Eisenhower and Churchill: the Partnership that Saved the World

Military Review,  July-August, 2003  by John H. Barnhill

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

James C. Humes, Prima Publishers, Roseville, CA, 2001, 256 pages, $24.95.

Eisenhower and Churchill: The Partnership that Saved the World, by James C. Humes, fails to show a partnership, and it fails to show how Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston Churchill saved the world. The book is nothing more than a mediocre dual biography. Humes alternates from a chapter on Churchill to a chapter on Eisenhower, back to a chapter on Churchill, until the time in history when their paths finally crossed. After their historic 1941 meeting, their respective leadership responsibilities kept them from spending much time together. Once the war ended, they met only occasionally.

The book contains few chapters that deal with Churchill and Eisenhower together, so the book is not really about their partnership at all; it is two near-hagiographies stitched together by a marginally adequate attempt to show that the two men shared similar backgrounds and upbringings. But that does not work. Only by generalizing the commonalties to the point of meaninglessness can one successfully draw a parallel between being the son of a powerful, successful English politician and the son of a middle-class, mid-western American father. Equally shaky is Humes' attempt to equate Churchill's absent parents with Eisenhower's disciplinarian father.

There is a strong qualitative difference between Churchill's political success and subsequent collapse during World War I and Eisenhower's inability to obtain an overseas post. That both men attended military academies is meaningless, as is the coincidence that both had children who died the same year. Such links are weak, and it appears that Hume stresses such coincidences to prove a conclusion about his heroes despite the fact that hard evidence does not support his position. In these lives, there is as much difference as there is similarity.

Although the book's press release cites new research, the book lacks documentation. It has a three-page bibliography and cites a number of secondary sources, including only two oral history transcripts.

Overall the work disappoints; it uses forced connections to shore up its incomplete biographies. The title exaggerates; if the book is to justify its claim that Churchill and Eisenhower were the key players in winning the war, then it needs to show how they worked together to accomplish this feat.

John H. Barnhill, Ph.D., Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma

COPYRIGHT 2003 U.S. Army CGSC
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning