The Splendid and the Vile by Erik Larson - REVIEW

New York Times bestselling author Erik Larson is known for expertly transporting readers to past worlds; even stories we think we know come to life in a different way in his hands. With his remarkable new work of nonfiction, The Splendid and the Vile, Larson once again turns history into a thriller, taking us into the heart of war-torn England for the period of May 10, 1940, through May 10, 1941 — Winston Churchill's first year as prime minister. 

The inspiration for The Splendid and the Vile came when Larson moved to Manhattan a few years ago. "It was only then that I came to understand, with sudden clarity, how different the experience of September 11, 2001, was for New Yorkers, since it was their city that was under attack," says Larson. Almost immediately, he wondered how Londoners could have endured Germany's aerial assault of 1940-41: fifty-seven consecutive nights of bombing, followed by an intensifying series of night time raids over the next six months. "In particular, I thought about Winston Churchill, who had to lead his country through such horror while aware that it was likely only a preamble to worse," Larson says. "I decided to look into how he, his family and advisors withstood it," Larson says.

The Splendid and the Vile is not meant to be a definitive account of Churchill, as that has been done. What it is instead is an intimate account of how Churchill and his inner circle went about surviving on a daily basis during the year when Churchill became Churchill, the cigar-smoking bulldog we all think we know. Drawing on diaries, original archival documents, and once-secret intelligence reports—some released only recently—Larson provides a new lens on London's darkest year through the day-to-day experiences of Churchill; his wife, Clementine; their youngest daughter, Mary, who chafes against her parents' wartime protectiveness; their son, Randolph, and his beautiful, unhappy wife, Pamela; her illicit lover, a dashing American emissary; and the cadre of close advisors who comprised Churchill's "Secret Circle," including his love-struck private secretary, John Colville; newspaper baron Lord Beaverbrook; and the Rasputin-like Frederick Lindemann. 
Like his monumental In the Garden of Beasts and Dead Wake, the result is a captivating book that is rich in atmosphere and personal stories. Thrillingly told and full of vivid character portraits, The Splendid and the Vile takes readers out of today's political dysfunction and back to a time when words mattered, courage prevailed, and everything was at stake. 

About the Author 
ERIK LARSON is the author of five national bestsellers; Dead Wake, In the Garden of Beasts, Thunderstruck, The Devil in the White City, and Isaac's Storm, which have collectively sold more than nine million copies. His books have been published in nearly twenty countries. 

THE SPLENDID AND THE VILE: 
A Saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance During the Blitz by Erik Larson Crown
ISBN: 978-0-385-34871-3
eriklarsonbooks.com 

A conversation with Erik Larson, author of THE SPLENDID AND THE VILE 

Q: You often write about fascinating events in history that most of us have never before heard of, but much is already known about Winston Churchill. What made you decide to write about his first year—May 10,1940-May 10,1941—as prime minister? 
A: It wasn't so much the first year that drew me, but rather that the year coincided with Germany's bombing campaign against London. The city experienced in effect a succession of 9/11's—fifty-seven consecutive nights of bombing, followed by an intensifying series of nighttime raids over the next six months. I wanted to know how anyone could have endured that kind of ordeal, and decided the best way to tell it was through the daily experience of Churchill, his family, and his inner circle. By looking at the period through this window, I found all kinds of things that scholars writing more traditional histories and biographies tend to ignore. 

Q: What was the inspiration for the book's title? 
A: It was inspired by a diary entry made by one of my key characters, John Colville, a member of Churchill's cadre of private secretaries. Against all national-security regulations, Colville kept a detailed—and accurate—daily record of his time with Churchill, in which he proved himself to be both an astute observer of events and a writer of grace and wit. In one passage he described an intense air raid, which he watched from a bedroom window. It conjured in him a sense of awe. "Never." he wrote, "was there such a contrast of natural splendor and human vileness." 

Q: Reading the book, it's difficult not to compare the political climate of that time with our current political moment. What do you see as the primary differences? 
A: Well, the primary difference is that Churchill was a brilliant man who understood the necessity of bringing his country together in the face of an existential threat. He used his incredible oratorical skills not to divide, but rather to teach the British public the art of being fearless. Needless to say, we see something rather different at play now in Britain and in America. 

Q: Did spending so much time with Churchill—reading his words, examining his actions— make you think differently about leadership? What were Churchill's strengths and flaws as a leader? 
A: What struck me about Churchill was his gift for making Britons feel stronger and better about themselves. His best speeches combined sober assessment with an unshakeable confidence that Britain would not merely endure, but prevail. He had a rich knowledge of history, and this gave him perspective. He never underestimated the danger Britain faced, but likewise never lost sight of its strength. He also led by example—climbing to the rooftops to watch air-raids unfold; visiting bombed districts, despite the likelihood of fresh attacks; and ordering acts of defiance that persuaded allies, especially the United States, that Britain intended to fight to the end. He was not, however, a particularly good military strategist or tactician. And he was, apparently, a pain to work for: Impulsive, demanding, and inconsiderate—but his staff and ministers loved him all the same. 

Q: You bring key members of Churchill's inner circle to life, among them his seventeen-year ­old daughter, Mary Churchill, and his private secretary, John Colville. What resources did you call on to do that, and why did you see them as important to the story? 
A: To me, context is everything. Among the most powerful tools for capturing it are diaries, like those left by Mary Churchill and Colville and many others, which help place Churchill in a living landscape. I love, for example, that both Mary and her mother, Clementine, felt great anxiety about Churchill repeatedly flying to France in the spring of 1940 to meet with French leaders. Such anxiety about flying is something you don't find expressed very often in historical sources and yet it's something a lot of us routinely experience, me included. You would not have caught me flying to France in a twin-engine Flamingo aircraft, with the skies full of German fighters and cities along the French coast visibly burning, but Churchill did it—and, what's more, loved it. 

Q: This is your eighth book. Has your research and writing process changed over the years? 
A: As always I relied heavily on archival materials. That's the fun of it. I traveled to various far-flung locales, including archives in London, Cambridge and Oxford, where I spent many happy hours looking through old letters and records. This may sound odd, but I never really know what I'm looking for—until I find it. For example, I spent a good deal of time looking into the records on Churchill's prime ministerial country home. Chequers, which became for him a kind of secret weapon, and for me, almost a living character. I was delighted to find that a particular section of the estate, the "Long Walk Wood," was chronically overrun with rabbits — not exactly a world-shaking fact, but, nonetheless it's in the book. More often, however, my archival spelunking turned up tragic details and episodes, like the three-month investigation by Scotland Yard into the disappearance of an employee of a London architectural firm who, as it turned out, had been "blown to bits" by a German bomb. This, alas, did not make it into the book, but it was important to know it all the same. 

Q: What did you learn about Churchill that most surprised you? 
A: What most surprised me was Churchill's sense of fun. He would dance, solo, to martial tunes played on the gramophone at Chequers, and at least once engaged in a series of bayonet drills as he marched, while his dinner guests looked on. He loved listening to his favorite songs, among them "Run Rabbit Run" and tunes by Gilbert and Sullivan, and he adored movies, which he watched nightly in the home cinema at Ditchley, another country estate, where he stayed on weekends when the moon was full and air-raids thus more likely to occur. No matter how grave the events of the war, he was always able to compartmentalize his gloom and make room for laughter.

Q: The Splendid and the Vile is full of fascinating characters. Do you have a favorite among them? 
A: My favorite, hands down, is Mary Churchill, who when the action in the book begins is 17 years old. I was delighted to receive permission from her daughter, Emma Soames, to read and excerpt her diary, which is held by the Churchill Archives Center in Cambridge, England. Mary was a smart, charming raconteur, and her observations about her friends, her joyous life, and her frustration at not being able to take a more direct part in defending England, provide a rich and humane thread throughout the narrative—right down to episodes of "snogging" in haylofts and moments when young RAF pilots would buzz her and her friends at treetop altitude, thrilling them no end. 

Q: You sometimes included the German perspective in the book, most often Goring's, who was commander of the German air force (Luftwaffe), Why? 
A: I felt it was very important to convey how Germany's bombing campaign got started, and how it evolved in response to Churchill's open defiance. Also, Goring and Goebbels, like most Nazis, are spine-chilling characters. It was horrifying and illuminating to read Goebbels' diary entry that expressed his delight in his family and Christmas, while also reveling in the latest Nazi offenses against Jews. The Gennan narrative also helps ramp up the overall sense of foreboding and suspense as Goring plans each new aerial atrocity. I include the German fighter ace Adolf Galland mainly as a vehicle to describe the creation and evolution of the Luftwaffe and to present a nuanced, human element to the German side of the action. Galland loved the test of combat, but proved in the end to be a decent guy who won the respect of his opponents in the RAF. He also played an interesting role in one of the final events in the book, which I won't reveal here. 

Q: With so much written about Churchill, how did you manage to avoid drowning in so vast a sea of books and articles? And did you find it at all discouraging? 
A: My interest was very focused: How did Churchill and his circle endure Hitler's bombing campaign—how really? That was my lens, and it let me search in a more targeted way for anything that would help me tell the story. And, as I've found before, when you look at history through a new lens, you see things in a new way. Above all I wanted to present as rich a sense as possible of that awful time, so that readers could sink into the story and live it alongside the various characters. I did of course have to do a lot of advance reading to make sure I knew the fundamental history, but I resolved early on that I would not try to read everything. That's a fool's errand. As soon as I could, I began my archival research in hopes that my own personal Churchill would rise from the dust. I also made it a point to avoid watching all TV and movie portrayals of him, no matter how good they were said to be. I did not want someone else's vision clouding my own. 

Q: Suppose you had a time machine: In the course of your research, did you come across any particular moment that you would love to visit in real time? 
A: Many! I'd love to have been present for Hitler's July 19, 1940, "peace offering" speech in Berlin, just to see what it was like to be in that audience, and to sense the mad enthusiasm of those around me. I'd like to experience one of the major air-raids on London—provided my safe escape was part of the arrangement. But above all I'd love to be able to Join Churchill and company for one of those amazing dinners at Chequers or Ditchley, and savor the dazzling conversation, and maybe get a glimpse of Churchill in his gold-dragon dressing gown or his pale blue siren suit, as he danced to the strains of a Gilbert & Sullivan opera or to the score of the Wizard of Oz, another favorite. 

"NORMANDY '44 D-DAY and the Epic 77-day Battle For France" by James Holland - REVIEW

D-Day, June 6, 1944, and the 76 days of bitter fighting in Normandy that followed the Allied landing, have become the defining episode of World War II in the West—the object of books, films, television series, and documentaries. The story is a familiar one—and yet, approaching the 75th anniversary of this epochal event, its traditional narrative is still driven by both myth and assumed knowledge that is often incorrect.

In NORMANDY '44, Holland has crafted a fresh chronicle that reframes our understanding of D-Day and the Normandy campaign: challenging the accepted views that Germany only lost because of the .Allies" material advantage; that the U.S. dominated the Allied effort; that air power was of lesser importance than ground power. Drawing on archives and testimonies of eye­witnesses—from foot soldiers, tank men, commanders, fighter pilots, as well as civilians caught in the maelstrom—Holland recreates the brutal campaign that, in terms of daily casualties, was worse than any in World War I. Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery was in charge of Operation OVERLORD, whose main target was Caen, principal city in Normandy where rail, road, and river converged. Its capture took almost six weeks of bitter fighting from the bloody sea landing and chaotic air drop to the slog through the hedgerows and sunken lanes that were Normandy's landscape. Holland introduces characters such as Sgt. Curtis Curlin of the 2nd Armored Division who ingeniously devised saw-teeth to be added to the fronts of Sherman tanks, and Major General Pete Quesada, Commander of US IX Tactical Air Command, who developed crucial communication techniques between his planes and troops on the ground.

A stirring narrative by a preeminent historian, NORMANDY '44 sheds new light on one of history's most dramatic military engagements and is an invaluable addition to the literature of war.

James Holland is the author of Big Week, The Rise of Germany, and The Allies Strike Back in the War in the West trilogy, as well as Fortress Malta, Dam Busters, and The Battle of Britain. Holland regularly appears on television and radio and has written and presented the BAFTA shortlisted documentaries Battle of Britain and Dam Busters for the BBC, among others. A fellow of the Royal Historical Society, he has his own collection at the Imperial War Museum.

NORMANDY '44
by James Holland
Atlantic Monthly Press, $35.00 hardcover, publication date: 4 June 2019
ISBN: 978-0-8021-2942-0

Six Myths about the D-Day landings debunked by historian James Holland

1. The myth: German soldiers were better trained than Allied soldiers.

REALITY: The best German units might have been at the start of the war, but not by 1944. There were a few exceptions - such as the Panzer Lehr, for example, but for the most part, German units were nothing like as well trained as Allies. Some Allied units in Normandy had been training for the best part of four years, while many German troops had had little more than a few weeks'. The kampfgruppen - or battle groups - the ad hoc units that traditionally are seen to showcase their tactical flexibility, were borne of extreme shortages and desperation towards the end of the war. And even these units still kept counter-attacking, and exposing themselves to Allied firepower in the process.

The Fallschirmjager (paratroopers) were acknowledged to be among the very best trained troops in the German Armed Forces, yet one Fallschirmjager I spoke to recently had barely had any training at all, save a few route marches and practice at laying mines. He had never trained with a tank, had no transport at all, and when sent to the front from Brittany, marched 200 miles. His case was not untypical. More than 80% of German forces in Normandy were dependent on their feet and horses and carts for transport. He reached St Lo, a major Normandy town in the American sector, on 12th of June with a company of 120 men. When he was captured on 19th August, he was one of just nine still standing, the rest killed, wounded or captured.

Nor did the word aufstragstaktik- better known today as Mission Command - mean anything to him whatsoever. This doctrine, the ability to think on one's feet and use initiative, has been repeatedly hailed as what set the German soldier apart. Training had become so reduced it was simply impossible to implement.

2. The myth; The tactical skill of the Germans.

REALITY: The dogged determination of the Germans to fight has been confused with tactical skill. Recent post-war conflicts in Afghanistan, or even Vietnam a generation earlier, have proved that western forces can have the best trained troops, best kit, and most lethal weapons in the world, but still struggle to defeat a massively inferior enemy. As the Taliban have shown, it is very difficult to completely defeat your enemy if they don't want to be defeated. The only way is to kill them all.

This is why the Germans took so long to be defeated in Normandy and beyond: they were still a very dangerous and deadly enemy, with plenty of powerful weapons and a fierce determination to keep fighting. This was for a number of reasons: Nazi indoctrination, a profound sense of duty, and the threat of execution for deserters. In World War I the Germans executed 48 men for desertion; in World War II, that figure was 30,000.

3. The myth: D-Day was a predominantly American operation.

REALITY: For many people, D-Day is defined by the bloodshed at Omaha - the codename for one of the beaches where Allied forces landed - and the American airborne drops. Even in Germany, the perception is that D-Day was a largely American show; in the recent German TV mini-series. Generation War, there was a reference to the 'American landings' in France. But despite Band of Brothers, despite Saving Private Ryan, and despite those 11 photographs by Robert Capa taken in the swell on that morning of 6th June 1944, D-Day was not a predominantly American effort; rather it was an Allied effort, with, if anything, Britain taking the lead.

Yes, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, was American, but his deputy. Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder was British, as were all three service chiefs. Air Marshal 'Mary' Coningham, Commander of the tactical air forces - those directly supporting the ground troops - was also British. The plan for Operation Overlord - as D-Day was codenamed - was largely that of General Sir Bernard Montgomery, the land force commander: he was, of course, British. The Royal Navy was overall responsible for Operation Neptune, the naval plan. It might surprise many to know that of the 1,213 warships involved, 200 were American and 892 were British; and of the 4,126 landing craft involved, 805 were American and 3,261 were British.

Indeed, 31% of all US supplies used during D-Day came directly from Britain, while two-thirds of the 12,000 aircraft involved were also British, while two-thirds of those that landed in occupied France were British and Canadian (Canada was then a British Dominion and Canadian and British troops shared uniforms, equipment and weapons). Despite the initial slaughter at Omaha, casualties across the American, and British and Canadian, beaches were also much the same.

This is in no way meant to belittle the U.S. effort; rather it is meant to add context. It is not helpful to anyone to view their history through the narrow prism of their own experiences: rather a wider, 360-degree view, is far more instructive. History needs to teach us as well as entertain.

4. The myth: American forces were ill-disciplined amateurs.

REALITY: By the end of the war, the U.S. had the best armed services in the world bar none, and the 77-day Normandy campaign did a huge amount to help them reach that point. But repeatedly throughout the war, US troops showed their incredible ability to learn on the hoof, and then swiftly implement changes.

Normandy was a showcase for American tactical and operational flexibility At the start of the campaign, the Americans found themselves fighting through the Normandy bocage, an area of small fields lined with thick raised hedgerows and al the Germans would quickly retreat after a successful Allied landing. For the German troops, the bocage offered both cover and great ambush opportunities, with mortar teams and machine-guns hidden behind the hedgerows. To effectively break through the bocage US infantry needed the support of tanks to blast their way forward, but even thirty-ton Sherman tanks couldn't get through these hedgerows. The ingenious solution came from a lowly U.S. sergeant, who dreamt up the idea of attaching a hedge-cutting tool built from German beach obstacles to the front of a Sherman tank. Within a week, his prototype had been made and a few days after that he was able to demonstrate it in front of General Omar Bradley, the US First Army commander. He was so impressed with what he saw, he ordered the conversion of as many Shermans as possible, as quickly as possible. Within a fortnight the device had been fitted to 60% of all US Shermans in Nornmandy.

In no other army in the world would a solution created by a junior non-commissioned officer have been implemented quite so readily and swiftly. It showed the Americans' incredible tactical flexibility; and this was just one example. During the campaign huge strides were also made in the development of close air support, and in improving coordination between infantry, artillery and armor. Medical services advanced so much that one in four casualties returned to the battlefield after treatment. For 1944 this was remarkable.

5. The myth: The allies allowed themselves to get bogged down in Normandy.

REALITY: It's true that in the pre-invasion estimates for the campaign, the Allies expected to be roughly 50 miles inland. This was based on experience of German retreats in North Africa and Italy. But Hitler ordered his forces to fight as close to the coast as possible and not give an inch. On a map, it seemed the Allies weren't making much progress, but actually, the German policy worked to the Allies' advantage. By continuing to fight close to the coast, the Germans remained in range of Allied off shore naval guns and allowed themselves to be out-smarted by an enemy that had worked out how to defeat them.

By 1944, the Allies had realized that tactically, the Germans were rigidly predictable. The Germans were very proud of their military heritage and drew on doctrine established by men like General Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), who wrote the seminal pamphlet, On War. Part of their DNA in World War II was to always counter­attack - the idea was to strike back at the moment the enemy had over-extended himself.

But the Allies realized that this penchant for counter-attacking meant the Germans, previously well dug-in, then moved into the open and exposed themselves. The Allied trick was to probe forward, get the Germans to counter-attack - which they always did - then hammer them with a combination of devastating artillery, air- and off-shore naval fire. By the end of the Normandy campaign, the Germans had hemorrhaged men and machines and two entire armies were all but destroyed. It's true a handful escaped the attempted encirclement around Falaise, but it was still a massive Allied victory. In the rapid advance that followed, the Allies sped more miles more quickly than the Germans had done in the opposite direction back in May 1940 during the Blitzkrieg in France.

6. The myth: America and Britain got off lightly in World War II.

REALITY: Allied front line troops suffered horrifically in World War II. Democracies, such as Britain and America, quite rightly, were trying to achieve victory with as few casualties as possible. For the most part, they did this very successfully, using technology and machinery to shield lives as much as possible.

However, the hard yards still had to be won by the infantry, tank units and artillery, technology meant the Allies needed fewer of them than a generation earlier, but those in the firing line had pulled a very short straw, losses to front line troops were proportionally worse than on the Western Front during World War I. Over the course of the 77-day battle, the average daily casualty rate was 6,870, worse than the Somme. Passchendaele and Verdun, three battles usually viewed as a benchmark for wanton slaughter. Normandy was absolutely brutal.