Churchill and the Generals (1979 TV Movie) User Reviews

A Tempestuous Leader Changed Generals Like Socks

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 10 February 2007]

Winston Churchill who rallied his nation and may very well have saved civilization by keeping the UK fighting against Nazism until the Soviet Union and the USA entered the war, had some serious flaws as a military strategist. There was only one way of beating Hitler, go right through the front door of Western Europe. Churchill however wanted to nibble at the sides, hence the Mediterranean campaign, the attempt to take Norway back.

The fear was understandable. Everyone on both sides in Europe feared the four year stalemate that was World War I with the trench warfare in France. Anything to avoid that again, so the British shied away from a cross channel invasion and a campaign in France.

Timothy West captures the mercurial part of Churchill's nature as well as the inspiring one. In his long career, Churchill was both First Lord of the Admiralty and Secretary of State for War, the former post he held twice. He was educated at Sandhurst though he left the army for politics, he fancied himself a military strategist.

This made for TV docudrama shows a Churchill who hired and fired generals in much the same manner that Abraham Lincoln did in the Civil War. But Lincoln was more result oriented, the Churchill we see here is someone who got rid of people basically because they didn't kiss up to him.

He got rid of generals like Wavell who defeated the Italians at Addis Ababa and Auchinleck who slowed the Nazi advance at the first battle of El Alamein for pretty much that reason. The man who replaced Auchinleck in North Africa, Bernard Montgomery took Auchinleck's battle plan and turned the Nazis at the second El Alamein.

After that, the direction of war planning came more and more from the American military. In fact one of the reasons I like Churchill and the Generals is it shows just how much different things were with FDR and his generals and Churchill and his. Roosevelt was smart enough to know when he was not in his element and he left strategic planning to George C. Marshall and Ernest J. King in the Navy. Next to West as Churchill, I liked Joseph Cotten as Marshall.

A great inspirational leader, but one who his generals wished had just confined himself to making speeches in Parliament.

A well-crafted presentation of Winston Churchill and the time of World War II

[George041 · 9/10 · 23 November 2003]

A Well-crafted presentation of Winston Churchill and the interrelationships between the generals and the Prime Minister. The acting is superb, the dialogue captivating, and the war film footage brings back memories of the horrors and deaths of so many fine men and women. If only the memories could stop the future carnage of people.

Churchill As Soldier

[sddavis63 · 7/10 · 22 September 2009]

Winston Churchill was no doubt a giant of a man who will never be forgotten; truly one of the great figures of the Second World War. This portrayal of him, however, seems to dwell more on his limitations than on his strengths. As the title would imply, the focus is on Churchill the military leader - there's precious little to be found of Churchill the inspirational orator, who kept up the spirits of the British people when all seemed hopeless. There's a small number of snippets (and very short ones) from some of his speeches, but nothing at all from his great "we shall never surrender" speech after the fall of France. No, the focus is on Churchill the soldier, and it really isn't a very flattering portrayal.

Actually, the thing that kept coming into my mind was how "Hitlerian" Churchill seemed in this regard. Unable to confine himself to the diplomatic or even overall strategic side of the conflict, Churchill constantly inserted himself into operational matters, argued with and often overruled his generals, sacked those who disagreed with him, and focused on objectives of limited strategic value (shown most powerfully by his insistence on invading and occupying the Greek Aegean islands against the wishes of the Americans, only to have to turn to the Americans for help when his plan didn't work out.) Just as Hitler was seemingly fixated on proving to his generals that a former corporal deserved to be their leader, so was Churchill striving to overcome a past that raised doubts - as the Americans astutely noted in observing that Churchill's fixation with the Mediterranean at the expense of Operation Overlord was really an attempt to redeem strategic mistakes he had made during World War I.

Timothy West was convincing as Churchill - but in a limited way, since he didn't have to match Churchill's oratory in this role. He does manage to portray a man both arrogant and sometimes child-like, concerned with his historical legacy and totally convinced of his own abilities, even if few others were. The casting of the various American characters was more problematic. Joseph Cotten handled the role of George Marshall fairly well, but I thought Arthur Hill as FDR and Richard Dysart as Eisenhower were both lacking somewhat. This is a made-for-TV docudrama, and definitely shows that, both in its sets, its overall production values and even its music, so one can't look for something the quality of a big screen epic. I liked the look at this side of Churchill, though, and overall found this very interesting. 7/10

Fascinating look at Churchill as a War Lord - flaws and all.

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 3 October 2007]

A number of years back a small paperback book was printed regarding the leaders of the major powers in World War II in the role of "War Lord". It showed that, four of the models (Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and Hitler) fit the role best, but all had flaws.

This 1979 television docudrama dealt with what was "Winnie's" great flaw as leader of Britain and it's Commonwealth in 1939 - 1945. In some respects Churchill (Timothy West, who has played the role several times) had done his greatest work in warning Britain and the world of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s (Hitler took the time to swat at Churchill in turn, which he rarely did with foreign rivals at that date), and in handling the leadership of Britain in the crisis period of 1940 - December 1941 when it was basically facing - with some American aid - Hitler alone and being attacked by the air. However, for all the tremendous energy and determination this grand old man brought to saving western civilization - whatever glory he brought to our ears through his well-cadenced, trumpet like speeches - he had an overblown belief in his abilities as a military thinker that he did not deserve.

This series basically shows this, and the hard lessons Churchill needed before he followed the more hands off approach that FDR followed (as mentioned in another of the reviews here) with his military advisers and staff. FDR (Arthur Hill here) had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Josephus Daniels in Wilson's Administration in World War I. Unable to leave his post to enlist, he never served in the armed forces. He always maintained an interest in naval matters, but he always relied on the advisers. Churchill had been to Sandhurst military school. He had been in the army in India and during the Boer War (the subject of the movie YOUNG WINSTON), and even had adventures as an escaped P.O.W. But his ideas of armies were based on these events from before 1902. He had been First Lord of the Admiralty under Herbert Asquith during the years up to World War I, and up to 1915. His record as a peacetime First Lord is very fine - he was innovative and clever. But his record for 1914 to 1915 (including several pointless naval disasters he could have prevented) and culminating in his fling at a fast strategy to short circuit the war ended in his being dumped for the only time in his career. Ironically, when returned to the cabinet in 1939, he resumed as First Lord (the sailors of the fleet got the word by the message "Winnie's Back!"), so he held the post, during a similar early series of naval disasters he didn't avoid. Only this time he ended up replacing the even more inept Prime Minister Nevil Chamberlain.

It is that fling at strategy in 1915 that really shows his problem. Churchill always thought of the continent of Europe as an opponent who you struck through his "soft underbelly". Europe is not a dueling opponent - it is a continent. the lands of the Mediterranean through the Dardenelles into the Black Sea are not pushovers, but full of mountains and rocky coasts. Any knowledge of this was available from sailors and travelers in those regions.

Churchill's "Gallipoli" Campaign of 1915 remains hailed as a brave attempt to connect the Allies to the Tsar's forces by forcing contact through the Dardenelles. I should say it is so hailed by his fans. Most people think it a mess that only did one good thing (allow the Turkish Army to assume a deserved pride under Kemal Attaturk so as to rebuild their nation into modern Turkey after the war) while it cost Britains tens of thousands of lives due to inept on the spot leadership and Churchill idiotic plan to begin with.

In this program the "bad" Churchill finally gets his due. Although well set with General Alan Brook (Eric Porter) as his closest thing to a brake, Churchill kept getting deeper and deeper into planning strategies to confront the Nazi General Staff. That the damage was not worse is only because his opposite number Adolf was similarly deeply involved in planning and overruling generals. The best example is his mishandling of the North Africa business. Initially Archibald Wavell Patrick Magee) had been victorious in demolishing Musollini's troops under Marshall Graziani (the first really big Allied victories of the war) in Libya. Unfortunately Hitler decided to send Erwin Rommel to Africa with his men, and Wavell could not find a way to stop Rommel. Public opinion made Churchill kick Wavell upstairs (he was made Viceroy to India) and replace him with Sir Claude Auchinleck. The unsung hero of the North Africa Campaign, Auchinleck (Patrick Allen) is like the Civil War General George Thomas who never attacked until properly ready, but then attacked well. But it was too slow for Churchill and the British public. Sir Claude bloodied Rommel's nose at the first battle of El Alemein, and was prepared for his follow-up when sacked. Replaced by the mercurial Bernard Montgomery (Ian Richardson), Auchinleck's plans for Second El Alemein defeated Rommel's push to Suez, but was credited to Montgomery's unjustly.

It went on like this until Churchill began that soft underbelly idea again, and ended only when he was told the harsh reality of the casualty losses in Crete, Greece, and then Italy. By 1944 he began relaxing his hold on strategy (after all Eisenhower was now in Europe controlling planning). At the end of the war Churchill was more like his friend Roosevelt, but it had been a very costly lesson.

The acting was done well - my only complaint was that when things are running smoothly they were rushed by characters like General Harold Alexander (Terence Alexander) narrating what was going on. For telling a peculiar problem of Churchill's leadership it deserves a "10".

An under-rated classic

[jeffatmarlbrook · 10/10 · 25 May 2013]

This under-rated drama has a classic quality all of its own. It gives a superb insight into the complexities of Churchill as a man and a leader. It also provides an intriguing peek at both military and political thinking on both sides of the Atlantic during the Second World War.

Casting can only be described as brilliant. Not only were the leading characters played superbly by established and fine actors but most had a physical resemblance to the real people they played.

It was released in the States on VHS a long time ago, but currently someone has posted it all on You Tube.

If you are interested in understanding the War from a different perspective, do watch it.

I am an unpaid promoter of this great drama.

[ib011f9545i · 9/10 · 12 September 2018]

I think I saw this on BBC tv when it was first shown. I was late teens and although I was obsessed by World War 2 it was not an easy watch for a teenager.

Between 1980 and now I have studied history and collected a great collection of books and films about World War 2.

I finally got the dvd a while back and have watched it several times.

It is a great telling of an interesting and inspiring story. One would have to be an American or Jeremy Corbyn to underrate the role of Britain and the empire in world events 1939-1942.

If you don't know it was Britain v the axis from May 1940 until June 1941 (USSR attacked) then in December 1941 Pearl Harbor was attacked,America joined the war.

History is not made by great men alone but Churchill was vital to the whole story. This 3 hour drama documentary is dated of course but the history is solid and the acting by a well chosen cast is superb.

It tells the story of the first part of the world war 2,so it is not all about America.

Serious Disappointment

[David Rusen-1 · 26 August 2001]

I love Churchill and have seen a number of movies on his life. Biograghies and documentaries generally better than fiction.

But this is particularly unsatisfying. First is the childish and almost feminine demeanor of the great wartime leader played by this actor. Hair raising. Next is the British point of view, with overstatement of strategic importance of military power of UK during wartime. Next is almost complete lack of any history except the few encounters they chose to depict. I guess this is in the service of total focus on the generals, per se, which admittedly is the stated goal of the film.

We managed to endure almost 2 hours before agreeing to exit.