What do you think?
Rate this book
Winston Churchill: The Flawed Genius of WWII
He was a legendary man of strength-but no man is without his weaknesses.
Revered for his strength of character when Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill is painted as one of World War II's most heroic figures-a characterization that overshadows his faults, which have had their own devastating legacy.
This book examines the decisions and policies of Churchill between June 1940 and December 1941 that actually hindered the Allied cause, extended the conflict, and even destabilized several regions that remain in chaos to this day.
With profound insight into Churchill's early colonial experiences as well as his first tenure as First Lord of the Admiralty, Christopher Catherwood offers an honest appraisal of Churchill's strategies in a unique and fascinating perspective that separates the myth from the man.
Revered for his strength of character when Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill is painted as one of World War II's most heroic figures-a characterization that overshadows his faults, which have had their own devastating legacy.
This book examines the decisions and policies of Churchill between June 1940 and December 1941 that actually hindered the Allied cause, extended the conflict, and even destabilized several regions that remain in chaos to this day.
With profound insight into Churchill's early colonial experiences as well as his first tenure as First Lord of the Admiralty, Christopher Catherwood offers an honest appraisal of Churchill's strategies in a unique and fascinating perspective that separates the myth from the man.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
About the author
Christopher Catherwood
66 books15 followersChristopher Catherwood is a writer and historian based in Cambridge. He has taught at the University of Cambridge and the University of Richmond, Virginia. An expert on Winston Churchill, his previous books include the bestseller Winston’s Folly.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 1, 2013
A review by Colin Edwards
“He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” (George Bernard Shaw)
What causes us to lift a non-fiction volume from the bookstore shelves and part with taxed dollars to own it? Hopefully it will be a volume to challenge, inspire and edify us. It may even anger us. It should, at least, entertain us.
It was with this in mind that I studied Richard Hasselberger’s jacket design. It shows Bettmann/Corbis’s “Churchill and Generals Study”. The original photograph posed (left to right) General G.G. Simonds, Sir Winston Churchill, General Montgomery and General Sir Miles Dempsey intently looking at something on a jeep, parked presumably, on the Normandy beaches. General Simonds is immaculate in a spotless battledress and beret (which were notorious for attracting fluff), and regulation (for generals), pair of binoculars hanging around his neck ― to check presumably for the location of the mess-truck. Sir Winston looks like a ferryboat captain with cap and reefer coat. Viscount Montgomery also has a spotless beret, albeit twice the size, adorned in multiple badges. Richard Hasselberger’s cropped off poor Sir Miles – but then in the original he did look as if he had an unpleasant smell under his nose. The only other photograph is an under exposed portrait of Dr Catherwood himself, taken by Mrs Catherwood whose talents tend more towards music than photography. All of this should have warned me that this was not a book to be taken seriously.
Dr Catherwood is a teacher. Not only that, he is a teacher at the top of his profession. He has every academic qualification known to man, and teaches at the most prestigious seats of learning in the land. In his own estimation, he is a “…renowned historian …” with “ …an unflinching unbiased eye toward revealing the often painful truth …”. Well, what we read here is not truth, painful or otherwise. It is an anti-English diatribe hastily written for the American market. Notwithstanding the fact that Dr Catherwood (and his family) owes everything to England, he is not English. He is an Ulster/Welsh/Scot all of whom have great antipathy towards the mother country.
The great revelation of this book is that America fought the Japanese, and the Russians fought the Germans while the Brits made lunch. To be more precise, America won the war in the pacific, and Russia won the war in Europe. Well, I have to tell him that my Dad fought the Luftwaffe in the RAF, my cousin Reg fought and died fighting the Luftwaffe also in the RAF, and my cousin Ian died at Monte Cassino also fighting the Germans. This of course does not alter the fact that America did win the war, and the Russians fought and died in their millions, but that does not justify Dr Catherwood rubbishing the Brits as he does in this book.
What is not factual is all the ‘counterfactual what-ifs’ that the good Doctor describes as fact. How can anyone ― even one as worthy as Dr Catherwood say that if that had happened, the result would have been that.
Sir Winston Churchill is the villain. His biggest crime was that between 1940 and 1945 he made political decisions and acted like a politician. Duh? That is what politicians do. And in case his history degree course missed it, it is politicians who start wars for political reasons, determine their direction and decide how they will end. Perhaps in the rarefied atmosphere of Cambridge, the politicians head for Maui and leave the generals to fight the war. Another Churchillian sin was his reluctance to consider premature independence for India. Did it not occur to Dr Catherwood that Churchill realized that premature independence for India would result in massive bloodshed ― which it did.
However, according to Dr Catherwood, Churchill’s cardinal sin was not agreeing to General Marshalls plan to invade Europe in 1943. This is the same Marshall who originally wanted a 200 division army in Europe but changed his mind in favor of a 90 division one using his individual replacement system. This (IRS), excogitated by Marshall was an utter disaster and had completely broken down by 1944. It was so detrimental to the allies war effort, it has been suggested that he receive the Iron Cross for services to the Wehrmacht. And it is the same General Marshall that recommended Lt. General Lloyd Fredendall of Kasserine Pass fame. This is not to dismiss General Marshall out of hand; he just did not have any operational experience ― nor did his staff. Churchill knew this and preferred his own judgment and that of his experienced generals. And he wasn’t alone; Roosevelt did too. Like Dr Catherwood, George Marshall was a teacher. His entire career before 1941 was training as was General Eisenhower’s. That is not to condemn them, it just happens to be the truth. Northern Europe in 1943 was no place for on-the-job training.
Dr Catherwood; who has a masters in literature, fills this work with very silly statements like, “if that had happened (and it was Churchill’s fault that it didn’t), this would have happened, and then this would have happened resulting in that etc …” It is quite ridiculous to be so dogmatic about outcomes which no one could possible predict. There is nothing wrong with writing a ‘What If’ book: Robert Cowley has done very nicely doing so; but it should be sold as such, not disguised as a legitimate work of history. It is even more outrageous when this deception for personal gain involves the character assassination of the greatest man of the 20th century.
Of course Churchill could have done things differently ― maybe even better, but he did do one thing that made all the difference. He stood up to Hitler when no one else had the guts to do so. In combat as in everything else in life, it is the first man in that makes the difference. To lead from the front, not push from the rear.
As an English infantry officer who bears the physical scars of association with Dr Catherwoods ilk in Northern Ireland, I take exception to his constant derision of Britain’s forces. Members of the armed services do as they are told. They do not decide where or when to fight. If the troops did not fight in a particular theatre, it is because politicians did not want them to. I really must curb my indignation at the way Dr Catherwood revels in fantasy as I know full well who he is pandering too, but when he says “ …the United States did enter the war, and it was that entry that enabled Britain to be on the winning side come 1945.” The United States did not enter the war, they were attacked by Japan and therefore had no choice but to defend themselves, and Germany declared war on them so the same response applied. There are good arguments to suggest that had Germany not declared war in 1941, America might not have entered the European war and concentrated on the Pacific. Clearly the lend lease would have prevailed as it was very good business; indeed, it pulled America out of the depression. Had America stood shoulder to shoulder with Great Britain in 1939, there never would have been a war ― not then anyway.
Dr Catherwood states on page 69 “ …since the United States would have found it remarkably difficult to manufacture an excuse to intervene on the side of the democracies without being attacked first.” How about Nazi tyranny? Wouldn’t that work? Page 70 “It is miraculous that they (the Luftwaffe), failed over Britain as well.” “The UK could have been invaded and flattened by the Third Reich at any time …” It amazing that Hitler or any of his staff didn’t know that – maybe because it was not true?
Notwithstanding the above, Winston Churchill – the flawed genius etc., must be a scholarly work as it has ten pages of acknowledgments. The Cambridge archives have also revealed hitherto unknown gems like “Churchill’s cigar, more waved than smoked.” Wow – I didn’t know that.
If you subscribe to the belief that Britain should have stood aside in 1941and left the prosecution of the war to General Marshall and Marshal Stalin. If you believe that the people of London, Coventry and Bristol were mugs who didn’t know they were beaten. If you believe that winning the Battle of Britain was an amazing fluke, and that the 700,000 military casualties and 60000 civilian deaths was just what we deserved for being such chumps: then this is a book for you.
But, if like me, you believe that the 72 million soldiers and 47 million civilians who died during and as a result of the Second World War didn’t die in vain, but died, doing the best they could with what they had: then leave this fiction to gather dust on the shelf as most people have done.
“He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” (George Bernard Shaw)
What causes us to lift a non-fiction volume from the bookstore shelves and part with taxed dollars to own it? Hopefully it will be a volume to challenge, inspire and edify us. It may even anger us. It should, at least, entertain us.
It was with this in mind that I studied Richard Hasselberger’s jacket design. It shows Bettmann/Corbis’s “Churchill and Generals Study”. The original photograph posed (left to right) General G.G. Simonds, Sir Winston Churchill, General Montgomery and General Sir Miles Dempsey intently looking at something on a jeep, parked presumably, on the Normandy beaches. General Simonds is immaculate in a spotless battledress and beret (which were notorious for attracting fluff), and regulation (for generals), pair of binoculars hanging around his neck ― to check presumably for the location of the mess-truck. Sir Winston looks like a ferryboat captain with cap and reefer coat. Viscount Montgomery also has a spotless beret, albeit twice the size, adorned in multiple badges. Richard Hasselberger’s cropped off poor Sir Miles – but then in the original he did look as if he had an unpleasant smell under his nose. The only other photograph is an under exposed portrait of Dr Catherwood himself, taken by Mrs Catherwood whose talents tend more towards music than photography. All of this should have warned me that this was not a book to be taken seriously.
Dr Catherwood is a teacher. Not only that, he is a teacher at the top of his profession. He has every academic qualification known to man, and teaches at the most prestigious seats of learning in the land. In his own estimation, he is a “…renowned historian …” with “ …an unflinching unbiased eye toward revealing the often painful truth …”. Well, what we read here is not truth, painful or otherwise. It is an anti-English diatribe hastily written for the American market. Notwithstanding the fact that Dr Catherwood (and his family) owes everything to England, he is not English. He is an Ulster/Welsh/Scot all of whom have great antipathy towards the mother country.
The great revelation of this book is that America fought the Japanese, and the Russians fought the Germans while the Brits made lunch. To be more precise, America won the war in the pacific, and Russia won the war in Europe. Well, I have to tell him that my Dad fought the Luftwaffe in the RAF, my cousin Reg fought and died fighting the Luftwaffe also in the RAF, and my cousin Ian died at Monte Cassino also fighting the Germans. This of course does not alter the fact that America did win the war, and the Russians fought and died in their millions, but that does not justify Dr Catherwood rubbishing the Brits as he does in this book.
What is not factual is all the ‘counterfactual what-ifs’ that the good Doctor describes as fact. How can anyone ― even one as worthy as Dr Catherwood say that if that had happened, the result would have been that.
Sir Winston Churchill is the villain. His biggest crime was that between 1940 and 1945 he made political decisions and acted like a politician. Duh? That is what politicians do. And in case his history degree course missed it, it is politicians who start wars for political reasons, determine their direction and decide how they will end. Perhaps in the rarefied atmosphere of Cambridge, the politicians head for Maui and leave the generals to fight the war. Another Churchillian sin was his reluctance to consider premature independence for India. Did it not occur to Dr Catherwood that Churchill realized that premature independence for India would result in massive bloodshed ― which it did.
However, according to Dr Catherwood, Churchill’s cardinal sin was not agreeing to General Marshalls plan to invade Europe in 1943. This is the same Marshall who originally wanted a 200 division army in Europe but changed his mind in favor of a 90 division one using his individual replacement system. This (IRS), excogitated by Marshall was an utter disaster and had completely broken down by 1944. It was so detrimental to the allies war effort, it has been suggested that he receive the Iron Cross for services to the Wehrmacht. And it is the same General Marshall that recommended Lt. General Lloyd Fredendall of Kasserine Pass fame. This is not to dismiss General Marshall out of hand; he just did not have any operational experience ― nor did his staff. Churchill knew this and preferred his own judgment and that of his experienced generals. And he wasn’t alone; Roosevelt did too. Like Dr Catherwood, George Marshall was a teacher. His entire career before 1941 was training as was General Eisenhower’s. That is not to condemn them, it just happens to be the truth. Northern Europe in 1943 was no place for on-the-job training.
Dr Catherwood; who has a masters in literature, fills this work with very silly statements like, “if that had happened (and it was Churchill’s fault that it didn’t), this would have happened, and then this would have happened resulting in that etc …” It is quite ridiculous to be so dogmatic about outcomes which no one could possible predict. There is nothing wrong with writing a ‘What If’ book: Robert Cowley has done very nicely doing so; but it should be sold as such, not disguised as a legitimate work of history. It is even more outrageous when this deception for personal gain involves the character assassination of the greatest man of the 20th century.
Of course Churchill could have done things differently ― maybe even better, but he did do one thing that made all the difference. He stood up to Hitler when no one else had the guts to do so. In combat as in everything else in life, it is the first man in that makes the difference. To lead from the front, not push from the rear.
As an English infantry officer who bears the physical scars of association with Dr Catherwoods ilk in Northern Ireland, I take exception to his constant derision of Britain’s forces. Members of the armed services do as they are told. They do not decide where or when to fight. If the troops did not fight in a particular theatre, it is because politicians did not want them to. I really must curb my indignation at the way Dr Catherwood revels in fantasy as I know full well who he is pandering too, but when he says “ …the United States did enter the war, and it was that entry that enabled Britain to be on the winning side come 1945.” The United States did not enter the war, they were attacked by Japan and therefore had no choice but to defend themselves, and Germany declared war on them so the same response applied. There are good arguments to suggest that had Germany not declared war in 1941, America might not have entered the European war and concentrated on the Pacific. Clearly the lend lease would have prevailed as it was very good business; indeed, it pulled America out of the depression. Had America stood shoulder to shoulder with Great Britain in 1939, there never would have been a war ― not then anyway.
Dr Catherwood states on page 69 “ …since the United States would have found it remarkably difficult to manufacture an excuse to intervene on the side of the democracies without being attacked first.” How about Nazi tyranny? Wouldn’t that work? Page 70 “It is miraculous that they (the Luftwaffe), failed over Britain as well.” “The UK could have been invaded and flattened by the Third Reich at any time …” It amazing that Hitler or any of his staff didn’t know that – maybe because it was not true?
Notwithstanding the above, Winston Churchill – the flawed genius etc., must be a scholarly work as it has ten pages of acknowledgments. The Cambridge archives have also revealed hitherto unknown gems like “Churchill’s cigar, more waved than smoked.” Wow – I didn’t know that.
If you subscribe to the belief that Britain should have stood aside in 1941and left the prosecution of the war to General Marshall and Marshal Stalin. If you believe that the people of London, Coventry and Bristol were mugs who didn’t know they were beaten. If you believe that winning the Battle of Britain was an amazing fluke, and that the 700,000 military casualties and 60000 civilian deaths was just what we deserved for being such chumps: then this is a book for you.
But, if like me, you believe that the 72 million soldiers and 47 million civilians who died during and as a result of the Second World War didn’t die in vain, but died, doing the best they could with what they had: then leave this fiction to gather dust on the shelf as most people have done.
December 18, 2021
It is the most repetitive book I have ever read. Catherwood seems to make the same point twenty times in every chapter. His use of parenthetical phrases is, if I may digress, which I can because, as the poet said, "He who can't digress is at a loss", but I digress, distracting if not, to use the vernacular, maddening! Catherwood's book could be condensed to twenty pages, or even one paragraph: Churchill completely misunderstood mechanized warfare, and never fully grasped America's power and Britain's puniness. He was a scattershot general who played on Roosevelt's desire to be seen fighting Germans ASAP to put off Marshall's brilliant plan for a massive invasion of France. Churchill delayed D-Day by two years, costing countless millions of lives and ensuring that the Soviets would overrun half of Europe. Catherwood's book reads like a "publish or perish'' assignment written over a summer holiday, Christmas even!
September 6, 2025
In "Winston Churchill: The flawed genius of World War II" Christopher Catherwood makes a strong case that Churchill's opposition to Marshall in 1942 resulted in a "fourteen-month delay in launching D-day [that] was to cost not only the lives of millions, but also the freedoms of millions more, as it was now to be the Red Army that stormed into Central and Eastern Europe, and not the British and Americans." For the PM's stand in 1940-41, I would call him a "flawed hero" rather than "flawed genius". Perhaps the most significant quotation was this: "I realised at Teheran for the first time what a small nation we are. There I sat with the great Russian bear on one side of me, with paws outstretched, and on the other side the great American buffalo, and between us sat the poor little English donkey who was the only one of the three, who knew the right way home."
October 16, 2010
A good read about some of the pivotal decisions Churchill would have to make. I like the explanation for why no one listened to Churchill, something I think we often forget. After all Churchill had been wrong about so many things before.
However, the idea of D-Day occurring 1942-43 is a powerful idea. Especially since Churchill ended the American plan for that. How different would our relationships with the soviets be if Chamberlain had taken earlier offers, Munich didn't happen, or the west opened the western front in Europe when it was initially promised. Not to say the Cold War wouldn't have happened, only the footing be different.
In many ways the most interesting part of the book was his discussion of different historians and the changing view of Churchill as Western and then Soviet documents became released over the years.
However, the idea of D-Day occurring 1942-43 is a powerful idea. Especially since Churchill ended the American plan for that. How different would our relationships with the soviets be if Chamberlain had taken earlier offers, Munich didn't happen, or the west opened the western front in Europe when it was initially promised. Not to say the Cold War wouldn't have happened, only the footing be different.
In many ways the most interesting part of the book was his discussion of different historians and the changing view of Churchill as Western and then Soviet documents became released over the years.
July 30, 2014
A bit drawn out, but the over all information was a huge eye opener for me. A must read for anyone interested in how the western allies let the Russian's fight alone against the 3rd Reich for roughly 4 years. Leaving all those countries/peoples betrayed ie Czechoslovakia or the the one that they finally joined in the fight for ie Poland and all the others inbetween suffer as a consequence. A big salute to all those who paid the price civilian or military.
May 27, 2010
The basic idea could be presented in a couple of chapters instead of 7.
February 11, 2015
Lots to learn in this book about Churchill and his decisions. It is very interesting why he did not authorize D Day in 1943 and the suppositions if he had.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews