What do you think?
Rate this book
The Duel: 10 May- 31 July 1940- The Eighty-Day Struggle Between Churchill and Hitler
Depicts the eighty day struggle in 1940 between Adolph Hitler and Winston Churchill, revealing how close England and the democratic world came to losing World War II
258 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1990
198 people are currently reading
619 people want to read
About the author
John Lukacs
76 books112 followersLukacs was born in Budapest to a Roman Catholic father and Jewish mother. His parents divorced before the Second World War. During the Second World War he was forced to serve in a Hungarian labour battalion for Jews. During the German occupation of Hungary in 1944-45 he evaded deportation to the death camps, and survived the siege of Budapest. In 1946, as it became clear that Hungary was going to be a repressive Communist regime, he fled to the United States. In the early 1950s however, Lukacs wrote several articles in Commonweal criticizing the approach taken by Senator Joseph McCarthy, whom he described as a vulgar demagogue.[1]
Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.
Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.
Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.
Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
June 2, 2019
This is about the actions of Churchill and Hitler during those crucial days from May 10 to July 31, 1940.
It was a turbulent time. Churchill had just assumed the prime minister-ship. Both the British people and the parliament had had enough of Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain did not survive a vote of confidence in early May; there were insufficient votes in his favour so he felt obliged to step down.
But Churchill, although popular with the British people or seen as a distinct alternative to the Chamberlain years, was not so acceptable to many in his own Conservative Party. His hold on power for the first part of those eighty days was tenuous. He had to tread carefully and prove his worth, more so to those who thought him unstable and a maverick.
He had much to contend with! Holland, Belgium, and France were attacked. Holland and Belgium both collapsed under the German blitzkrieg in May. Churchill visited France a few times to try to bolster their sagging resolution to fight on (it was during one of these visits that he was to meet General de Gaulle).
He also had to convince and prepare his own people of the hard road ahead. He never lied or gave the impression that victory was around the corner.
He also had to contend with some in his own War Cabinet, like Lord Halifax, who wanted to open up negotiations with Hitler to see what kind of deal could be made to bring the war to an end. Churchill pondered this, but after a day or so rejected this approach as a slippery slope.
Britain was to remain resolute, and after France fell it remained alone against Nazi occupied Europe. Churchill was then the sole opponent facing Hitler.
Hitler was stymied about Britain and Churchills’ refusal to seek an end to the war. Hitler knew that invasion would be no easy task, particularly if air supremacy could not be achieved. In fact, to buy time Churchill would put out bogus peace feelers via Switzerland or Sweden just to give false pretences while Britain’s defenses, which needed much work, could be built up. This also confused Hitler as to Britain’s intentions.
This book is more about Churchill and England than Hitler. At the beginning of the eighty days Hitler was seen as the ultimate warrior and invincible. At the end of the eighty days Hitler had met an adversary who was not going to back down, who was able to put some kind of doubt into his vaunted domination. Across the globe people were starting to see in Churchill a stalwart and rising hope against Hitler.
The author of this book, John Lukacs, died recently at the age of 95. He wrote several books on the World War II era, Churchill and modern history. John Lukacs was an opinionated writer and engaging. Apparently, his home library consisted of some 20,000 books, I have some catching up to do!
It was a turbulent time. Churchill had just assumed the prime minister-ship. Both the British people and the parliament had had enough of Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain did not survive a vote of confidence in early May; there were insufficient votes in his favour so he felt obliged to step down.
But Churchill, although popular with the British people or seen as a distinct alternative to the Chamberlain years, was not so acceptable to many in his own Conservative Party. His hold on power for the first part of those eighty days was tenuous. He had to tread carefully and prove his worth, more so to those who thought him unstable and a maverick.
He had much to contend with! Holland, Belgium, and France were attacked. Holland and Belgium both collapsed under the German blitzkrieg in May. Churchill visited France a few times to try to bolster their sagging resolution to fight on (it was during one of these visits that he was to meet General de Gaulle).
He also had to convince and prepare his own people of the hard road ahead. He never lied or gave the impression that victory was around the corner.
He also had to contend with some in his own War Cabinet, like Lord Halifax, who wanted to open up negotiations with Hitler to see what kind of deal could be made to bring the war to an end. Churchill pondered this, but after a day or so rejected this approach as a slippery slope.
Britain was to remain resolute, and after France fell it remained alone against Nazi occupied Europe. Churchill was then the sole opponent facing Hitler.
Hitler was stymied about Britain and Churchills’ refusal to seek an end to the war. Hitler knew that invasion would be no easy task, particularly if air supremacy could not be achieved. In fact, to buy time Churchill would put out bogus peace feelers via Switzerland or Sweden just to give false pretences while Britain’s defenses, which needed much work, could be built up. This also confused Hitler as to Britain’s intentions.
This book is more about Churchill and England than Hitler. At the beginning of the eighty days Hitler was seen as the ultimate warrior and invincible. At the end of the eighty days Hitler had met an adversary who was not going to back down, who was able to put some kind of doubt into his vaunted domination. Across the globe people were starting to see in Churchill a stalwart and rising hope against Hitler.
The author of this book, John Lukacs, died recently at the age of 95. He wrote several books on the World War II era, Churchill and modern history. John Lukacs was an opinionated writer and engaging. Apparently, his home library consisted of some 20,000 books, I have some catching up to do!
May 22, 2021
This history tells of the personal struggle between Churchill and Hitler over the period of 10th May to the 1st August, 1940. The book begins with Hitler's personal train heading to his headquarters, in a forest clearing, close to the Belgian frontier, where Hitler announced the offensive against the Western powers had begun...
While Hitler's forces were unleashed on Belgium, Holland France; in London, Churchill became Prime Minister. Chamberlain had been clinging to power and was finally forced to resign, with Churchill viewed with suspicion and distrust by many but, undoubtedly, the correct man for the task ahead. Hitler was more than aware that Churchill as the leader was a far different prospect from Chamberlain and, as soon became clear, he was also keen to make peace with Britain.
The author is interested in the personal attributes of Churchill and Hitler and of how they read each other. While Churchill was magnanimous to Chamberlain; giving him time to move from Downing Street, for example, Hitler was less tolerant of weakness. It was also clear that Churchill had a far better idea of Hitler's mindset - predicting he would invade Russia, for example, while Hitler misinterpreted the way the British public viewed Dunkirk.
As the Battle of Britain began, Churchill was keen to try to get Roosevelt on side and fight on. While the German people resented the English for keeping the war going, there was both exasperation and grudging respect for the country left standing, alone, against them. This is an interesting portrait of the two men at the eye of the storm in 1940, whose personal duel had consequences not just for Europe, but for the whole world.
While Hitler's forces were unleashed on Belgium, Holland France; in London, Churchill became Prime Minister. Chamberlain had been clinging to power and was finally forced to resign, with Churchill viewed with suspicion and distrust by many but, undoubtedly, the correct man for the task ahead. Hitler was more than aware that Churchill as the leader was a far different prospect from Chamberlain and, as soon became clear, he was also keen to make peace with Britain.
The author is interested in the personal attributes of Churchill and Hitler and of how they read each other. While Churchill was magnanimous to Chamberlain; giving him time to move from Downing Street, for example, Hitler was less tolerant of weakness. It was also clear that Churchill had a far better idea of Hitler's mindset - predicting he would invade Russia, for example, while Hitler misinterpreted the way the British public viewed Dunkirk.
As the Battle of Britain began, Churchill was keen to try to get Roosevelt on side and fight on. While the German people resented the English for keeping the war going, there was both exasperation and grudging respect for the country left standing, alone, against them. This is an interesting portrait of the two men at the eye of the storm in 1940, whose personal duel had consequences not just for Europe, but for the whole world.
November 19, 2019
Elképesztő mélységű elemzés arról az időszakról, amikor Churchill egyedül* volt kénytelen birkózni Hitlerrel – nagyjából miniszterelnöksége kezdetétől kezdve addig a pontig, amíg az USA világosan el nem kötelezte magát a szövetségesek ügye mellett. Elképesztő mélységű, mondom, még úgy is, hogy közben egy csomó mindenről nem, vagy alig beszél: az angliai csatát csak megemlíti, a brit-olasz összecsapásokról pedig egy kósza szót sem ejt. Ugyanakkor intenzív, enyhén lélektanász portrékat ad két nagy formátumú politikusról, motivációikról, terveikről, félelmeikről és arról, hogyan képzelték el a politikát és a háborút. Ami Hitlert illeti, Lukacs szinte tenyérbemászóan tárgyilagos marad, és alapvetően Churchill esetében is elmondható ez – bár néha volt olyan benyomásom a róla szóló passzusokat olvasva, hogy a háttérben felcsendülni hallom a Nászinduló-t.
Amit a kötet egyszerűen páratlanul elemez, az nem is a két központi figura bajvívása, hanem Churchill személyes küzdelme Anglián belül a békepárttal. Lukacs fenemód jól rajzolja meg, mennyivel nehezebb dolga is volt neki Hitlernél, hisz végtére is végig kétfrontos háborút vívott: nem csupán a németekkel kellett megharcolnia, hanem azokkal a nem jelentéktelen csoportokkal is, akik egyáltalán nem tartottak elképzelhetetlennek egy „tisztes” békét a Führerrel. Vagy rosszul értelmezett pacifizmusból, vagy azért, mert ideológiailag nem is tartották annyira vállalhatatlannak a nemzetiszocializmust. És hátborzongató belegondolni, milyen közel kerültek ezek a csoportok ahhoz, hogy diadalt arassanak – márpedig Hitlernek a legnagyobb esélye arra, hogy tartósan berendezkedhessen a kontinensen, nem a fegyveres csapásmérés volt, hanem az ő hatalomra jutásuk. És akkor – hm, hát akkor el se tudom képzelni, hogy alakult volna a XX. század. Eszembe is jutott, amit egyszer Ámosz Oznál olvastam**: hogy nem a háború a legrosszabb, hanem ha szemet hunyunk az agresszió fölött. Tudni kell, mikor muszáj ellenállni, bármi is az ára. És Churchill ehhez bizony nagyon értett.
* Jó, hát egy darabig ott voltak mellette a franciák, ellene meg az olaszok, de Lukacs minden sora érzékelteti, hogy ők bizony csak afféle statiszták voltak a két Marvel-hős eposzi egymást-csépelésében.
**"Ez talán szakadékot teremt köztem és az átlagos európai pacifista között, aki azt állítja, a világban a legnagyobb gonosz a háború. Az én szótáramban a háború rettenetes, de a legnagyobb gonosz mégsem a háború, hanem az agresszió. Ha 1939-ben Németország kivételével az egész világ arra az álláspontra helyezkedik, hogy a háború a legnagyobb gonosz a világon, mostanra Hitler lenne a világegyetem ura. Ha felismerjük az agressziót, igenis harcolni kell ellene, akárhonnét érkezik. De csak az élet és a szabadság érdekében, nem extra területekért, extra erőforrásokért."
(Ámosz Oz: Hogyan gyógyítsuk a fanatikust)
Amit a kötet egyszerűen páratlanul elemez, az nem is a két központi figura bajvívása, hanem Churchill személyes küzdelme Anglián belül a békepárttal. Lukacs fenemód jól rajzolja meg, mennyivel nehezebb dolga is volt neki Hitlernél, hisz végtére is végig kétfrontos háborút vívott: nem csupán a németekkel kellett megharcolnia, hanem azokkal a nem jelentéktelen csoportokkal is, akik egyáltalán nem tartottak elképzelhetetlennek egy „tisztes” békét a Führerrel. Vagy rosszul értelmezett pacifizmusból, vagy azért, mert ideológiailag nem is tartották annyira vállalhatatlannak a nemzetiszocializmust. És hátborzongató belegondolni, milyen közel kerültek ezek a csoportok ahhoz, hogy diadalt arassanak – márpedig Hitlernek a legnagyobb esélye arra, hogy tartósan berendezkedhessen a kontinensen, nem a fegyveres csapásmérés volt, hanem az ő hatalomra jutásuk. És akkor – hm, hát akkor el se tudom képzelni, hogy alakult volna a XX. század. Eszembe is jutott, amit egyszer Ámosz Oznál olvastam**: hogy nem a háború a legrosszabb, hanem ha szemet hunyunk az agresszió fölött. Tudni kell, mikor muszáj ellenállni, bármi is az ára. És Churchill ehhez bizony nagyon értett.
* Jó, hát egy darabig ott voltak mellette a franciák, ellene meg az olaszok, de Lukacs minden sora érzékelteti, hogy ők bizony csak afféle statiszták voltak a két Marvel-hős eposzi egymást-csépelésében.
**"Ez talán szakadékot teremt köztem és az átlagos európai pacifista között, aki azt állítja, a világban a legnagyobb gonosz a háború. Az én szótáramban a háború rettenetes, de a legnagyobb gonosz mégsem a háború, hanem az agresszió. Ha 1939-ben Németország kivételével az egész világ arra az álláspontra helyezkedik, hogy a háború a legnagyobb gonosz a világon, mostanra Hitler lenne a világegyetem ura. Ha felismerjük az agressziót, igenis harcolni kell ellene, akárhonnét érkezik. De csak az élet és a szabadság érdekében, nem extra területekért, extra erőforrásokért."
(Ámosz Oz: Hogyan gyógyítsuk a fanatikust)
April 21, 2016
I probably would have given this 3.5 stars, but I rounded it down, since there aren't 1/2 stars on this site.
This book is an interesting contrast between Hitler and Churchill and the coincidence of history that Churchill’s move to #10 Downing Street on May 10, 1940, occurred on the same day as Hitler’s move on Western Europe. However, I thought it would be a book that detailed more about the battles, but instead, it’s a study of what was going on with the two men and those around them – Hitler’s generals and Churchill’s negotiations with the French and dealings with the Members of Parliament, primarily – and their thoughts as recorded in journals at the time and in Churchill’s postwar memoirs.
While I was hoping this book would discuss more of the day-to-day events of the war, those receive ancillary treatment, as the focus is on the political intrigues and maneuverings of the two subjects of the book. I read this with the hope of learning more of Dunkirk and the lead-up to the Battle of Britain – and those are covered, but only as they affected the writings and decisions of Hitler and Churchill. More precisely, it’s a period in which Hitler was hoping the British would sue for peace while he tried to prevent the USA and Spain from joining the war and tried to keep the USSR at bay while he planned to betray their alliance.
But Lukacs takes it a step further – and with good evidence – posits the theory that the attack on the USSR, if successful, would have dissuaded the U.S from entering the war (the period the book covers was 18 months before Pearl Harbor, remember) and forced Britain to capitulate.
There isn’t a lot of action in this book – and I admit I was a bit bored for a while – but it is an interesting snapshot of a moment between the conquest of France and the Battle of Britain in the spring and summer of 1940.
This book is an interesting contrast between Hitler and Churchill and the coincidence of history that Churchill’s move to #10 Downing Street on May 10, 1940, occurred on the same day as Hitler’s move on Western Europe. However, I thought it would be a book that detailed more about the battles, but instead, it’s a study of what was going on with the two men and those around them – Hitler’s generals and Churchill’s negotiations with the French and dealings with the Members of Parliament, primarily – and their thoughts as recorded in journals at the time and in Churchill’s postwar memoirs.
While I was hoping this book would discuss more of the day-to-day events of the war, those receive ancillary treatment, as the focus is on the political intrigues and maneuverings of the two subjects of the book. I read this with the hope of learning more of Dunkirk and the lead-up to the Battle of Britain – and those are covered, but only as they affected the writings and decisions of Hitler and Churchill. More precisely, it’s a period in which Hitler was hoping the British would sue for peace while he tried to prevent the USA and Spain from joining the war and tried to keep the USSR at bay while he planned to betray their alliance.
But Lukacs takes it a step further – and with good evidence – posits the theory that the attack on the USSR, if successful, would have dissuaded the U.S from entering the war (the period the book covers was 18 months before Pearl Harbor, remember) and forced Britain to capitulate.
There isn’t a lot of action in this book – and I admit I was a bit bored for a while – but it is an interesting snapshot of a moment between the conquest of France and the Battle of Britain in the spring and summer of 1940.
September 5, 2021
My A level history only covered 1839 -1939. So this book covering 80 days from 10 May to 31 July 1940 was an excellent addition. Another book given to me by my dad.
Very well written. Terrific insights into the struggle between Churchill and Hitler in this period. Why did Hitler hold off on attacking Dunkirk and invading Britain? Why did it take Roosevelt so long to help out? How did Churchill deal with appeasers around him? Why did Churchill order an attack on the French navy after France had surrendered?
First class read.
Very well written. Terrific insights into the struggle between Churchill and Hitler in this period. Why did Hitler hold off on attacking Dunkirk and invading Britain? Why did it take Roosevelt so long to help out? How did Churchill deal with appeasers around him? Why did Churchill order an attack on the French navy after France had surrendered?
First class read.
September 27, 2020
wow, what a boring book, excerpts like “Hitler ate his soup at 19:00 while the train was going slower than usual” makes me want to stop reading for the tenth time. Anglophile author with too affected language, boring and without empathy with the reader.
January 9, 2017
Read with 'Their Finest Hour' by Churchill!
February 16, 2020
Hiányzott már valami kis történelem az életemből :D.
A könyv oldalain két eléggé erős személyiség vonul fel, akik igencsak nyomott hagytak a világban/világon.
Habár a könyv szerzője igyekszik objektív maradni, azért néhol fel-felszaladt a szemöldököm :D. De jó, én sem hiszem, hogy képes lennék minden érzelmemtől elvonatkoztatni. De nekem nem is kell. Alapvetően rögtön letettem az egyik oldal mellett a voksomat. Ennek ellenére is érdekes volt olvasni, hogy egyes helyzetekre ki és hogyan is reagált. Lehet keresek még valami olvasni valót erről az időszakról...
A könyv oldalain két eléggé erős személyiség vonul fel, akik igencsak nyomott hagytak a világban/világon.
Habár a könyv szerzője igyekszik objektív maradni, azért néhol fel-felszaladt a szemöldököm :D. De jó, én sem hiszem, hogy képes lennék minden érzelmemtől elvonatkoztatni. De nekem nem is kell. Alapvetően rögtön letettem az egyik oldal mellett a voksomat. Ennek ellenére is érdekes volt olvasni, hogy egyes helyzetekre ki és hogyan is reagált. Lehet keresek még valami olvasni valót erről az időszakról...
January 3, 2024
WHEN CHURCHILL FACED HITLER ALONE
On May 10, 1940, two historic events grabbed the world’s attention. Hitler’s Panzer armies broke through the French frontier. And King George VI asked Winston Churchill to form a new government. To tell the story of the eighty days that followed, historian John Lukacs frames the conflict between Britain and Nazi Germany as a “duel” between Churchill and Adolf Hitler. The book is a worthy account of the early days of World War II in Europe.
In his telling in The Duel, the two leaders faced each other alone during those eighty days. The metaphor is strained, since so many other senior officials were involved in the conflict. And the two men never actually met. But no matter. Contrived metaphor aside, Lukacs tells a story crammed with revealing facts and insights gained from a lifetime of studying World War II in all its dimensions. For any reader with deep interest in the events of that time, this book is well worth reading.
GERMANY MIGHT HAVE WON THE WAR IN MAY, 1940
Lukacs writes “during those eighty days in May, June and July 1940 Hitler came closer to winning the war than we have been accustomed to think.” At the same time, he notes, Churchill was in a far less secure position than most accounts of the time would imply. This is Lukacs’s style. He’s invariably termed a “maverick historian,” and it’s clear from his writing that he relishes challenging established views.
But here the facts as I know them support his conclusion. Because throughout much of May, 1940, Winston Churchill’s leadership of the War Cabinet was uncertain. Both Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax commanded far greater support in the Commons. And “the miracle of Dunkirk,” when the British successfully evacuated 338,000 troops from France, was a very close thing. A shift in the weather on May 26 and 27 could have doomed the attempt. And had the evacuation gone awry, Churchill might well have found it difficult to continue to prosecute the war.
A TOWERING TASK
Churchill was fond of remarking that he had taken on a great burden when he stepped into the role of Prime Minister on May 10, 1940. A huge burden it was. The monumental task facing him during the eighty days that followed was four-fold:
** Bolster British public opinion, which verged on defeatism as the country faced the prospect of a Nazi invasion
** Insulate himself from his many internal enemies, not just in the House of Commons but in his own War Cabinet. There, two much more popular men, Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, had both worked tirelessly to appease Hitler—and Halifax was pressing him to negotiate peace with Hitler.
** Persuade the French to continue to fight (which they did only halfway through the eighty days)
** Convince Franklin D. Roosevelt that the United States must urgently come to his aid, if Great Britain were to prevail against the Nazi juggernaut
As Lukacs details, Churchill succeeded in three of the four aspects of this task, losing only when the French sought an armistice with Germany.
ASSESSING THE MILITARY SKILLS OF HITLER AND CHURCHILL
The Duel is far more than a chronology of the two men’s lives and work during those eighty days. Lukacs sets the scene with his assessment of the military picture as it unfolded. And he probes deeply into their personalities, offering a contrast that seems a little forced at times. His assessment of Hitler’s abilities is far more generous than I’ve read anywhere else. HItler was “not a madman,” he writes. He was “the greatest revolutionary of the twentieth century.” And, departing from the conventional wisdom, he regards Hitler as both a skillful diplomat and an able military planner. Others reject both judgments.
My own reading about the two men and the conduct of the war makes clear to me that Hitler’s strategic thinking was poor—he was right far less often than wrong. Yes, the blitzkrieg into the Low Countries and France was a brilliant plan. But he blundered again and again on a strategic level on the Eastern Front, beginning with Operation Barbarossa. For example, the invasion of the Soviet Union might have succeeded quickly if Hitler had concentrated his forces on a drive directly eastward toward Moscow. Instead, the Nazis advanced into the USSR on an 1,800-mile front. Then, later, when a dramatic push might have enabled him to capture Moscow, Hitler ordered his most capable army southward to take Stalingrad. And we know how that turned out.
ERRORS IN THE WEST AS WELL AS ON THE EASTERN FRONT
HItler compounded these errors by holding his most effective forces back from Normandy long after his generals in the field had realized the Allies’ main thrust had already arrived there. And he retained operational control at the divisional level, repeatedly frustrating his generals.
Of course, Churchill was far from gifted as a military strategist, either. He’d already shown that in World War I, when he conceived the tragically misguided plan to invade Gallipoli in Turkey And he fought bitterly against American plans for the invasion of Normandy and southern France in 1944. In both wars, Churchill was fixated on directing the major thrust of the attack against Germany through the Balkans for political reasons. (Protecting British outposts in the Middle East in World War I, and preventing Stalin from seizing southeastern Europe a quarter-century later.)
DESPERATE MEASURES TO HOLD OFF A FRENCH SURRENDER
In June 1940, as French resistance was crumbling, Churchill frantically sought to persuade the French to stay in the war. On four occasions in May and June he flew to France to meet with Prime Minister Paul Renaud and Maxime Weygand, commander of the French army. Increasingly desperate to sway them as Nazi troops drove further into the French heartland, he offered a series of proposals that, in hindsight, appear naive. First, he urged the French to dispatch their fleet to British ports even as they entered into talks with Hitler to surrender. Lukacs notes, “It was not an argument that would impress Pétain and his supporters.”
Then, amazingly, he endorsed a plan to draw the French into a merger of their two countries! Churchill’s War Cabinet agreed to the plan, however, absurd though it seems today. “The two governments declare that France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union,” the proposal read. “Every citizen of France will enjoy immediate citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France.” And, even harder to understand, the arch-nationalist General de Gaulle was enthusiastic about the idea. Of course, Marshal Pétain and General Weygand thought even less of this harebrained scheme. As one of their supporters noted, “Better be a Nazi province. At least we know what that means.” It’s astonishing to think just how desperate were the British midway through those eighty days.
STRANGE COINCIDENCES
Two “coincidences” bookend Lukacs’s story. On May 10, as noted above, Churchill took office as Prime Minister on the very day that German armies broke through the French frontier. And on July 31, two equally momentous events took place. Roosevelt made the firm decision to sell Churchill the aging destroyers he’d been begging for. Churchill read it as a signal that the United States would eventually enter the war in force.
On the same day, Hitler announced to his most senior generals that he was likely to invade the Soviet Union before proceeding with Operation Sea Lion, the landing in England. In fact, his naval chief, Admiral Raeder, had told him “the German navy could not responsibly guarantee a wide coastal landing in England before next year.” And Hitler may also have been unconvinced by Hermann Göring’s claim that he could gain complete aerial supremacy over the British. (Göring was a morphine addict and had grown increasingly grandiose and unreliable as the prospects of victory dimmed.) And air supremacy was a prerequisite for the invasion. In the event, of course, the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain. And Hitler never green-lighted the invasion.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
John Lukacs died on May 6, 2019 at the age of 95. His New York Times obituary identified him as a “maverick historian, prolific author and self-professed reactionary.” A Hungarian-American, born in Budapest of Jewish converts to Roman Catholicism, he studied history at the University of Budapest. In 1944, he escaped the labor battalion for Jews that the Nazis had forced him to join. Lukacs emigrated to the United States in 1946 after receiving his doctorate. He became a professor of history at Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia and a visiting professor at Columbia, Princeton, and other universities.
Lukacs was the author of 35 books and innumerable articles, essays, and other works. In 2006, he wrote, “Nationalism, not Communism, was the main political force in the 20th century, and so it is now,” And that’s a theme he reiterates in The Duel. Lukacs was married three times and had two children by his first wife.
On May 10, 1940, two historic events grabbed the world’s attention. Hitler’s Panzer armies broke through the French frontier. And King George VI asked Winston Churchill to form a new government. To tell the story of the eighty days that followed, historian John Lukacs frames the conflict between Britain and Nazi Germany as a “duel” between Churchill and Adolf Hitler. The book is a worthy account of the early days of World War II in Europe.
In his telling in The Duel, the two leaders faced each other alone during those eighty days. The metaphor is strained, since so many other senior officials were involved in the conflict. And the two men never actually met. But no matter. Contrived metaphor aside, Lukacs tells a story crammed with revealing facts and insights gained from a lifetime of studying World War II in all its dimensions. For any reader with deep interest in the events of that time, this book is well worth reading.
GERMANY MIGHT HAVE WON THE WAR IN MAY, 1940
Lukacs writes “during those eighty days in May, June and July 1940 Hitler came closer to winning the war than we have been accustomed to think.” At the same time, he notes, Churchill was in a far less secure position than most accounts of the time would imply. This is Lukacs’s style. He’s invariably termed a “maverick historian,” and it’s clear from his writing that he relishes challenging established views.
But here the facts as I know them support his conclusion. Because throughout much of May, 1940, Winston Churchill’s leadership of the War Cabinet was uncertain. Both Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax commanded far greater support in the Commons. And “the miracle of Dunkirk,” when the British successfully evacuated 338,000 troops from France, was a very close thing. A shift in the weather on May 26 and 27 could have doomed the attempt. And had the evacuation gone awry, Churchill might well have found it difficult to continue to prosecute the war.
A TOWERING TASK
Churchill was fond of remarking that he had taken on a great burden when he stepped into the role of Prime Minister on May 10, 1940. A huge burden it was. The monumental task facing him during the eighty days that followed was four-fold:
** Bolster British public opinion, which verged on defeatism as the country faced the prospect of a Nazi invasion
** Insulate himself from his many internal enemies, not just in the House of Commons but in his own War Cabinet. There, two much more popular men, Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, had both worked tirelessly to appease Hitler—and Halifax was pressing him to negotiate peace with Hitler.
** Persuade the French to continue to fight (which they did only halfway through the eighty days)
** Convince Franklin D. Roosevelt that the United States must urgently come to his aid, if Great Britain were to prevail against the Nazi juggernaut
As Lukacs details, Churchill succeeded in three of the four aspects of this task, losing only when the French sought an armistice with Germany.
ASSESSING THE MILITARY SKILLS OF HITLER AND CHURCHILL
The Duel is far more than a chronology of the two men’s lives and work during those eighty days. Lukacs sets the scene with his assessment of the military picture as it unfolded. And he probes deeply into their personalities, offering a contrast that seems a little forced at times. His assessment of Hitler’s abilities is far more generous than I’ve read anywhere else. HItler was “not a madman,” he writes. He was “the greatest revolutionary of the twentieth century.” And, departing from the conventional wisdom, he regards Hitler as both a skillful diplomat and an able military planner. Others reject both judgments.
My own reading about the two men and the conduct of the war makes clear to me that Hitler’s strategic thinking was poor—he was right far less often than wrong. Yes, the blitzkrieg into the Low Countries and France was a brilliant plan. But he blundered again and again on a strategic level on the Eastern Front, beginning with Operation Barbarossa. For example, the invasion of the Soviet Union might have succeeded quickly if Hitler had concentrated his forces on a drive directly eastward toward Moscow. Instead, the Nazis advanced into the USSR on an 1,800-mile front. Then, later, when a dramatic push might have enabled him to capture Moscow, Hitler ordered his most capable army southward to take Stalingrad. And we know how that turned out.
ERRORS IN THE WEST AS WELL AS ON THE EASTERN FRONT
HItler compounded these errors by holding his most effective forces back from Normandy long after his generals in the field had realized the Allies’ main thrust had already arrived there. And he retained operational control at the divisional level, repeatedly frustrating his generals.
Of course, Churchill was far from gifted as a military strategist, either. He’d already shown that in World War I, when he conceived the tragically misguided plan to invade Gallipoli in Turkey And he fought bitterly against American plans for the invasion of Normandy and southern France in 1944. In both wars, Churchill was fixated on directing the major thrust of the attack against Germany through the Balkans for political reasons. (Protecting British outposts in the Middle East in World War I, and preventing Stalin from seizing southeastern Europe a quarter-century later.)
DESPERATE MEASURES TO HOLD OFF A FRENCH SURRENDER
In June 1940, as French resistance was crumbling, Churchill frantically sought to persuade the French to stay in the war. On four occasions in May and June he flew to France to meet with Prime Minister Paul Renaud and Maxime Weygand, commander of the French army. Increasingly desperate to sway them as Nazi troops drove further into the French heartland, he offered a series of proposals that, in hindsight, appear naive. First, he urged the French to dispatch their fleet to British ports even as they entered into talks with Hitler to surrender. Lukacs notes, “It was not an argument that would impress Pétain and his supporters.”
Then, amazingly, he endorsed a plan to draw the French into a merger of their two countries! Churchill’s War Cabinet agreed to the plan, however, absurd though it seems today. “The two governments declare that France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union,” the proposal read. “Every citizen of France will enjoy immediate citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France.” And, even harder to understand, the arch-nationalist General de Gaulle was enthusiastic about the idea. Of course, Marshal Pétain and General Weygand thought even less of this harebrained scheme. As one of their supporters noted, “Better be a Nazi province. At least we know what that means.” It’s astonishing to think just how desperate were the British midway through those eighty days.
STRANGE COINCIDENCES
Two “coincidences” bookend Lukacs’s story. On May 10, as noted above, Churchill took office as Prime Minister on the very day that German armies broke through the French frontier. And on July 31, two equally momentous events took place. Roosevelt made the firm decision to sell Churchill the aging destroyers he’d been begging for. Churchill read it as a signal that the United States would eventually enter the war in force.
On the same day, Hitler announced to his most senior generals that he was likely to invade the Soviet Union before proceeding with Operation Sea Lion, the landing in England. In fact, his naval chief, Admiral Raeder, had told him “the German navy could not responsibly guarantee a wide coastal landing in England before next year.” And Hitler may also have been unconvinced by Hermann Göring’s claim that he could gain complete aerial supremacy over the British. (Göring was a morphine addict and had grown increasingly grandiose and unreliable as the prospects of victory dimmed.) And air supremacy was a prerequisite for the invasion. In the event, of course, the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain. And Hitler never green-lighted the invasion.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
John Lukacs died on May 6, 2019 at the age of 95. His New York Times obituary identified him as a “maverick historian, prolific author and self-professed reactionary.” A Hungarian-American, born in Budapest of Jewish converts to Roman Catholicism, he studied history at the University of Budapest. In 1944, he escaped the labor battalion for Jews that the Nazis had forced him to join. Lukacs emigrated to the United States in 1946 after receiving his doctorate. He became a professor of history at Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia and a visiting professor at Columbia, Princeton, and other universities.
Lukacs was the author of 35 books and innumerable articles, essays, and other works. In 2006, he wrote, “Nationalism, not Communism, was the main political force in the 20th century, and so it is now,” And that’s a theme he reiterates in The Duel. Lukacs was married three times and had two children by his first wife.
December 9, 2021
A huge wordy book that could have been said in 100 pages. Get ready for a lot of page flipping.
December 8, 2009
The Duel is set out in a point-counterpoint fashion. It alternates between examining the war from the German and then British viewpoint. The critical events of the 80 days covered by Lukacs seem to be the successful evacuation of 350,000 British and French troops from Dunkirk in early June, Hitler's subsequent decision to not proceed with plans for the invasion of Britain, and his eventual decision at the end of July to invade Russia. Lukacs makes it clear that the German armies could have been a bit more aggressive and could have taken most of those evacuated from Dunkirk prisoner. Yet Hitler grew unusually cautious at this critical juncture. There is some evidence to suggest that Hitler thought the British would seek peace in short order but Lukacs suggests that this evidence may not be totally persuasive. Lukacs does suggest however, that if those troops had not been evacuated successfully the forces in Britain seeking reconciliation or negotiation with Hitler may have won the day.
July 2, 2018
A very disappointing performance. The author' biases are exceptionally glaring, rendering the entire book an adulation to Churchill, nullifying any potential historical objectivity. The author talks about duelling and yet fail completely to discuss the resources needed in this duel. The author surprisingly fails to consider the British Commonwealth, its contributions and requirements, giving the false illusion that Britain and Churchill were alone fighting the Nazis, while in reality the entire Commonwealth was involved. Those who were dying during this period were not only British, but also South Africans, Canadians, Australians, Neo Zealanders and Indians. Yet, the author unshamedly promotes the myth that Churchill was alone. This work is nothing but regurgitation of that myth. I do not recommend this work.
March 30, 2025
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” — Winston Churchill
John Lukacs-এর 'The Duel: The Eighty-Day Struggle Between Churchill & Hitler' বইটি দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধের এক সংকটময় অধ্যায়কে কেন্দ্র করে রচিত। ১৯৪০ সালের মে থেকে জুলাই — এই আশি দিনের ঘটনাপ্রবাহ কেবল ব্রিটেনের ভবিষ্যৎই নির্ধারণ করেনি, বরং সমগ্র সভ্যতার অস্তিত্বের সঙ্কটকে উন্মোচিত করেছিল।
ইতিহাসবিদ Lukacs তাঁর স্বভাবসিদ্ধ বিশ্লেষণী দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি নিয়ে এই লড়াইয়ের অন্তর্নিহিত কৌশল, মনস্তত্ত্ব ও ব্যক্তিত্বের দ্বন্দ্বকে গভীরভাবে বিশ্লেষণ করেছেন।
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
Churchill এবং Hitler — দুই বিপরীত চরিত্রের লড়াই কেবল সামরিক বা কূটনৈতিক ছিল না, বরং এটি ছিল আদর্শ ও ইচ্ছাশক্তির সংঘাত। Lukacs দেখিয়েছেন, কীভাবে এই আশি দিনে Hitler-এর Blitzkrieg কৌশল ইউরোপে ত্রাস সৃষ্টি করেছিল, এবং কীভাবে Churchill তার বক্তৃতা ও দূরদর্শিতার মাধ্যমে ব্রিটেনের মনোবল দৃঢ় রাখেন।
বইটিতে Churchill-এর জেদ ও একাগ্রতার প্রতি শ্রদ্ধা প্রকাশিত হলেও, Lukacs Hitler-এর রাজনৈতিক কৌশল ও তার মনস্তাত্ত্বিক চালগুলিও সুস্পষ্টভাবে ব্যাখ্যা করেছেন।
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana
Lukacs-এর এই গ্রন্থের অন্যতম শক্তি হলো তার বর্ণনার নাটকীয়তা ও ঐতিহাসিক বিশ্লেষণের গভীরতা। Hitler-এর পরিকল্পনা, চেম্বারলিনের পতন, ব্রিটেনের একাকীত্ব, এবং অবশেষে Battle of Britain-এর সূচনা — সবকিছুই এত নিখুঁতভাবে উপস্থাপিত হয়েছে যে পাঠক এই বইটিকে কেবল ইতিহাস নয়, বরং এক ঐতিহাসিক থ্রিলার হিসেবেও পড়তে পারেন।
তবে, Lukacs-এর লেখায় কিছুটা পক্ষপাত লক্ষণীয়; তিনি Churchill-কে প্রায় একক নায়ক হিসেবে তুলে ধরেছেন, যেখানে সমসাময়িক অন্যান্য নেতার ভূমিকাকে তুলনামূলকভাবে কম আলোচিত করেছেন।
“For the dead and the living, we must bear witness.” — Elie Wiesel
বইটি পড়তে গিয়ে Holocaust-এর প্রসঙ্গ সরাসরি বেশি উঠে না এলেও, Hitler-এর সামগ্রিক পরিকল্পনার আলোচনায় এটি অনিবার্যভাবে এসেছে। Lukacs দেখিয়েছেন, Hitler কেবল সামরিক বিজয়ের জন্যই যুদ্ধ করেননি, বরং ইউরোপের ভবিষ্যৎকে পুনর্গঠনের এক উগ্র পরিকল্পনাও তার ছিল। যদিও বইটি প্রধানত সামরিক ও রাজনৈতিক ঘটনাবলীকে কেন্দ্র করে, তবে এতে অক্ষশক্তির বর্বরতার যে আভাস পাওয়া যায়, তা পাঠকের মনে গভীর রেখাপাত করে।
“We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end.” — Winston Churchill
অবশেষে, 'The Duel' শুধু Churchill ও Hitler-এর ব্যক্তিগত দ্বন্দ্বের কাহিনি নয়, বরং এটি ইতিহাসের মোড় ঘোরানো এক সংকটময় সময়ের বিশ্লেষণ। যদিও কিছু কিছু ক্ষেত্রে Lukacs-এর দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি একপেশে মনে হতে পারে, তবে তার গবেষণার গভীরতা ও লেখার উৎকর্ষতা একে একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ ঐতিহাসিক গ্রন্থ হিসেবে প্রতিষ্ঠিত করেছে।
দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধের রাজনীতি, কৌশল এবং নেতৃত্বের মনস্তাত্ত্বিক বিশ্লেষণে আগ্রহীদের জন্য এটি অবশ্যপাঠ্য।
John Lukacs-এর 'The Duel: The Eighty-Day Struggle Between Churchill & Hitler' বইটি দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধের এক সংকটময় অধ্যায়কে কেন্দ্র করে রচিত। ১৯৪০ সালের মে থেকে জুলাই — এই আশি দিনের ঘটনাপ্রবাহ কেবল ব্রিটেনের ভবিষ্যৎই নির্ধারণ করেনি, বরং সমগ্র সভ্যতার অস্তিত্বের সঙ্কটকে উন্মোচিত করেছিল।
ইতিহাসবিদ Lukacs তাঁর স্বভাবসিদ্ধ বিশ্লেষণী দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি নিয়ে এই লড়াইয়ের অন্তর্নিহিত কৌশল, মনস্তত্ত্ব ও ব্যক্তিত্বের দ্বন্দ্বকে গভীরভাবে বিশ্লেষণ করেছেন।
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
Churchill এবং Hitler — দুই বিপরীত চরিত্রের লড়াই কেবল সামরিক বা কূটনৈতিক ছিল না, বরং এটি ছিল আদর্শ ও ইচ্ছাশক্তির সংঘাত। Lukacs দেখিয়েছেন, কীভাবে এই আশি দিনে Hitler-এর Blitzkrieg কৌশল ইউরোপে ত্রাস সৃষ্টি করেছিল, এবং কীভাবে Churchill তার বক্তৃতা ও দূরদর্শিতার মাধ্যমে ব্রিটেনের মনোবল দৃঢ় রাখেন।
বইটিতে Churchill-এর জেদ ও একাগ্রতার প্রতি শ্রদ্ধা প্রকাশিত হলেও, Lukacs Hitler-এর রাজনৈতিক কৌশল ও তার মনস্তাত্ত্বিক চালগুলিও সুস্পষ্টভাবে ব্যাখ্যা করেছেন।
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana
Lukacs-এর এই গ্রন্থের অন্যতম শক্তি হলো তার বর্ণনার নাটকীয়তা ও ঐতিহাসিক বিশ্লেষণের গভীরতা। Hitler-এর পরিকল্পনা, চেম্বারলিনের পতন, ব্রিটেনের একাকীত্ব, এবং অবশেষে Battle of Britain-এর সূচনা — সবকিছুই এত নিখুঁতভাবে উপস্থাপিত হয়েছে যে পাঠক এই বইটিকে কেবল ইতিহাস নয়, বরং এক ঐতিহাসিক থ্রিলার হিসেবেও পড়তে পারেন।
তবে, Lukacs-এর লেখায় কিছুটা পক্ষপাত লক্ষণীয়; তিনি Churchill-কে প্রায় একক নায়ক হিসেবে তুলে ধরেছেন, যেখানে সমসাময়িক অন্যান্য নেতার ভূমিকাকে তুলনামূলকভাবে কম আলোচিত করেছেন।
“For the dead and the living, we must bear witness.” — Elie Wiesel
বইটি পড়তে গিয়ে Holocaust-এর প্রসঙ্গ সরাসরি বেশি উঠে না এলেও, Hitler-এর সামগ্রিক পরিকল্পনার আলোচনায় এটি অনিবার্যভাবে এসেছে। Lukacs দেখিয়েছেন, Hitler কেবল সামরিক বিজয়ের জন্যই যুদ্ধ করেননি, বরং ইউরোপের ভবিষ্যৎকে পুনর্গঠনের এক উগ্র পরিকল্পনাও তার ছিল। যদিও বইটি প্রধানত সামরিক ও রাজনৈতিক ঘটনাবলীকে কেন্দ্র করে, তবে এতে অক্ষশক্তির বর্বরতার যে আভাস পাওয়া যায়, তা পাঠকের মনে গভীর রেখাপাত করে।
“We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end.” — Winston Churchill
অবশেষে, 'The Duel' শুধু Churchill ও Hitler-এর ব্যক্তিগত দ্বন্দ্বের কাহিনি নয়, বরং এটি ইতিহাসের মোড় ঘোরানো এক সংকটময় সময়ের বিশ্লেষণ। যদিও কিছু কিছু ক্ষেত্রে Lukacs-এর দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি একপেশে মনে হতে পারে, তবে তার গবেষণার গভীরতা ও লেখার উৎকর্ষতা একে একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ ঐতিহাসিক গ্রন্থ হিসেবে প্রতিষ্ঠিত করেছে।
দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধের রাজনীতি, কৌশল এবং নেতৃত্বের মনস্তাত্ত্বিক বিশ্লেষণে আগ্রহীদের জন্য এটি অবশ্যপাঠ্য।
January 16, 2025
This book wasn’t the smoothest of reads, but there were four interesting things I did learn from it.
1. Up until 6/24/1940 Hitler planned to ship all European Jews to the African island of Madagascar upon the surrender of France in order to establish a state for all Jews. Then on 2/2/1941 Hitler questioned how he would get them there. In a memo on 6/24/1940 from Reinhard Heydrich of the German Security Service, the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem” first appeared in German documents (not in 1941 as most historians believe).
2. On 6/30/1940 after France’s surrender, Churchill was so worried about a German invasion of England that he told his Gen. Ismay to “investigate the question of drenching the southern England beaches with mustard gas.” Churchill considered that “gas warfare would be justified if the Germans land.”
3. The three reasons why Hitler halted his Army from pursuing the French and British forces in Dunkirk and letting them escape across the English Channel:
• He and his Gen. Runstedt feared a British-French counterattack farther east, behind his advanced lines
• Hitler respected the British and didn’t want to wipe them out. He just wanted Britain to accept the premise of German domination of Europe
• Hitler thought that the English and its government would realize it wouldn’t be able to defeat them and thus would accept an armistice and compromise peace if offered to them on reasonable conditions.
4. According to the author the main reason why Germany went to war with Russia in WWII was Hitler’s calculation that the collapse of Russia would induce England to give up the struggle against Germany which, for Hitler, would eliminate Churchill as an adversary. That with Russian power destroyed, Hitler’s domination of Europe would be secured and he’d be unbeatable. This goes against the belief of most historians that war against Russia was Hitler’s primary goal.
1. Up until 6/24/1940 Hitler planned to ship all European Jews to the African island of Madagascar upon the surrender of France in order to establish a state for all Jews. Then on 2/2/1941 Hitler questioned how he would get them there. In a memo on 6/24/1940 from Reinhard Heydrich of the German Security Service, the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem” first appeared in German documents (not in 1941 as most historians believe).
2. On 6/30/1940 after France’s surrender, Churchill was so worried about a German invasion of England that he told his Gen. Ismay to “investigate the question of drenching the southern England beaches with mustard gas.” Churchill considered that “gas warfare would be justified if the Germans land.”
3. The three reasons why Hitler halted his Army from pursuing the French and British forces in Dunkirk and letting them escape across the English Channel:
• He and his Gen. Runstedt feared a British-French counterattack farther east, behind his advanced lines
• Hitler respected the British and didn’t want to wipe them out. He just wanted Britain to accept the premise of German domination of Europe
• Hitler thought that the English and its government would realize it wouldn’t be able to defeat them and thus would accept an armistice and compromise peace if offered to them on reasonable conditions.
4. According to the author the main reason why Germany went to war with Russia in WWII was Hitler’s calculation that the collapse of Russia would induce England to give up the struggle against Germany which, for Hitler, would eliminate Churchill as an adversary. That with Russian power destroyed, Hitler’s domination of Europe would be secured and he’d be unbeatable. This goes against the belief of most historians that war against Russia was Hitler’s primary goal.
July 15, 2021
A szerző egy magyar származású, az Amerikai Egyesült Államokban élő egyetemi tanár, aki egy nagyon érdekes megközelítésből vázolta fel nekünk a II. Világháború eseményeit. Mégpedig a háború két legkiemelkedőbb vezetőjét és stratégáját, Hitler-t és Churchill-t véve alapul. Először azt hittem, hogy azt a rövid szakaszt tekinti át, ami alatt ez a két “figura” mindig kibillentette valamilyen irányba a mérleg nyelvét, de nem! Azon kívül, hogy sorra veszi mindazon hadviselési, politikai, gazdasági döntéseket, amelyeket ők meghoztak, elég részletes elemzést kapunk a személyiségjegyeikről is. Egészen visszanyúl a gyerekkorukig, még az anyjukhoz való viszonyukat is górcső alá veszi. Maga a szöveg kicsit tömény, gyakran ugrál ide-oda az időben, úgyhogy muszáj figyelmesen olvasni, ha az ember meg akarja érteni az összefüggéseket. (…) A kötet egy igazi kuriózum a történelemkedvelők számára. Annyi hibát tudok felróni “neki”, hogy túlságosan csapong, így nem nehéz kizökkenni a szerző gondolatmenetéből. Ettől függetlenül egy nagyon alapos és részletes munka.
https://libellumkonyvek.blogspot.com/...
https://libellumkonyvek.blogspot.com/...
December 15, 2021
Highly insightful, well worth reading
Sometimes overwritten, sometimes presses too hard against the boundaries of things that can’t possibly be known like the state of mind of a person or their intentions, when they themselves are silent on the subject. (Although in fairness Mr. Lukacs usually calls attention to these surmises - but pursues them anyway.) But other than these criticisms, this is an extremely worthwhile book.
I truly wish the author had pursued his epilogue in greater depth. The blurring of the boundaries, indeed of the very definitions, of nationalism, socialism, patriotism, communism class, defines our age - The New Dark Age. We have abandoned traditional values and replaced them with cant and sophistry. Many people today cannot think of any example of evil that does not involve Adolf Hitler, which is a truly astounding thing. Mr. Lukacs certainly understands this far better than I, and I wish he had expounded on it.
I am not sure when this book was published: KINDLE CONTINUES ITS DESPICABLE HABIT OF OMITTING THE DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION, but I will look for later additions to these thoughts.
Sometimes overwritten, sometimes presses too hard against the boundaries of things that can’t possibly be known like the state of mind of a person or their intentions, when they themselves are silent on the subject. (Although in fairness Mr. Lukacs usually calls attention to these surmises - but pursues them anyway.) But other than these criticisms, this is an extremely worthwhile book.
I truly wish the author had pursued his epilogue in greater depth. The blurring of the boundaries, indeed of the very definitions, of nationalism, socialism, patriotism, communism class, defines our age - The New Dark Age. We have abandoned traditional values and replaced them with cant and sophistry. Many people today cannot think of any example of evil that does not involve Adolf Hitler, which is a truly astounding thing. Mr. Lukacs certainly understands this far better than I, and I wish he had expounded on it.
I am not sure when this book was published: KINDLE CONTINUES ITS DESPICABLE HABIT OF OMITTING THE DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION, but I will look for later additions to these thoughts.
December 24, 2024
Really hard to keep my attention. This was a book that was given to me back when I was in high school and had not been able to find until now. Finished it, and gained a deeper perspective on Churchhill's traditional nature. There are some interesting takes in this - that to call Hitler a madman is to cheapen him and make him irrelevant in a way.
My favorite part of the book was the epilogue, which I quote the final part here:
"It was an it remains inspiring that in their duel, on which the destinies of the world depended, near the middle of the twentieth century, toward the end of the Modern Age, a great statesman prevailed over a great revolutionary; the writer over the orator; a cosmopolitan over a racist; a democratic aristocrat over a populist demagogue; a traditionalist over a radical; a patriot over a nationalist - during the Second World War which was catastrophic for millions of people but whose outcome spared the world an even worse one."
My favorite part of the book was the epilogue, which I quote the final part here:
"It was an it remains inspiring that in their duel, on which the destinies of the world depended, near the middle of the twentieth century, toward the end of the Modern Age, a great statesman prevailed over a great revolutionary; the writer over the orator; a cosmopolitan over a racist; a democratic aristocrat over a populist demagogue; a traditionalist over a radical; a patriot over a nationalist - during the Second World War which was catastrophic for millions of people but whose outcome spared the world an even worse one."
January 4, 2019
When thinking of Churchill and Hitler, you think “Killers”. Even When reading a book you would automatically assume that the author of the book will bash Hitler and Churchill for the bad things that they were doing. John Luckas, the other of “The Eighty-Day Duel” between Hitler and Churchill took a different approach. Luckas decided to talk about the effects of everyone else. The book talks about two people that tell their experiences from the Holocaust.
I was amazed by the others perspective and approach to creating the book. The still attacked Hitler and Churchill in the book but in a way where the people that believed in their approach to life were affected by this. Pick up a book about something that happened on the other side of the world. You might gain knowledge and see that a 5.6 Million dollar wall should be that last thing on President Trump's mind and the U.S.A. Agenda!
I was amazed by the others perspective and approach to creating the book. The still attacked Hitler and Churchill in the book but in a way where the people that believed in their approach to life were affected by this. Pick up a book about something that happened on the other side of the world. You might gain knowledge and see that a 5.6 Million dollar wall should be that last thing on President Trump's mind and the U.S.A. Agenda!
December 28, 2019
The Duel revisits the time when Winston Churchill came to power in May 1940 thru the end of July, when Adolf Hitler began turning his attention away from a full-scale invasion of Britain and toward one in the Soviet Union. Lukacs explains why Churchill was successful at rallying the British people and the effect this had beyond his island and onto the Continent and elsewhere. He examines both Churchill's and Hitler's decisions during the period.
There were some dry parts when Lukacs got bogged down in mundane details, but most of The Duel is compelling and one has a sense of the gravity of those eighty days and Churchill as the essential player in holding Hitler off long enough to be joined by the Soviets and Americans in the fight against Nazi Germany, and eventual victory.
There were some dry parts when Lukacs got bogged down in mundane details, but most of The Duel is compelling and one has a sense of the gravity of those eighty days and Churchill as the essential player in holding Hitler off long enough to be joined by the Soviets and Americans in the fight against Nazi Germany, and eventual victory.
February 1, 2018
Excellent book, Lukacs does a fantastic job of explaining the face-off between Adolf Hitler and Winston S. Churchill. One thing I have learned over the years of reading is that I learn something from each book I read, sometimes it maybe the fact that I don’t care for the book. This book is not in this category, I enjoyed reading this work and learned numerous items about both leaders that I previously did not know. I would recommend this book for anyone interested in either Winston Churchill or Adolf Hitler. I really enjoyed reading the first few chapters then viewing the Darkest Hour movie...
November 7, 2021
An excellent starting point for my WWII education
I have not read much of historical work and certainly not World War II, a time of history that directly affected my own life in that both parents participated and were forever affected by that participation. I do not know why I have not and will now make a better effort. This is a good place to start as it is not a dry recount of strategic battles. This is a reminder that the leaders of the times were exceptional people who made many moves on a very psychological basis; it is not all about the war room moving x's and o's.
I have not read much of historical work and certainly not World War II, a time of history that directly affected my own life in that both parents participated and were forever affected by that participation. I do not know why I have not and will now make a better effort. This is a good place to start as it is not a dry recount of strategic battles. This is a reminder that the leaders of the times were exceptional people who made many moves on a very psychological basis; it is not all about the war room moving x's and o's.
May 14, 2019
I finally got around to reading this after the recent passing of John Lukacs. The book is both a narrative of the critical days of late spring and early summer of 1940 when Winston Churchill, who just became Prime Minister of the UK, clashed with German dictator Adolf Hitler over the direction of the Second World War; and a character study of the two opponents with their vastly different backgrounds and temperaments. I would recommend this for anyone interested in the history of the war, and in old-fashioned narrative history.
January 8, 2018
This was a very interesting laser focused book on the early days of WWII. As a fan of literature of the period, I enjoyed learning more about the key players. There are lots of interesting insights around Germany's war plans and how they might really have evolved (one front vs two front, when, etc...) and on Churchill's precarious status in the cabinet for those first few months along with the admirable behavior of Neville Chamberlain as a cabinet member and supporter.
February 15, 2018
Este relato histórico é fundamental para colocarmos nos devidos lugares muitas passagens que são contadadas sobre a Segunda Guerra e que ficam perdidas sob a camuflagem de tendências para um lado ou outro. O autor traduz cada momento destes oitenta dias do duelo Churchill x Hitler de uma forma objetiva, dando a cada um dos oponentes seu devido valor. Isto enriquece a história deste momento tão marcante do século XX e que mudou a história do mundo.
April 25, 2018
An engaging and vivid account of the zweikampf between Churchill and Hitler, especially for those who just started their journey in the WW2 historiography. Lukacs is a generous judge and his takes are sober and unbiased. Hitler's depiction finally focuses on his strategic moves and motives, and despite the fact that there's an obvious- and fair- hot spot for Churchill, both heroes are dealt with respect.
January 18, 2022
Interesting Angle On The Conflict
This book is a very good analysis of the conflict from a personal perspective reduced to two contrasting individuals. Thought provoking in so many ways it provided me with a very interesting way of considering the issues and is a valuable addition to the subject of the Second World War.
This book is a very good analysis of the conflict from a personal perspective reduced to two contrasting individuals. Thought provoking in so many ways it provided me with a very interesting way of considering the issues and is a valuable addition to the subject of the Second World War.
June 28, 2024
An often substansive account of the struggle between Churchill and Hitler. The story is laced with keen insight and monologues on the undercurrents in these events. The spoiler for me was the heavy weight the author gave to his perdonal opinions and worldly outlook regarding how the events of 1940 (and WWII) fit in to the larger picture of world history.
November 14, 2024
Incredibly well written book of a portrayal of the most momentous eighty days in history of this century, focusing on the interactions of the two combatants, Hitler and Churchill. The author shows amazing insight into the minds of the two leaders, their actions and characters. I learned so much reading this book of that time period that I thought I was familiar!!
June 13, 2019
Magnificent. Lukacs' prose flows beautifully. He writes in a concise, clear manner, and has thoughtfully considered the past and his sources. He is honest about how his opinions conflict with others and willing to explain his reasons. I look forward to reading more of his work.
July 28, 2020
It was interesting to read of this snapshot in time, the attempt to get inside of the minds of each man, the people around them, thoughts on how the present could be very different given different moves & choices.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews