Product Description

One is poised on the edge of victory, the other threatened by invasion and defeat...yet holding on, his own life in the balance and also that of the free world. In his reconstruction of the 80 days from May 10 to July 31, 1940, the author shows just how close England came to losing the war. He paints Churchill as resolute, threatened from within and without, yet unshakably determined. And Hitler flushed with victory, yet fatally undecided about how to close with Britain. "An unforgettable portrait of the mortal duel between two men and the titanic personalities involved." - Book of the Month Editorial Review Board "Lukacs's is a rigorous intelligence making strong arguments in clear language... I wish other writers on the right would ponder Mr. Lukacs's insight." Daniel Yergin, New York Times Book Review 'An outstanding historian.' David Pryce-Jones, Financial Times

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #354341 in Books
• Published on: 2000-05-04
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 288 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
Sixty years after the famous evacuation of British forces from Dunkirk, it is easy to forget just how close Adolf Hitler's German forces came to invading and vanquishing Britain in the early summer of 1940. As the German "sickle-cut" (Sichelschnitt) manoeuvre swept south east through Holland, Belgium and northern France, and Norway fell to the German navy, Britain remained unprepared, isolated and increasingly anxious. John Lukacs vividly and dramatically retells this key episode of the Second World War by focusing on the two principal antagonists. Hitler, personally directing operations from the Belgian border, came almost face-to-face with Churchill, the new and controversial British prime minister. Lukacs convincingly shows that the fight was not just fought at sea and on land, but also in the mind. Twice the twitchy Hitler held British destiny in his hand--at Dunkirk in May, and on the eve of launching the invasion operation "sea-lion" in mid-July. Twice he drew back, his nerve and strategy failing him. By contrast, from a much weaker position, Churchill, for all his moodiness, stood calm--coaxing the Americans, bolstering the French and insisting above all that Britain would not make a dishonourable peace. In the battle of wit and words, as The Duel brilliantly shows, Churchill outmastered his rival. Miles Taylor

About the Author
Born 1924, Budapest. Educated at Cambridge and Budapestr Universities. Lukacs has taught at Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia, Pa.; Columbia University; University of Pennsylvania; Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies; Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; University of Toulouse. John Lukacs's renowned histories/memoirs of the years of World War II and the decades since that conflict have earned him the title 'philosophical historian' among reviewers of his works.

Customer Reviews

It Will Change Your View of History!
“The Duel” tells the incredible tale of the struggle between two world leaders during the 80 days in 1940 beginning with Churchill’s selection as His Majesty's first minister.

The pages of this book take the reader through the parrying in Norway and the collapse of France, the German preparation for the invasion of England and its abandonment for the invasion of the Soviet Union.

A good measure of a book is whether it causes the reader to view things differently. “The Duel” meets this test.

I had always viewed Churchill as a great leader for his success in rallying the British people in defiance of the German onslaught. In “The Duel” we see that Churchill lead a parliament which was by no means united. Even though Churchill was determined never to surrender, there were others for whom a negotiated peace was a desirable option. Not limited to pro-fascists, like Oswald Mosely, who was a real contender to lead a Quisling or Petain style government, potential peacemakers includes such British stalwarts as Lord Halifax, David Lloyd George and the Duke of Windsor.

Churchill was challenged to rally the French before their collapse, stiffen the resolve of Parliament and coax the U.S. into an alliance with Britain. Although a failure with the French, Churchill was successful in holding his parliamentary support until he was able to gradually lure President Roosevelt and America out of neutrality.

Hitler is portrayed as a calculating politician whose rise to the pinnacle of world power was not a fluke. No madman, Hitler had a plan for Germany which he executed with skill. The succession of sophisticated European visitors who were favorably impressed speaks of his charms during personal meetings. In the pages of this book we read of Hitler’s appeals to political personalities in France, Britain and the U.S. There is a saying that “If you can’t be good, be good at it.” Although tragically flawed, Hitler was good at what he did. His personal magnetism, his “vision thing” and his insight made him, temporarily, the most powerful man in the world. Fortunately he was not good enough at it to hold his position for long.

Besides the portrait of the individual duelists, we learn of some of the early operations of the war. Of particular fascination is the case of Dunkirk. One of the major unanswered questions of the War is why Hitler held his army back during the evacuation. Did Hitler hope to negotiate a settlement with England, a country for which he often expressed admiration, after letting its army escape? Was he motivated by a desire to create a showpiece for the Luftwaffe? Or was he motivated by practical considerations of the terrain over which the army would have to fight? Although we will never know the answer to the question of why he held back the army, we can speculate that the war would have turned out differently had the B.E.F. been annihilated.

The reading of this book left me with an enhanced respect for both Churchill and Hitler. It was Churchill alone who stiffened the resolve of the British people to fight and to never surrender.

This book does not deal much with the atrocities which Hitler committed in his quest to lead Germany to its place of dominance in Europe. What it does show is a leader who was a charming, calculating and, for a time, highly successful, political and military leader. Although now widely regarded as a mad man, this does not describe a lower class man who rose to unchallenged leadership of a great power. Hitler had much going for him. Although his obsession with the Jews certainly sullied his legacy, he did lead Germany to greater heights than any which Bismarck and Wilhelm achieved. When one realizes how many, both within and without Germany “did business” with Hitler, we realize that we cannot be justified in condemning them all.

This is a book which makes you think and changes your view of history. Magnificent!

The opening rounds in a desparate battle
John Lukacs' book "The Duel" calls to mind the classic hypothetical paradox that asks what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. In this instance the irresistible force was Adolf Hitler and his armed forces and the immovable object was Winston Churchill.

The duel that is the subject of this book takes place in the tumultuous 80-day period between May 10, 1940 and July 30, 1940. Lukacs surrounds the recitation of this 80-day period with two coincidences. On May 10, 1940 Churchill became Prime Minister, replacing Neville Chamberlain. At the same time the battle for Western Europe began in earnest when Hitler launched land and air attacks on Holland, Luxembourg, and Belgium. On July 31, 1940 Hitler began making formal plans for the invasion of the USSR. On that same day U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt decided to go forward with a lend-lease program that would provide the British navy with 50 aging, but much needed destroyers.

Events in May and early June provided evidence that Hitler and his advancing armies were something of an irresistible force. The German army and air force made quick work of Holland, Luxembourg, and Belgium. France and its forces were defeated in short order as well. At the same time, in these dark early days, Churchill's hold on power was tenuous at best. As Lukacs is quick to point out, the ousted Chamberlain was more popular amongst Conservative party loyalists. Churchill's only real popular support according to surveys cited by Lukacs came from working class (labour) voters. Hitler and the U.S. Ambassador to Britain Joseph Kennedy both seemed to think that, if anything, Churchill was an easily removable force. Facts, as Lukacs points, proved both Hitler and Joseph Kennedy wrong.

The Duel is set out in a point-counterpoint fashion. It alternates between examining the war from the German and then British viewpoint. Although Lukacs is a long-time admirer of Churchill (and with good reason) his analysis of events and of the character and judgments of both Churchill and Hitler seems both astute and objective. Lukacs avoids the easy picture of Hitler as madman and is quite prepared to give him credit for the efficacy of his military plans and his ability to think rationally (and often brilliantly) about military and political developments in Western Europe. Similarly, Lukacs is not above criticizing some of Churchill's decisions or pointing out many of the mis-steps that occurred during this period.

The critical events of the 80 days covered by Lukacs'seem to me to be the successful evacuation of 350,000 British and French troops from Dunkerque 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 Dunkerque 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.

The `duel' ends in a stalemate. Five gruesome years of war would follow. However, in terms of the classic irresistible force/immovable object paradox the stalemate clearly benefited the immovable object. Churchill, as a rational thinker, could not have entertained the belief that he could have won any major battles during this period. However, the commodity most precious to him and for the future of parliamentary democracy in Britain, was not victory but time. Britain needed time to gather strength and, most importantly, time to seek assistance from the United States. That assistance was very slow in coming. Roosevelt was in the middle of an election campaign and the forces of isolation were still very strong in the United States. By doing enough to forestall invasion, and aided by Hitler's decision to divert attention to the Soviet Union, Churchill gained the time he needed. The British armed forces were not particularly swift nor strong but in time they would be. Churchill's desparate struggle to 'buy' that time may in fact represent his finest hours.

The Duel is a very readable popular history of a very critical time in Europe's (and the world's history). His portrayal of both Hitler and Churchill seems balanced and objective. This is a very well written book that can be enjoyed equally by casual or serious students of this period. It is a good book and it is well worth reading.

The race is not always to the swift
John Lukacs' book "The Duel" calls to mind the classic hypothetical paradox that asks what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. In this instance the irresistible force was Adolf Hitler and his armed forces and the immovable object was Winston Churchill.

The duel that is the subject of this book takes place in the tumultuous 80-day period between May 10, 1940 and July 30, 1940. Lukacs surrounds the recitation of this 80-day period with two coincidences. On May 10, 1940 Churchill became Prime Minister, replacing Neville Chamberlain. At the same time the battle for Western Europe began in earnest when Hitler launched land and air attacks on Holland, Luxembourg, and Belgium. On July 31, 1940 Hitler began making formal plans for the invasion of the USSR. On that same day U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt decided to go forward with a lend-lease program that would provide the British navy with 50 aging, but much needed destroyers.

Events in May and early June provided evidence that Hitler and his advancing armies were something of an irresistible force. The German army and air force made quick work of Holland, Luxembourg, and Belgium. France and its forces were defeated in short order as well. At the same time, in these dark early days, Churchill's hold on power was tenuous at best. As Lukacs is quick to point out, the ousted Chamberlain was more popular amongst Conservative party loyalists. Churchill's only real popular support according to surveys cited by Lukacs came from working class (labour) voters. Hitler and the U.S. Ambassador to Britain Joseph Kennedy both seemed to think that, if anything, Churchill was an easily removable force. Facts, as Lukacs points, proved both Hitler and Joseph Kennedy wrong.

The Duel is set out in a point-counterpoint fashion. It alternates between examining the war from the German and then British viewpoint. Although Lukacs is a long-time admirer of Churchill (and with good reason) his analysis of events and of the character and judgments of both Churchill and Hitler seems both astute and objective. Lukacs avoids the easy picture of Hitler as madman and is quite prepared to give him credit for the efficacy of his military plans and his ability to think rationally (and often brilliantly) about military and political developments in Western Europe. Similarly, Lukacs is not above criticizing some of Churchill's decisions or pointing out many of the mis-steps that occurred during this period.

The critical events of the 80 days covered by Lukacs'seem to me to be the successful evacuation of 350,000 British and French troops from Dunkerque 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 Dunkerque 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.

The `duel' ends in a stalemate. Five gruesome years of war would follow. However, in terms of the classic irresistible force/immovable object paradox the stalemate clearly benefited the immovable object. Churchill, as a rational thinker, could not have entertained the belief that he could have won any major battles during this period. However, the commodity most precious to him and for the future of parliamentary democracy in Britain, was not victory but time. Britain needed time to gather strength and, most importantly, time to seek assistance from the United States. That assistance was very slow in coming. Roosevelt was in the middle of an election campaign and the forces of isolation were still very strong in the United States. By doing enough to forestall invasion, and aided by Hitler's decision to divert attention to the Soviet Union, Churchill gained the time he needed. The British armed forces were not particularly swift nor strong but in time they would be. Churchill's desparate struggle to 'buy' that time may in fact represent his finest hours.

The Duel is a very readable popular history of a very critical time in Europe's (and the world's history). His portrayal of both Hitler and Churchill seems balanced and objective. This is a very well written book that can be enjoyed equally by casual or serious students of this period. It is a good book and it is well worth reading.