
Allies at War by Tim Bouverie review – a revelatory study of second world war alliances
Tim Bouverie has reverted to a traditional form to present the past afresh. His focus is not on the battlefield, nor on the Home Front, but on the relations between the allies who opposed Hitler. In the foreground are the leaders, especially Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, of course; but there are also walk-on parts for the foreign ministers, the ambassadors, the emissaries and others who participated in their discussions. This is a work of old-fashioned diplomatic history, which provides new perspectives on subjects that seemed familiar. One of its merits is to present the choices that faced the allied leaders as they appeared at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight.
The first such alliance was between Britain and France, which declared war on Germany in September 1939 to honour their joint guarantee to Poland, though neither did much to prevent Poland from being overrun. The Anglo-French strategy was to bring Germany to its knees by means of a blockade. Fearful of reprisals, the RAF dropped leaflets rather than bombs on the enemy. The 'phoney war' ended when the Germans suddenly invaded France in the spring of 1940. Churchill had expected the front to stabilise, as it had done in 1914, but instead the German Blitzkrieg split the allied armies in two. France was defeated, and Vichy France became neutral, indeed a potential enemy. Britain fought on alone against the axis powers of Germany and Italy, which had entered the war as France was collapsing. Bouverie stresses the moral authority that Britain gained from defying German hegemony, even when the struggle seemed hopeless, while not neglecting 'the shame and guilt' felt by the British as they abandoned the Greeks to axis occupation. The painful decision to attack the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir rather than allow it to fall into German hands convinced Roosevelt of Britain's determination to continue.
Churchill knew that Germany could not be defeated without US help. Early in 1941 the American, British and Canadian staffs met to agree plans for the US to enter the war. At the outset the British found their US allies 'hopelessly disorganised', but the creation of the Combined Chiefs of Staff provided the structural basis for 'the most integrated and successful military alliance in history'. In August 1941, Churchill and Roosevelt met in Newfoundland to agree an 'Atlantic Charter'. Although willing to provide succour, the US president was unwilling to commit himself further. Bouverie makes the important point that in the US, unlike in Britain, elections continued throughout the war. Then as now, the US public was isolationist in mood, wary of foreign entanglements. Only in December 1941, after the surprise Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, was the US dragged into the conflict. Hitler helpfully declared war on the US in solidarity with its Japanese allies.
By this time, Germany had invaded Russia, which became the third member of the 'Grand Alliance'. The 'Big Three' of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met for the first time in Tehran towards the end of 1943. This conference led to some incongruous exchanges, especially in the evening. When Churchill remarked that the political complexion of the world was changing and even Britain was becoming 'a trifle pinker', Stalin rejoined that this was 'a sign of good health'. The old anti-Bolshevik crusader then drank a toast to the 'proletarian masses', prompting Stalin to raise his glass 'to the Conservative party'.
Churchill praised Roosevelt as 'the truest friend… the greatest man I have ever known'. Nevertheless, differences between them remained, one being their contrasting attitudes to France. Churchill insisted that France should be restored to its position as a great power after the victory. He recognised from the start that Charles de Gaulle, though often exasperating, was 'the man of destiny'; in contrast, the Americans continued to lend legitimacy to the collaborationist regime at Vichy until it collapsed, while treating De Gaulle and the Free French forces as 'a band of nuisance rebels'. The Russians were able to exploit the divisions between the western powers. Roosevelt mistakenly believed he could handle Stalin, rather as the current president seems to believe that he can handle Putin. Sometimes he dealt with Stalin without consulting or even informing his closest ally.
The British resented US criticism of their empire. Taxed by a New York hostess about the plight of the 'wretched' Indians, Churchill asked, mischievously: 'To which Indians do you refer? Do you by any chance refer to the second greatest nation on Earth, which under benign and beneficent British rule has multiplied and prospered exceedingly, or do you mean the unfortunate Indians of the North American continent, which under your administration are practically extinct?' Black American GIs, who had to endure a colour bar at home, were welcomed in Britain. Bouverie quotes a West Country farmer who, on being asked what he thought of the visitors, replied that he got on very well with Americans, 'but had no time for the white men they had brought with them'.
Bouverie's commentary is fair and his judgments judicious. Though he has obviously undertaken a vast amount of research, he never becomes overwhelmed by his material. On the contrary, his book is enjoyable to read. He writes lucidly and lightens his weighty subject matter with well-chosen vignettes – for example, describing how, at a critical conference in June 1940, the British liaison officer Major-General Edward Louis Spears snapped his pencil in frustration at French expressions of defeatism.
Bouverie's first book, Appeasing Hitler: Chamberlain, Churchill and the Road to War, published in 2019, was a dazzling debut. Allies at War fully confirms the promise shown by its predecessor.
Adam Sisman's most recent book is The Secret Life of John le Carré (Profile)
Allies at War: The Politics of Defeating Hitler by Tim Bouverie is published by Bodley Head (£25). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The National
an hour ago
- The National
Comprehensive trade embargo would halt aggression by Israel
The severe human rights violations perpetrated by Israel in Palestine could be curtailed within a month through the implementation of a comprehensive trade embargo against Israel. This would entail prohibiting flights, maritime activities and tourism associated with the nation. Specifically, no overflights should be allowed through the airspace of civilised nations, no vessels should be permitted in territorial waters, and all engagement should be limited to communications through Israel's delegation at the United Nations – constituting an unequivocal boycott of what may be characterised as a terrorist state until the current regime, seen as criminal by many, is compelled to respond to the dissatisfaction of its own citizenry. READ MORE: Ken Loach protests against UK's Palestine Action terror label It is essential to acknowledge the complexities surrounding such an approach, particularly concerning the safeguarding of Israel from external assaults during a period of internal upheaval, with Iran being a potential aggressor. Moreover, Palestine must recognise that the reality of the situation has irrevocably changed, and the consequences of the controversial establishment of the Israeli state in 1947 must be confronted, even if it leads to heightened hostilities. Since its establishment, Israel has been a source of persistent conflict in the Levant, arguably contributing to many of the issues plaguing the Middle East today. An examination of the actions of the British government reveals a need for accountability. The superficial expressions of concern and ineffectual criticisms emanating from a government perceived as failing must be recognised for what they are: a façade intended to obscure its complicity and servitude to the current US administration. R Mill Irving Gifford, East Lothian I DISAGREE with Lorna Slater's suggestion concerning the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise. Checks are indeed necessary, in terms of the human rights inclusion, on firms in Scotland that are still supplying materials that enable armaments being sold to Israel. But to go on and suggest that there is no point in having 'human rights' checks if they are never carried out is totally wrong and defeatist. Of course we do need to have the power in place that enables the government to carry out its duty in carrying out human rights checks. Why it does not do so I have no idea, unless it's anything like the English government and more concerned with the business ethic ... if there is such a thing in this case! READ MORE: Politicians across UK demand Keir Starmer impose sanctions on Israel The Scottish Government is making the same pathetic excuse as David Lammy, that such enterprise funding goes towards research, training and apprenticeships. In much the same way Lammy says that Westminster money is for parts for F-35 jets which are supplying Nato as well Israel. All these pathetic excuses are a load of bollocks as well as a load of baloney. We need whatever rules are in place where armaments sales to other countries are concerned, in order to hold governments to account when they are misused or not used. We all know that Scotland is almost surrounded by the seas and so needs protection of its land, sea and air. In his excellent piece in The National, Paul Laverty questions Ian Murray about the Israeli genocide. He raises Article 3 of the 1951 Genocide Convention, and says that direct action is an 'international obligation'. Laverty goes on to suggests that 'even a semi-competent monk administrator in the Middle Ages could organise a system where one recipient did not receive materials from a pool, if the will was there'. Says it all, really!! Alan Magnus-Bennett Fife APPALLING though the images from Gaza are, the fact remains that so long as Hamas refuse to release their hostages and also to recognise the right of Israel to exist, then Netanyahu has all excuses he needs to just carry on. Starmer's position has rightly been recognised as at best being 'confused' and at worst 'hopelessly inept'. It needs to be revised, and we need a new and co-ordinated international approach. The UK et al should commit to an immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, including acting to support its security and viability, conditional upon Hamas releasing the hostages and renouncing their long-held policy of seeking the destruction of Israel. Faced with this, what excuses would Netanyahu and the Zionists have left past sheer prejudice for ending hostilities and recognising that peace and justice go hand in hand? Of course, the international community would be looking for reasons to believe any commitment made by Hamas, but does anyone have a better option? Michael Collie Dunfermline


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
I know the Home Office is hiding the real costs of asylum
Our immigration system sometimes feels like an organised conspiracy against the British people. For decades, the public have voted for drastic reductions in immigration, only to see the numbers go up and up. For years, they have demanded an end to the Channel crossings and the asylum crisis, only to see politicians refuse to do what is necessary. When governments do move in the right direction, they are undermined by weak enforcement, litigious and often publicly-funded NGOs, activist judges who are often former claimant lawyers in the immigration tribunals, and human rights laws that make securing the border an impossible job. Not that governments should be let off the hook: ultimately our constitution allows Parliament to change the law. The last Conservative government had the right idea to stop the Channel crossings. Deporting every migrant coming to Britain without permission – to their home country or a third country like Rwanda – is ultimately the only way to end this wave of illegal immigration. But the plan was never going to work unless we left the European Convention on Human Rights, and that government – with exceptions like Robert Jenrick, who resigned for this reason as immigration minister – was unwilling to go that far. Immigration is the biggest single reason my party is in the predicament it is in, and we must be brutally honest about our record and radical in our solutions if we are ever to win back the trust of the British people. Labour's approach, however, is even worse. They abandoned the policy of deporting migrants who cross the Channel and are now rushing illegal immigrants through the asylum system. Approvals are up, and once asylum is granted, the migrants are hidden in the social housing and welfare systems, where it is impossible to track their costs. The Office for Budget Responsibility calculates that the average 'low-wage migrant worker' arriving aged 25 will cost the British taxpayer over £400,000 by the time they reach 81. Ministers muddy the waters by claiming they are deporting record numbers of people. But this is dishonest. First, the numbers they use include migrants who leave voluntarily. And second, only about three per cent of Channel crossers are ever removed. It's no surprise that Channel crossings are up – by almost 50 per cent – under Labour. And the court injunction won by the Conservative council in Epping, which stops a local hotel being used to house migrants, throws the Government's policy into further chaos. But while the injunction is undoubtedly a clear victory for the local residents – vilified as 'far Right' by those who should know better – it may yet mean more trouble for communities affected by 'asylum dispersal'. Those hoping for a policy of detention and deportation will soon be disappointed. Human rights laws can prevent deportation, and Labour reject automatic deportation for those who cross the Channel. So the migrants will still end up housed in towns and cities across the country. There are already more than twice as many migrants in private housing, including houses of multiple occupancy, than in hotels. And accommodation like this may suit a government as cynical as this one better than hotels. Individual houses provide less of a focal point for protest than hotels, and the Home Office, working with Serco, has been building up its property portfolio for some time. With 1.33 million people on local waiting lists for social housing, this is a serious breach of the fundamental deal offered by citizenship. Foreign nationals – who broke into our country knowing it was illegal – are being offered housing that is not available to British families in need. And the unfortunate residents who live nearby are very deliberately kept in the dark. As an MP elected last year, I have been horrified by the secrecy with which ministers handle housing migrants. When I asked why MPs are not informed about migrants being moved into their constituencies, the immigration minister said we would only be told when it is 'lawful, proportional and necessary.' In other words: never. After the disorder last year, we learnt from press leaks that an internal government paper had said asylum hotels had 'stoked community tensions' and were a 'critical factor behind the summer riots.' Yet when I used the Freedom of Information Act to request a copy of the paper, the Government said while the information was held, it would not be released because ministers needed a 'safe space' to think about policy. The truth is that Labour's immigration policy means surrender and secrecy. The illegal immigrants crossing the Channel will keep on coming, Labour will keep granting them asylum, and ministers will do everything to keep the consequences – for housing, for crime, for the cost to the taxpayer – a secret from you.

Western Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
Hundreds attend solidarity gig in Dublin for Kneecap rapper
Kneecap flags and logos hung from the windows in Connolly Books, which dubs itself Ireland's oldest radical bookshop, in solidarity with O hAnnaidh, Kneecap, and the people of Palestine. Pro-Palestine supporters criticised the decision by British authorities to bring a charge against the performer instead of focusing on the Israeli government's actions against the Palestinian people. O hAnnaidh, 27, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, is accused of displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah at a gig in November last year. When a government tries to silence people, they should learn that they can never silence people. I feel like the public would get more angry at that Aoife Powell Hundreds of Kneecap supporters greeted O hAnnaidh as he arrived at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on Wednesday morning, alongside fellow Kneecap rappers Naoise O Caireallain and JJ O Dochartaigh. During the hearing, his defence team argued the case should be thrown out, citing a technical error in the way the charge against him was brought. The case has been adjourned until September 26, when the judge will rule on whether he has the jurisdiction to try the case. At the protest session at Connolly Books on Wednesday afternoon, several artists played Irish traditional music in solidarity with Kneecap. Ispini na hEireann play at Connolly Books in Dublin's Temple Bar area (Niall Carson/PA) Dubliner Aoife Powell, 19, said she came out to protest because she is 'angry' at the decision to charge an artist rather than focus on what is happening to the people of Gaza. 'I'm here because it just worries me that the fact that governments are focused on artists expressing themselves rather than the actual problem, which is obviously the genocide in Gaza,' she told the PA news agency. 'It's a little bit disheartening to see there's so much pressure being put on these artists to stop saying what they truly think and to stop standing on the right side of history. 'I feel like it's a distraction from what's actually happening. 'When a government tries to silence people, they should learn that they can never silence people. I feel like the public would get more angry at that.' Sean O'Grady is from Coleraine in Northern Ireland but has lived in Dublin for almost 70 years. 'I'm delighted with them (Kneecap), that they've done what they're doing, and they're getting plenty of publicity. 'The British government are crazy, I mean, what are they at? 'They're supplying a lot of the bombs, and a lot of the arms and ammunition to Israel to do what they're doing. So they should be ashamed of themselves instead of bringing in these people (to court) for stupid reasons. 'It's getting good publicity over there for the cause of the Palestinians.' Kneecap's Liam Og O hAnnaidh, speaks to supporters as he leaves Westminster Magistrates' Court in London (Lucy North/PA) Dubliner Dermot Nolan said he attended his first Palestine protest in 1967, and while he remembers horrific events such as the Vietnam War, the scale of death and injuries in Gaza is the worst he has ever lived through. 'I'm here because it's important to for two reasons – first of all, to show our intolerance of the genocide and slaughter that's being carried out by the US, Nato and Israel. 'The second reason is the question of civil rights. We're protesting about the indictment of a member of the Irish group Kneecap. 'It is a sign of creeping authoritarianism which is happening in all the western countries and most clearly in Britain.'