NEWSWEEK: What happened during those five days in London in May 1940, and why do you think they were so pivotal to the outcome of World War II?

John Lukacs: Hitler came very close to winning World War II during that time. We now know, and it was somewhat suspected then, that Churchill’s position was very shaky. World War II was mostly won by America and Russia. But Churchill was the person who didn’t lose it…. The war could have stopped then, with Hitler winning.

Can you describe what was going on at that point?

Hitler had invaded France and his victories were fantastic…. Churchill was unpopular, not among all people, but among the Conservative Party. Within two weeks after he became prime minister [in 1940], disaster followed disaster. Lord Halifax was in the cabinet. He was not a Hitler supporter, he was a patriot, but one who thought Churchill was impetuous and impulsive. He thought that perhaps they should try to [negotiate], to find out what terms the Germans might be offering. Churchill believed that this would be a disaster and it would shake the resolution of the British people. Hitler could not offer anything better than to make Britain his junior partner, almost a German satellite, he thought. Churchill believed the British would have to fight no matter what happened.

How does our current crisis compare?

I’m very pleased that Mayor Giuliani held up my book, that was very pleasant. But I don’t think there are any parallels. This crisis we now face, no matter what the president says, is not a war. It’s not the first war of the 21st century. A war is something between nations or states or sometimes even tribes. Who are we going to declare war on?

I think he’d say we’re declaring a war on terrorism.

But that’s just rhetoric. This is something very different. This is no longer a struggle between nations or between states. And it’s aggravated by technology. Now, even primitive people have access to extraordinary powers of technology.

Are there parallels between what Churchill was facing as a leader and what George W. Bush is now facing?

No. First of all, the very structures of democratic societies, of elections and of political parties have changed to the point that the emergence of a national leader such as Churchill is almost impossible. The way Churchill became prime minister followed a procedure which does not exist today. And Churchill faced an entire powerful nation, a traditional army, the German army, and a single national leader, Hitler, who was extremely powerful and, unfortunately, extremely intelligent.

Was Churchill perceived as a warmonger among the British?

Only among the Conservative Party. In more than one way, the British were in a far more dangerous position than we are in now. Britain could have been invaded, and that, of course, was a far greater danger than what is happening to America. America can suffer great wounds, but American is not [close to] being invaded. As a matter of fact, if Hitler tried to invade Britain right then-of course he wasn’t prepared for it-he would have won. On the other hand, the reaction of the British people was extraordinarily good. There was less flag-waving than we have today-Americans are different. But the American sense of patriotism relating to this catastrophe is similar to what the British reaction was then . Back then, volunteers were asked over a radio broadcast to sign up to serve their country. Before the broadcast was even over, a quarter-million men lined up.

As you have said, he wasn’t particularly well thought of before World War II, at least by Conservatives. How did perceptions of him change? And was he changed by the events of World War II?

He did not change very much himself. Consistent threads of his convictions [span] 60 years, through very different situations. His effect on the British people and the Conservative Party was cumulative…. He spoke a language that appealed to the people. For example, three days after he became prime minister, he addressed the House of Commons, where he said, “I can offer nothing. Only blood, sweat, toil and tears.” It was a great speech, it’s immortal. But the Conservatives didn’t like it. They sat on their hands.

But over time, they began to think better of him?

They began to trust him thoroughly. He was an aristocrat. But he was trusted thoroughly by all classes.

How would you compare Giuliani’s leadership to Churchill’s?

Don’t forget that Churchill was the prime minister of an empire and Giuliani is a mayor. I could imagine a mayor of London talking in Churchillian terms. And in some ways, Giuliani did that. There is a difference though. Giuliani spoke in a very clear practical way. That’s not what Churchill did. Churchill wanted to appeal to the deep sentiments and the emotions of the British people. And it worked very well.

How would you rate Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s leadership during this crisis?

I don’t watch television very much. But from what I saw of him, I think he did absolutely the right thing. He made a few statements on the first two days, which I heard and read in The New York Times, and some of it, I think, was invigorating and true. It was infinitely superior to the language our president used.

Why?

Giuliani was much more sure of himself. Of course, as the mayor of New York City, he also knew exactly what had to be done. He did not speak grandiloquently. He didn’t talk in general terms. I think it was quite impressive. He said something later with which I don’t quite agree. He said the best thing New Yorkers can do right now is go to restaurants. Although I sympathize with the restaurants [which have been losing business], I don’t think it’s the most important thing.

What is the most important thing, then?

I agree with him that people should continue with their normal everyday life.

So in your opinion Giuliani really can’t be compared to Churchill.

The similarity is that in a moment of crisis, both acted very bravely.

How about the way George Bush has carried himself?

That cannot really be compared. Bush and Churchill are very different personalities. His function as a president is different from a prime minister. And this is really not the time to criticize a president, but neither his capacity nor his character are comparable. And character is what counts. Intellect without character is not worth anything.

How would you describe Churchill’s character during World War II versus Bush’s character in this crisis?

Churchill’s entire life, his entire mind, was saturated with history. He understood exactly what the situation was, he understood exactly where Britain was at that time…. This is very different from what is going on today. I’m not only talking about the president’s reaction-it’s just a very different situation. I think Bush and his government at this point don’t really know what to do. This I can’t blame them for. But in that case, they should use more sober language instead of talking about crusades. The trouble with people who use this kind of rhetoric is that they don’t even know that it’s rhetoric.

But Churchill himself used rhetoric to inspire the public, didn’t he?

Absolutely, but his was more than singing a song. He evoked something in people. When he says he can’t offer anything but blood, toil, sweat and tears, these are wonderful words. He’s saying, “Look, this is much tougher than you think, and it’s going to be very, very tough.” Unfortunately, politicians in a democracy often don’t have the guts to says that.

But Bush has said something to that effect, I believe.

He has said it’s going to be difficult and he doesn’t know when it will end. But it’s a very different thing.

Do you think that Bush and his staff have what it takes to make the right decisions with respect to this particular crisis?

I can’t say. I hope so. We’ll see.

Does a crisis such as this call for a leader to disregard public opinion?

Yes, I’d say so, but it shouldn’t be a problem now because the public is so incensed that they will rally around the president. The problem now is leadership and vision and trying to figure out what we should do. It’s not easy. In a way it’s so complex that Churchill had it much easier.

What about the threat of chemical and biological warfare?

That could happen. That is what technology has brought about. And that is something about which we have been very weak, in guarding our frontiers. I don’t think unlimited immigration from Mexico is a very bright idea. And I don’t think that Star Wars rockets are a bright idea when terrorists can come in with a suitcase and blow up the Lincoln Tunnel.

Do you think that a person has to be tough-or emotionally insensitive-to make good decisions in these types of situations?

Insensitivity and toughness are two different things. You can be insensitive and be weak and cowardly. And you can be sensitive and make very tough decisions. And I think the latter was true of Churchill. Another person who was quite sensitive and made tough decisions was Harry Truman. He was the last old-fashioned American president. I wish we had more old-fashioned people around.

In your book, you talk about the British public not being that well informed about the situation in France in 1940.

People were not well informed, but it was not the result of censorship. Only in retrospect-more than 50 years have passed-do we now know how close Hitler came [at that point] to winning the war. In my book, some material deals with public-opinion research that had just begun in England at that time. It showed that the British people felt that something very dangerous was happening. But in a way, they didn’t even speak about it.

Do you think the public is more well-informed now?

Well that was only a very brief period-five or 10 days-and of course there was no television then, and no Internet. I don’t think the public is terribly well-informed now. Much of the news on television is very brief and not selective. I try to read newspapers very carefully, but there’s a lot missing there. The United States now has obligations around the world that have never existed before. We have naval and air bases in many countries. We are now struggling with the problem of Pakistan and Afghanistan and so forth. I think the American people, at large, are not that interested in the rest of the world and haven’t been for a long time.

Perhaps this international predicament will force them to become more interested again.

Yes. Still, interest itself is not necessarily a positive thing. You can be interested in the right way and interested in the wrong way. Although we don’t know what’s going to happen, I would say that up until now the public reaction has been encouraging and, now and then, even inspiring.

Do you see any other world leaders as key players in the current crisis?

Yes, and one of them is [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. I think it is high time-and I believe we are doing this on some level-to consult with the Russians and perhaps even cooperate with them. I think they will cooperate because their country is threatened by Islamic fanatics, too. I thought this before the catastrophe-that the efforts of the administration to put everything into [their relationship with] the Chinese and to deal with the Russians as a second- or third-rate power is wrong. I fled Hungary because of Russia, but as an American citizen, I think it’s terribly important now to try work with Russia.