Albert Mayer, Comment on “The Churchill Memorandum”

I enjoyed the Churchill Memo… a page turner, even for someone like me who hardly ever read a novel unless authored by Charles Dickens… could be turned into a movie… it has that gotcha… escape… ho no, gotcha again… and again sequence that would keep audiences in suspense… for someone like me who have been following British politics for decades, the characters were familiar as well as other references uniquely British… the irreverence with which you treat these hallowed or rather hollowed names of Westminster was terrific… 

5 responses to “Albert Mayer, Comment on “The Churchill Memorandum”

  1. It was a good read although I must confess I found Michael Foot’s psychotic personality a bit far-fetched!

    And I presume Ayn Rand was writing a tribute to Hitler due to his achievements in rebuilding Germany – after all he was hardly an objectivist or libertarian hero.

  2. Who can tell what AR might have found to admire in the man if he’d not had time to grow into a real monster?

  3. I think it’s dangerous to publicly suggest, even tangentially, that socialist like Hitler were not already real monsters by the time they came to get noticed (say in his case, about 1923/24.) The over-arching strategy of our campaign ought to be to symmetrically tar people like Hitler, Harold MacMillan, Michael Foot and Stalin and all the others with the same brush.

    Having said that, a revisionist novel like “The Churchill Memorandum” does offer us a salutory inspection of the minds and sewers of some of our most cherished political icons, even on the “conservative” side.

  4. I think that AH, by the March of 1939, hadn’t killed enough people to keep the NKVD busy more than a couple of days. Kill him off then, and he’d have been viewed in a very different light from the monster that he actually became. Equally, Churchill without WWII would now be seen as a bit of a joke.

    Something also worth asking is whether Stalin would have been forced to “liberalise” if he’d made it into the late 1950s, or how many tens of millions Trotsky would have butchered if he’d won the power struggle that followed Lenin’s death.

    Let Margaret Thatcher have been killed by Sinn Fein/IRA in the Brighton bombing, and she’d now be seen in a better light by libertarians. Prolong her time in office till 1997, and she might be cursed by all Conservatives.

    Little differences of time can produce big changes of perspective.

  5. Johnathan Pearce

    I am not sure how this sort of “time” game works with certain historical characters. To suggest AH only became a monster in the 1930s surely overlooks how he was forming his views much earlier. The full, murderous intent of National Socialism was already there. The issue was that he got the opportunity – and he was a brilliant opportunist – to put these ideas into action.

    Without WW2, Churchill would have been seen as one of those maverick, complex characters who had a good young military/journalist career, was a decent First Sea Lord, poor Home Secretary, not great Chancellor, and defender of the empire in India. Oh, and he more or less got Hitler right from the start.