March 28, 2015

Finest Hour 127, Summer 2005

Page 41

Andrew Roberts, Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of Leadership. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003, 202 pp. softbound $14.95, member price $12.

What they shared was: great leadership. Churchill and Hitler commanded the allegiance of millions during some of the most dramatic and difficult times in world history. One was the epitome of all things decent and good about western civilization; the other was one of the vilest ever to walk the earth. Andrew Roberts argues that both have something to teach us about leadership, and that these lessons are as applicable today as they were during the great contest of World War II.

Roberts’ book was an outgrowth of his work on a BBC television series, also called Secrets of Leadership, which examined a broader swath of world leaders and their respective leadership styles. As a scholar who has studied Churchill and his era (he has written a fine biography of Halifax, The Holy Fox), it makes sense that he would spin off this work into a stand-alone volume that considers the two pivotal figures of the Second World War.

In truth the volume offers almost nothing that is new. Most of it is little more than a collection of anecdotes and observations that can be found in any good biography of Churchill or Hitler. Roberts is a fine writer, but one can only read the story of Churchill’s quip to John Colville about favorably mentioning the Devil in the House of Commons so many times before boredom takes over.

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024

More

Neither is Roberts’ format particularly unique. The “dual-biography” book has already been done a number of times by authors looking for insight into the two men, and often done better. John Strawson’s Churchill and Hitler in Victory and Defeat was packed with information in a way that Roberts’ slim volume simply cannot be, while John Lukacs’ The Duel 10 May—31 July 1940: The Eighty-Day Struggle Between Churchill and Hitler is smarter, with much deeper thought and insight.

We are reaching a saturation point in Churchill studies, where the sheer volume of known information makes reiterations particularly hard to appreciate. Over the past five years I have read virtually every new book published in English about Churchill; I would classify only a handful as particularly good, and fewer still contain startlingly new material or insight. There is so much published on Churchill (with mounds more coming out each year) that it is almost impossible to say anything profoundly new about the man in book-length form; the same is probably true about Hitler. So we needs other ways of considering the latest books about Churchill.

One of the most important criteria in judging new Churchill books is their readability, and here Roberts can be recommended. For instance, when Roberts explores the respective oratorical powers of Churchill and Hitler (22) he comes to the same conclusion of scores before him: that Churchill was a truly original and inspirational speaker, while Hitler was a rabble-rouser who appealed to the worst instincts of his listeners. But Roberts also peppers this section with a load of interesting examples from each speaker’s oeuvre, and if it is all very familiar, it is also very well told.

Another thing to glean from new books like this is a new insight, which sometimes manifests itself as little more than a nice turn of phrase in a sea of well-trod facts. Roberts does this a number of times, which adds to the well-told story. For instance, he observes (61) that Hitler was an almost completely unexceptional man, without talent, except his ability to speak in public, while Churchill was a man of almost limitless talents. I am not sure this is quite right; Hitler was exceptionally talented in a number of areas related to politics. But Roberts forges the observation into an interesting question: how could two men so diametrically different rise to such similar heights?

He makes an even better observation a little later when he writes:

Churchill demonstrated that leaders don’t need charisma or dictatorial powers to inspire others. After meeting Hitler, people felt that he, the Führer, could achieve anything. But when people met Churchill, they felt that they themselves could achieve anything. (68)

This is exactly right, both in its tone and in its larger message, which is central to the book. Churchill was an inspirational democratic leader who learned from his mistakes, relied on and trusted a skilled staff, and was guided by his humanity and sense of justice. Hitler appealed to the mob, ignored bad news, shunned his advisers, and always assumed the worst even from his most loyal followers. Thus, in difficult times, Hitler was at his worst while Churchill was at his best.

I am afraid however that regardless of his title, Roberts fails to reveal any deeply-hidden secrets of leadership practiced by the two men. He is telling an old tale, one most have heard before. But he tells it in a way that is pleasant, and in a few select places makes it almost seem new again. And in a world flooded by books on Churchill, that is probably enough.