hands in everything. He wanted to know as much detail as possible and would argue with his experts (Commanders, Generals, etceteras) on major and minor decisions. He would have a report printed every morning about the top decisions that had to be made that day which may involve anything from finances and newspaper column headlines, to armaments and troop movement. His biggest asset was his ability to communicate well with his people and the nation’s allies. Unlike Hitler, Churchill was constantly informing everyone necessary with strategic plans and objectives to come to the best solutions. He turned drawbacks into opportunities, sold the resolve of the Island to his allies for armaments, and mobilized his nation through his words. He sold his vision of victory at any cost to his allies and his nation. Through clear communication with allies and his team, victory was achieved and his vision fulfilled.
Overall, this book was interesting solely through fact. The writing style, book format, and analysis was boring and could have been done in much more interesting ways. I probably will not read this book a second time. However, I will remember the lessons learned from Hitler and Churchill’s leadership styles.
March 13, 2024
The key question emanating from the book is, whether leadership lessons can be learned by overlooking the ethical dimensions of the leader’s role in history. Andrew Roberts argues, ‘Yes’.
It is an interesting read albeit cerebrally
unsatisfying as he attempts to contrast the two styles of leadership while highlighting behavioural differences and certain similarities. Both had charisma, cultivated their oratory skills, learned to use symbolism, and knew how to rally men for causes they believed in. Their styles of leadership are poles apart and the book is replete with innumerable anecdotes laying out these differences. Churchill delved into the minutest of details while Hitler was a hands-off leader. Their man-management styles were also sharply contrasting.
The book was written to accompany a BBC2 television series and herein lies the problem. The demands of screenplay and storytelling make the book a succession of period-piece anecdotes. Furthermore, both men have been written about interminably and therefore there is very little to excavate anew and analyse. Resultantly, the book converts into a regurgitation of known scholarship on Hitler and Churchill. Adding to the bland mix are many controversial assertions such as the origin of Hitler’s antisemitism, personal finances, character flaws, etc. Consequently, he struggles to maintain the flow as he consistently needs to circle back to the central theme of extracting nuggets of leadership arguing "While it is impossible to imagine two men more different than Hitler and Churchill, as leaders they had much more in common than one might think." In his goal to tell a parallel story and dredge up parallel leadership tales he often oversimplifies complex social interactions.
Overall, the book is underwhelming and intellectually unsatisfying and pales in comparison to the other fine works of Andrew Roberts. You won’t miss much if you were to give it a pass.
It is an interesting read albeit cerebrally
unsatisfying as he attempts to contrast the two styles of leadership while highlighting behavioural differences and certain similarities. Both had charisma, cultivated their oratory skills, learned to use symbolism, and knew how to rally men for causes they believed in. Their styles of leadership are poles apart and the book is replete with innumerable anecdotes laying out these differences. Churchill delved into the minutest of details while Hitler was a hands-off leader. Their man-management styles were also sharply contrasting.
The book was written to accompany a BBC2 television series and herein lies the problem. The demands of screenplay and storytelling make the book a succession of period-piece anecdotes. Furthermore, both men have been written about interminably and therefore there is very little to excavate anew and analyse. Resultantly, the book converts into a regurgitation of known scholarship on Hitler and Churchill. Adding to the bland mix are many controversial assertions such as the origin of Hitler’s antisemitism, personal finances, character flaws, etc. Consequently, he struggles to maintain the flow as he consistently needs to circle back to the central theme of extracting nuggets of leadership arguing "While it is impossible to imagine two men more different than Hitler and Churchill, as leaders they had much more in common than one might think." In his goal to tell a parallel story and dredge up parallel leadership tales he often oversimplifies complex social interactions.
Overall, the book is underwhelming and intellectually unsatisfying and pales in comparison to the other fine works of Andrew Roberts. You won’t miss much if you were to give it a pass.
July 16, 2017
AL FIN TERMINÉ ESTE LIBRO
"El experimento [...] demostró, más allá de toda duda, que personas tímidas, amables y decentes pueden convertirse en monstruos si se les presenta la oportunidad"
Este más que un libro sobre dos mentes claves en la historia de la humanidad, es un libro que habla sobre la gente y como es fácilmente manipulada para acceder a cometer atrocidades; también habla sobre la educación y el carácter de ambos lideres, y como esto fue clave para el final de la guerra entre ambos sus países; estudiando hasta quienes hacían parte de su gabinete, consejeros y aliados (incluso la manera como los Estados Unidos de América fueron forzados a participar en un conflicto del que no querían hacer parte).
En mi opinión no es una lectura ligera (todos lo saben porque me tomó más de 6 meses completarla) y no deben tomarse los conceptos como algo ligero, sino como parte del rompecabezas que es toda esta obra de Roberts. Se nota que realizó una investigación exhaustiva para añadir frases de organismo que en 1940 eran secreto nacional.
No queda duda de que (con un notorio favorecimiento del Primer Ministro ingles), el autor no se deja ni un solo detalle fuera para describir la acción detrás del telón que fue la guerra; no tanto la física entre Alemania e Inglaterra, sino la de lideres entre Hitler y Churchill).
"El experimento [...] demostró, más allá de toda duda, que personas tímidas, amables y decentes pueden convertirse en monstruos si se les presenta la oportunidad"
Este más que un libro sobre dos mentes claves en la historia de la humanidad, es un libro que habla sobre la gente y como es fácilmente manipulada para acceder a cometer atrocidades; también habla sobre la educación y el carácter de ambos lideres, y como esto fue clave para el final de la guerra entre ambos sus países; estudiando hasta quienes hacían parte de su gabinete, consejeros y aliados (incluso la manera como los Estados Unidos de América fueron forzados a participar en un conflicto del que no querían hacer parte).
En mi opinión no es una lectura ligera (todos lo saben porque me tomó más de 6 meses completarla) y no deben tomarse los conceptos como algo ligero, sino como parte del rompecabezas que es toda esta obra de Roberts. Se nota que realizó una investigación exhaustiva para añadir frases de organismo que en 1940 eran secreto nacional.
No queda duda de que (con un notorio favorecimiento del Primer Ministro ingles), el autor no se deja ni un solo detalle fuera para describir la acción detrás del telón que fue la guerra; no tanto la física entre Alemania e Inglaterra, sino la de lideres entre Hitler y Churchill).
March 16, 2023
This book is about so much more than the “secrets of leadership”, the title doesn’t do it justice. Andrew Roberts describes the role of Churchill in Hitler in World War 2 and the events preceding the war and examines their character in a very engaging way. While I was not a fan of the Introduction and the comparisons in the first chapter, the rest of the book was extremely interesting.
“The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor.” (Winston Churchill, 1940)
“It has been a comfort to me in these anxious days to put a thousand years between my thoughts and the twentieth century.” (Winston Churchill, 1938)
“The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor.” (Winston Churchill, 1940)
“It has been a comfort to me in these anxious days to put a thousand years between my thoughts and the twentieth century.” (Winston Churchill, 1938)
October 11, 2019
Insightful, Eloquent and Incredibly Timely
I'm a lifelong student of WWII history, and found this book a delightful and enlightening read. With Fascism on the rise in America and elsewhere, the comparison between Churchill and Hitler is essential for anyone who gives a damn.
I'm a lifelong student of WWII history, and found this book a delightful and enlightening read. With Fascism on the rise in America and elsewhere, the comparison between Churchill and Hitler is essential for anyone who gives a damn.
February 3, 2020
TL:DR version: Hitler had just charisma, Churchill a great man by any yardstick. Churchill, surprisingly, was a micromanager. Hitler left everything other than foreign policy - which meant war - to others to execute.
February 10, 2012
Nice book on the leadership styles of Hitler and Churchill, full of examples and an analysis of why Churchill was the better leader of the two
Nice read, but a bit 'light' on the subject itself.
Nice read, but a bit 'light' on the subject itself.
March 16, 2019
Es más un repaso sobre algunos hechos de la vida de Churchill durante la segunda guerra con algunas críticas a Hitler durante el mismo periodo que cualquier otra cosa. Meramente anecdótico, no es un libro propiamente histórico. Carece de una estructura coherente, tal vez el hilo conductor es el tiempo pero no es claro.
Comparado con el trabajo del autor sobre Napoleón o con algunas biografías de Churchill, queda a deber.
Comparado con el trabajo del autor sobre Napoleón o con algunas biografías de Churchill, queda a deber.
September 6, 2012
Two very different men with very different leadership styles. A great comparison.
November 14, 2016
3.5 Realmente es bueno, me da una perspectiva diferente y más cercana de lo que pasó en la 2° Guerra Mundial, aunque se nota el favoritismo hacia Churchill.
September 9, 2023
Didn’t finish. Pretty poor and a very disjointed narrative.
August 10, 2022
Subtitled 'Secrets of Leadership', this book grew, I believe, out of a radio programme of the same title Roberts produced for the BBC. It's an excellent book: an easy yet compelling read, in just over 200 pages Roberts uses that old 'compare and contrast' m.o. to examine these two Titans of 20th C. history.
This is the first of Roberts' books I've read in which his Tory position is made quite so plain, as he refers very disparagingly to liberals and the left, and their ideas, in a manner bordering at times on glib. Interestingly, however, whilst he's still an ardent Tory, Roberts' views on some issues appear to have evolved since this was written (2003); if you'd only read this book, you might find his later book Napoleon the Great somewhat surprising.
However, if the above sound like the potential criticisms they indeed are, nevertheless, this book remains an excellent and by and large very balanced examination of its complex, fascinating and difficult subjects. And what compelling subjects they are!
Having said this, there is a slight (other reviews I've read prefer to say an extreme) imbalance, and in more than one way, in that the book not only gives Churchill more column space, ending with a study on how he's been perceived since his passing, but also falls in step with the vast majority of post WWII literature on the two men, in its fulsome praise of Churchill and sometimes crowing dismissals of Hitler.
But when the case is argued as eloquently and convincingly as Roberts does here, it's hard to disagree. And, in broad brushstroke terms, I personally don't. Nor is this book purely or simply Churchill hagiography vs Hitler as fall-guy punchbag. The failings of the former, and the strengths of the latter are examined.
Roberts says very early in his book that he separates Hitler and Churchill by describing the former as a charismatic leader, and the latter as inspirational. To learn what what he means by that might require that you read this book. I'd highly recommend that you do.
A fascinating polemic which, despite not sharing the authors' politics, I thoroughly enjoyed reading
This is the first of Roberts' books I've read in which his Tory position is made quite so plain, as he refers very disparagingly to liberals and the left, and their ideas, in a manner bordering at times on glib. Interestingly, however, whilst he's still an ardent Tory, Roberts' views on some issues appear to have evolved since this was written (2003); if you'd only read this book, you might find his later book Napoleon the Great somewhat surprising.
However, if the above sound like the potential criticisms they indeed are, nevertheless, this book remains an excellent and by and large very balanced examination of its complex, fascinating and difficult subjects. And what compelling subjects they are!
Having said this, there is a slight (other reviews I've read prefer to say an extreme) imbalance, and in more than one way, in that the book not only gives Churchill more column space, ending with a study on how he's been perceived since his passing, but also falls in step with the vast majority of post WWII literature on the two men, in its fulsome praise of Churchill and sometimes crowing dismissals of Hitler.
But when the case is argued as eloquently and convincingly as Roberts does here, it's hard to disagree. And, in broad brushstroke terms, I personally don't. Nor is this book purely or simply Churchill hagiography vs Hitler as fall-guy punchbag. The failings of the former, and the strengths of the latter are examined.
Roberts says very early in his book that he separates Hitler and Churchill by describing the former as a charismatic leader, and the latter as inspirational. To learn what what he means by that might require that you read this book. I'd highly recommend that you do.
A fascinating polemic which, despite not sharing the authors' politics, I thoroughly enjoyed reading
February 8, 2022
If two personalities are to define the 20th Century, Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill meet the standard. Both men, while wildly different ideologically, embodied the dueling "mass politics" that led to the World Wars: one, a movement based on vengeance and hate; the other, holding the promise (if not always living up to it) of majority governance and protections for the minority to live free and enjoy the bounties of peace. Andrew Roberts, in a witty banter-style book, dives into the similarities and differences between the two figures, showing Hitler's appalling (and surprising) laziness and mediocrity, contrasted against the high-flying Churchill.
Roberts's take on Churchill is particularly important for our own time. In the politics of the 21st Century, there is little persuading and educating, and much fussing about in loud voices, capital-lettered social media posts, and anonymous internet trolling. Churchill devoted enormous time to writing his own speeches, not simply to persuade in a political sense, but to educate, to demonstrate to Britons that the islands had been through worse than the Blitz, and could (and would) emerge stronger. If Churchill never quite held the tactics or strategy to win the war in 1940-41, he never stopped inspiriting his people to believe victory was possible.
Education, a moral belief in doing right by democratic means, and inspiring something grander than revenge is missing from Hitler's rise to power. For Churchill, it is the lodestar. It my be that World War II was won by more men, more materiel and more guns by the West and Soviet Union; but leadership, from Churchill, Roosevelt and other elected heads of state, had much to do with setting the mission and pushing the men and women forward.
Roberts's take on Churchill is particularly important for our own time. In the politics of the 21st Century, there is little persuading and educating, and much fussing about in loud voices, capital-lettered social media posts, and anonymous internet trolling. Churchill devoted enormous time to writing his own speeches, not simply to persuade in a political sense, but to educate, to demonstrate to Britons that the islands had been through worse than the Blitz, and could (and would) emerge stronger. If Churchill never quite held the tactics or strategy to win the war in 1940-41, he never stopped inspiriting his people to believe victory was possible.
Education, a moral belief in doing right by democratic means, and inspiring something grander than revenge is missing from Hitler's rise to power. For Churchill, it is the lodestar. It my be that World War II was won by more men, more materiel and more guns by the West and Soviet Union; but leadership, from Churchill, Roosevelt and other elected heads of state, had much to do with setting the mission and pushing the men and women forward.
July 21, 2023
Andrew Roberts' "Hitler & Churchill" delves into the lives of two polarizing figures who shaped the course of the 20th century - Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill. The book is a masterful portrait that captures the essence of these complex leaders, shedding light on their ideologies, decision-making, and profound impact on history.
"After meeting Hitler, people felt that he, the Fuhrer, could achieve anything. But when people met Churchill, they felt that they themselves could achieve anything." This statement sums up the key difference between Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill's leadership style.
The book delves into Hitler's rise to power and his ruthless ambition to create a totalitarian regime in Germany. Roberts portrays the chilling manipulation of Hitler's charisma, propaganda, and ideological fervor. The portrayal of Churchill, on the other hand, showcases his indomitable spirit, eloquence, and relentless determination in leading Britain through its darkest hours during the war.
Roberts' bias towards Churchill is evident, which at times lead to a portrayal that often glossed over Churchill's flaws and mistakes. Despite this, the book offered valuable insights into the lives of both historical figures.
"After meeting Hitler, people felt that he, the Fuhrer, could achieve anything. But when people met Churchill, they felt that they themselves could achieve anything." This statement sums up the key difference between Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill's leadership style.
The book delves into Hitler's rise to power and his ruthless ambition to create a totalitarian regime in Germany. Roberts portrays the chilling manipulation of Hitler's charisma, propaganda, and ideological fervor. The portrayal of Churchill, on the other hand, showcases his indomitable spirit, eloquence, and relentless determination in leading Britain through its darkest hours during the war.
Roberts' bias towards Churchill is evident, which at times lead to a portrayal that often glossed over Churchill's flaws and mistakes. Despite this, the book offered valuable insights into the lives of both historical figures.
September 3, 2017
First, in the introduction, we have Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush being portrayed as heroic figures. Then we have such clunkers as the salient observation that neither Churchill or Hitler enjoyed 'independent means'. Then this gem on page 19: "Although he was never as poor as Adolf Hitler was during his wilderness period, Churchill lived for many years teetering on the brink of bankruptcy." Roberts outdoes himself in inanity with the following just a few pages later: "Both Hitler and Churchill, therefore, knew hard times, although they were hardly comparable since Hitler did not have the kind of friends who could bail him out to the extent of buying him a Daimler." Gee, ya think? Checked the index, saw no entry for Sir Henry Strakosch (who bailed out Churchill financially in 1938 and left him a legacy upon his death in 1943), and decided I had wasted money on this book that I can only imagine must be geared towards young adult readers. (I did enjoy some of Roberts' "Eminent Churchillians" however). Will consult "Hitler and Churchill" at a later date when in a more comedic mood...
Read
February 24, 2021Interesting contrast and comparison between Hitler and Churchill. Shows Churchill in a more rounded view. However, the author is quite awed by Churchill and is reluctant to communicate Churchill's vices and not so positive traits whisking them away as boredom, class norms of the time, etc.
Hitler is not investigated nearly as deeply, which is a total shame. There is much new research and archives opening in both Allied, Soviet, and German archives due to the 70 years plus since the end of WWII. Working with a German scholar and/or delving deeper into current research available. For instance, Hitler is presented as asexual. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the researcher had looked deeper, an interested pattern of lovers committing suicide would emerge. Also, an interesting debrief of a doctor who treated a friend of Hitler's niece talks about Hitler's weird sexual interests such as women peeing on him.
Read this if you want to know about Churchill. Read elsewhere for Hitler.
Hitler is not investigated nearly as deeply, which is a total shame. There is much new research and archives opening in both Allied, Soviet, and German archives due to the 70 years plus since the end of WWII. Working with a German scholar and/or delving deeper into current research available. For instance, Hitler is presented as asexual. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the researcher had looked deeper, an interested pattern of lovers committing suicide would emerge. Also, an interesting debrief of a doctor who treated a friend of Hitler's niece talks about Hitler's weird sexual interests such as women peeing on him.
Read this if you want to know about Churchill. Read elsewhere for Hitler.
February 12, 2020
An analysis comparing the different leadership styles of a democratically elected leader of an established government and a revolutionary genocidal dictator... Which bluntly ignored the more controversial decisions of said democratic leader.
Perhaps it's because I was expecting more nuance, there are multiple biogrophies that illuminate Churchill's timeless personality in the face of the nazi reich.
This wasn't one of them.
However if you wanted a quick 5-minute business school primer on what toxic leadership looks like(Hitler) versus competent leadership (Churchill).
This is that.
Perhaps it's because I was expecting more nuance, there are multiple biogrophies that illuminate Churchill's timeless personality in the face of the nazi reich.
This wasn't one of them.
However if you wanted a quick 5-minute business school primer on what toxic leadership looks like(Hitler) versus competent leadership (Churchill).
This is that.
September 3, 2022
Interesting comparisons and details about both men. Some places not so interesting but overall it did provide some insight into both men. It's not a long book. Their leadership styles were quite different. At one point i wondered if there would be anything good to say about the leadership qualities of the bad mustache guy, but it's Hitler. He did like dictators do, know how to pick on people's fears and indignations. Hitler after all was a pathetic little man who knew how to play to his audience. Certainly a lesson to be learned for any country in how nationalism leads to fascism.
August 5, 2019
Interesting ... However it is a poorly balanced book in the content: Churchill 70% and Hitler 30%. It is not a comparative analysis of the leadership of these characters, it is rather a love letter from author Andrew Roberts to Churchuill.
*****
Interesante... Sin embargo es un libro poco equilibrado en el contenido: Churchill 70% y Hitler 30%. No es un análisis comparativo sobre el liderazgo de estos personajes, es más bien una carta de amor del autor Andrew Roberts a Churchuill.
*****
Interesante... Sin embargo es un libro poco equilibrado en el contenido: Churchill 70% y Hitler 30%. No es un análisis comparativo sobre el liderazgo de estos personajes, es más bien una carta de amor del autor Andrew Roberts a Churchuill.
December 24, 2022
Il faut qu'il soit bien entendu que toutes les instructions qui émanent de moi le soient sous forme écrite, ou doivent être aussitôt après confirmées par écrit, et que je refuse d'endosser la responsabilité de questions relatives à la Défense nationale pour lesquelles j'ai été sollicité afin de prendre des décisions tant qu'elles ne sont pas consignées par écrit 14.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 25, 2024
Cant really finish it. I think there's too much hype with the title "secrets of leadership".
The juxtaposing of churchill and hitler is not too interesting, the author tries to draw comparison paragraph by paragraph but it just doesnt ring me a bell. I just dont think this is an interesting enough topic that worths a book.
The juxtaposing of churchill and hitler is not too interesting, the author tries to draw comparison paragraph by paragraph but it just doesnt ring me a bell. I just dont think this is an interesting enough topic that worths a book.
May 5, 2019
the author is a blind Churchill praise singer who fails in his attempt to compare the leadership styles. if the objective was to learn more about Churchill’s time in power than that objective was achieved.
June 1, 2023
Factually fascinating, a brilliant comparison of the two men without becoming bogged down in a good vs evil predicament; skilfully moving to a more character based analysis. Gets slightly ranty by the conclusion as Roberts refutes other historians.
November 4, 2023
Ressemble beaucoup aux Vies parallèles de Plutarque dans la volonté de démarquer deux modèles de dirigeants et de psychologies. Mais il ne se limite pas à cela et entreprend une comparaison sur de nombreux points.
November 27, 2018
A brilliant eye opening read.
March 25, 2021
Interesting look at how they both managed things.
November 13, 2023
Good analysis + assessment but not his best
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews