Five Days in London

John Lukacs

When the wonderful Mrs Harry, in a conversation about Dunkirk, asks "isn't that where thousands of Americans died in the war?" I know we're in trouble. This from a woman who has read Atonement and seen Saving Private Ryan and can do wonderful things with technical bid proposals. Sure, I'm biased, but I say everyone needs to read more history.

But not this kind of history. While it's not possible to write a tedious book about the anarchic drama of the events of May 1940 there are all sorts of problems with John Lukacs' account. Mostly in its tone, which is strangely wooden, pompous and old-fashioned. I had to check the inside cover a couple of times just to be sure that it wasn't a glossy reprint of something written in the 1960s. Lukacs has an annoying habit of abruptly penning "He was wrong", "this was not true" and also challenging "why?" or "why not?" after quoting either contemporary sources or fellow historians. As if he were marking the lower fifth's homework. It's a style that grates at the best of times. But when Lukacs is making errors of his own (he appears to confuse Ultra with Enigma) it's doubly aggravating.

Each of the five main chapters - one for each day between 24th May and 28th May - makes much of the British government's so called "Mass Observation" reports. These were early, very unscientific, versions of today's opinion polling. There are no real statistics. Instead, wholly subjective reports about the nation's mood were submitted daily from various parts of the country. For example: "the lower classes in Bolton are more anxious about the war news today" or "women in Suffolk expect a German invasion within weeks". Lukacs reports this unscientific nonsense in some detail, almost as if he's unearthed a valuable historical source. Instead, I suspect most historians have up till now judged this material worthless. More conventionally, Lukacs also quotes from the diaries of the famous. Orwell is in there, and Virginia Woolf too, and while just as anecdotal as the ministry's reports at least the writing is livelier.

When Lukacs drags himself away from Mass Observation it's a much stronger work of history. He is good on the fragility of Churchill's position in the early days of his premiership and the arguments for and against Britain "fighting on" in May 1940 are given a useful airing.