980
Reviews of Books and Films
Paul Vysn)i's study of Lord Runciman's miSSIOn to
Czechoslovakia in August-September 1938 is both new
and not new. That is, it offers a more detailed look at
the events and personae of the mission, but it departs
from traditional perspectives on what happened and
why, only in minor ways. The mission, designed to
"mediate" between the Prague government and the
Sudeten Germans-and by implication the German
Reich-has been explored over the past half century
by historians interested in the 1938 Munich Conference: Elizabeth Wiskemann, J. W. Wheeler Bennett,
A. J. P. Taylor, D. C. Watt, and P. M. H. Bell, among
others. Vysny differs from them only in that he focuses
primarily on the mission itself with the Munich Conference as a postscript. For him the mission is a guide
to understanding British government thinking regarding the rise of German power in central and eastern
Europe, and how it should be dealt with. His conclusion, like that of most other historians, is not positive.
In Vysn)i's words, the mission was "part of a policy of
wishful thinking and drifting improvisation" (p. 343).
This volume deals first with how and why the
problem began. Vysny assesses German resentment
against the Versailles Treaty, Third Reich expansionism, rising pro-Third Reich sentiments among Sudeten
Germans, and the perspectives of the Czech government. He then looks at the foreign policy perspectives
of the British government with regard to Germany,
France, and Czechoslovakia, which take on a more or
less crisis mentality following the German Anschluss
with Austria in March 1938. It is in this context that
Vysny examines the views of leading foreign policy
insiders Lord Vansittart, Lord Halifax, and Sir Alexander Cadagon, diplomats who were connected in one
way or another with the Runciman Mission such as
Basil Newton and Sir Neville Henderson, Sudeten
German leaders like Konrad Henlein, and Czech
president Edvard Benes and prime minister, Milan
Hodza.
The section dealing with the mission itself is the
most detailed. It includes in-depth biographical treatment of Runciman and mission members Arthur Ashton-Gwatkin, Robert Stopford, and David Stephens,
among others. Ashton-Gwatkin, a consular official
chosen by Runciman himself as a member of the
mission, was expected to do most of the actual work of
mediation with Runciman serving as a diplomatic
figurehead. The daily doings of the mission are central
to this section, along with assessments of Sudeten
grievances, Czech and Runciman mission responses to
them, and proposals for dealing with the conflict
advanced by the mission. All of this is examined in
great detail and depth-so, too, is press coverage of
successes and failures of the mission.
The story of the mission is told in narrative form and
depicts a slippery slope of first hope, then confusion,
and finally defeat. A select list of chapter titles within
this section provides an clear indication of how Vysny
portrays this slippery slope: "The Mission Takes
Shape," "A Glimmer of Hope," "Anxiety in London,"
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
"The Last Resort," and "The Collapse of Mediation."
The final chapter, "The Reckoning," sums up the
failure of the mission to mediate a conclusion to the
Sudeten question that might have satisfied all sides
involved, and makes the argument that it would have
been impossible to do so in any case, given the
outspoken anti-Czech views of the Third Reich, which
the Sudeten Germans largely embraced. Runciman
returned to London in September 1938 and advised
the prime minister and his cabinet that blame for the
failed mediation lay entirely with the Sudeten Germans. Chamberlain listened, but did not heed. He set
out on the course that lead to the Munich Agreement,
which, of course, ignored Czech interests.
Vysny makes it clear that neither the Runciman
mission nor the British representatives at the Munich
Conference gave preference to Czech as opposed to
German interests. Ashton-Gwatkin, for example, "regarded the Munich Agreement as clearing the ground
for the German domination of Central and Eastern
Europe" which would lead to "the growth of closer
economic ties between Britain and Germany as the two
countries co-operated in the development of the region" (p. 342). This is the real "new" part of Vysn)i's
treatment of the Runciman Mission. Historians have
criticized Chamberlain for Munich, but in the context
of him preferring peace to war; Vysn)i's emphasis on
the Ashton-Gwatkin perspective suggests that the British also regarded good relations with the Third Reich,
including economic ones, as more important than the
survival of Czechoslovakia. Indeed, he concludes that
"the Mission's activities served only to pave the way
towards the British government's central participation
in the destruction of a friendly country ... It was,
indeed, an inglorious episode all round" (p. 343).
This work is thoroughly researched, its arguments
and conclusions clearly articulated with the perspectives and activities of each player in the game clearly
laid out and documented. It is a major contribution to
explication of the Runciman Mission and its implications for the origins of World War II, and should be
read by every historian with an interest in that epoch.
ROBERT COLE
Utah State University
CHURCHILL. Directed and produced by Lucy Carter.
Great Britain. 2003; color; 150 minutes. Distributed by
PBS.
Crafted for British television by Lucy Carter, with
Celia Sandys and Piers Brendon as historical advisors,
this three-part miniseries is done in the "spoken book"
manner, with narration by Sir Ian McKellen (sounding,
as usual, a bit anguished and, to American ears, very
English). In contrast with the many dramatized versions of Winston Churchill's life, actors portray him in
appropriate settings-Blenheim Palace, Whitehall,
Chartwell Manor-but do not speak and are, in effect,
human props. As McKellen outlines each phase of his
JUNE 2004
Europe: Early Modern and Modern
life, Churchill's own words (spoken by John Baddeley)
are heard over the appropriate scene.
Forty years after the death of its subject, there are
few contemporaries left to interview, but Carter located some, including the son of one of Churchill's
pre-World War I suffragette antagonists as well as
several former secretaries who recall his days as wartime leader and task master. Daughter Mary Soames
and grandchildren Celia Sandys and Winston Churchill
comment on his often rocky private life, especially the
stresses within his marriage and on his stormy relationship with his son, Randolph. Robert Lloyd George and
Viscount Thurso reflect on his friendships with their
grandfathers, his political colleagues.
The first of the three segments, "Destiny," covers his
life up to 1932, and the American viewer might be
surprised to learn of Churchill's miserable childhood
or the financial worries that plagued his adult life.
Most attention, predictably, is paid to his public life.
Here one encounters the tale of his first political
career dominated by adventuring, precociousness,
amazing luck and the same unflagging ambition that
ruined his father. One finds here useful overviews of
Churchill's social radical phase (1903-1914), the Great
War (1914-1918, with special attention to the Gallipoli
campaign which all but ruined him) and the 1920s, as
he struggled to save a once-brilliant career that appeared to have run its course by his middle age.
The second chapter, "The Lion's Roar," recreates in
familiar fashion Churchill's second career, better
known to Americans: his backing the wrong horse in
the 1936 abdication crisis; his recognition of the
German threat, the struggle against appeasement and
political isolation; and, finally, the reversal of fortune,
redemption, and supreme power as war engulfed Europe. It is at this point, the familiar wartime premiership, that popular history usually shades off into
melodrama and Churchill becomes an exaggerated
figure, a caricature of his own doggedness and courage.
The doggedness and courage were very real, indeed,
but this production shuns most of the usual histrionics
and does not omit the imperfections or humanity of its
hero.
Following the forging of the Anglo-American cooperation and the great victory of 1945 came sadder
times for Churchill: the crushing 1945 political defeat
at the hands of the hated socialists, the dissolution of
the empire he revered, the lackluster second premiership and, finally, the unwinnable fight against retirement, old age and death. This melancholy slide toward
the end is the leitmotif of the final segment, "The Last
Prize," and it is managed skillfully and with sensitivity.
Plagued by bouts of depression and horror at leaving
the public stage, the old man would not go quietly. If
he had, the sub text implies, he would not have been
Churchill.
Churchill's popular reputation has generally withstood the critiques of the revisionists, yet while he will
always be recalled as the embodiment of brave little
England fighting back against the Nazi war machine,
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
981
each new generation is less aware of what exactly it was
that he did-much less wnat he was. Such productions
can be invaluable in the struggle against forgetfulness.
The Churchill here portrayed is conventionally titanic
in scale but quite human (selfish, passionate, brilliant,
stubborn) and yet still plenty heroic enough. To understand the legend, professional historians will turn
to John Ramsden's The Man of the Century (2003), but
this presentation has much to offer for college-level
classroom use, although its length makes it an unlikely
proposition to show in one sitting. Most instructors will
judge it as rather well balanced, while students will find
it interesting. The photography of places and scenes of
Churchill's lost personal world are a visual treat. For
many courses it may prove well worth taking the
trouble to organize its use in episodic form or as an
out-of-class resource.
R. J. Q. ADAMS
Texas A&M University
W. JOHN MORGAN and STEPHEN LIVINGSTON, editors.
Law and Opinion in Twentieth-Century Britain and
Ireland. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2003. Pp. xiv,
222. $65.00.
In 1898, English jurist Albert Venn Dicey delivered a
series of lectures at the Harvard Law School; a revised
version of these talks was published as Lectures on the
Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England
during the Nineteenth Century (1905). The book, Dicey
wrote, attempted "to follow out the connection or
relation between a century of English legislation and
successive currents of opinion" (p. viii). Historians
have generally viewed his tripartite division of public
opinion into an era of laissez-faire, followed by the
influence of Benthamism and then an age of collectivism, as insightful but flawed. In the 1950s and 1960s,
Dicey's conclusions served as a starting point for the
scholarly debate about the nineteenth-century revolution in government.
The volume of essays under review endeavors to
carry forward the examination of law and opinion in
the manner of Dicey for the twentieth century. The
contrasts between the two works are immediate, for
Dicey brought a focused perspective to his project,
whereas the present collection, edited by W. John
Morgan and Stephen Livingston, contains eight essays
by different authors. Dicey pursued issues such as
Anglo-Irish relations, matrimonial property, and the
fate of individualism at great length. Other topics, such
as the regulation of conception and multicultural
education, gained greater attention after Dicey's death
in 1922, and he left no record of any thoughts on these
latter subjects. Despite some changes in subject matter, however, the various contributors have succeeded
handsomely in keeping the legacy of Dicey's work
relevant for another century.
Each of the book's four sections contains two essays.
In part one, "The Citizen and the State," Morgan
writes about public opinion, political education, and
JUNE 2004