What do you think?
Rate this book
'The Holy Fox': The Life of Lord Halifax
Edward Wood, 3rd Viscount Halifax, was a church-going, fox-hunting aristocrat, but it was his political guile that earned him Churchill's nickname 'The Holy Fox'. As Viceroy of India, his deal with Gandhi ended the Civil Disobedience campaign before it could force the British to quit. His meeting with Hitler in 1937 was a milestone in appeasement, yet just days before Munich, Halifax repudiated the policy and demanded 'the destruction of Nazism'. By May 1940, it was he, not Winston Churchill, who was the choice for Britain's war leader. Andrew Roberts has drawn on remarkable private documents to present Lord Halifax as an enigmatic, influential and much-maligned politician.
360 pages, Paperback
First published March 21, 1991
About the author
Andrew Roberts
192 books1,232 followersDr Andrew Roberts, who was born in 1963, took a first class honours degree in Modern History at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, from where he is an honorary senior scholar and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). He has written or edited twelve books, and appears regularly on radio and television around the world. Based in New York, he is an accomplished public speaker, and is represented by HarperCollins Speakers’ Bureau (See Speaking Engagements and Speaking Testimonials). He has recently lectured at Yale, Princeton and Stanford Universities and at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 21, 2023
In the Middle
Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax is a man who should be judged by the annals of history as someone who sits in the middle. He is neither a great man, nor an evil one. He political life had some success (stopping Churchill seizing Irish ports, US ambassador work come to mind) and other blunders (shaking hands with Adolf Hitler, not improving or strengthening the army in the 1930s for example). He should not be seen as someone who was a burden to the British Government in the late 1930s and early 1940s. However, he was also not a irreplaceable asset. This gives the impression that Halifax was a non entity, minor player who sat on the sidelines. This is not my intention.
Halifax played in some major set pieces and showed great foresight on occasion. Much of what he had predicted has happened, especially with the dissolving of the British Empire and the loss of some of his estates. One can also understand the predicament of appeasement at the time, even if this policy is abhorrent to modern readers (Churchill’s greatness pulls away here and shows how important he was as British wartime leader). However, Halifax did come out of this much quicker than he is given credit for and performed one of the most noble acts in British History, giving up the premiership for Sir Winston Churchill, as he knew this was for the good of the country over his own personal interests. Much of what can be said about Halifax is that he got some things wrong and others right. He always had the best intentions though and any person of reasonable firmness can empathise with his decision making.
The book reads excellently and Andrew Roberts provides analysis, rather than giving an A-Z chronology and ending the book. The book does take the reader from cradle to the grave, but is like a thick sandwich. Life before 1938 and after 1941 it are covered relatively quickly with the bulk dedicated to those crucial months. For me there could have been more dedicated to him around this, however one might argue this is not very interesting.
Roberts is clearly a fan of Halifax and I don’t hate him. He has played a critical role in British History and provides a different viewpoint from the know ideas of WSC. He deserves to be remembered for this. However he is not a titan, but sits in the centre. A great read for anyone interested in WWII or British political history.
Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax is a man who should be judged by the annals of history as someone who sits in the middle. He is neither a great man, nor an evil one. He political life had some success (stopping Churchill seizing Irish ports, US ambassador work come to mind) and other blunders (shaking hands with Adolf Hitler, not improving or strengthening the army in the 1930s for example). He should not be seen as someone who was a burden to the British Government in the late 1930s and early 1940s. However, he was also not a irreplaceable asset. This gives the impression that Halifax was a non entity, minor player who sat on the sidelines. This is not my intention.
Halifax played in some major set pieces and showed great foresight on occasion. Much of what he had predicted has happened, especially with the dissolving of the British Empire and the loss of some of his estates. One can also understand the predicament of appeasement at the time, even if this policy is abhorrent to modern readers (Churchill’s greatness pulls away here and shows how important he was as British wartime leader). However, Halifax did come out of this much quicker than he is given credit for and performed one of the most noble acts in British History, giving up the premiership for Sir Winston Churchill, as he knew this was for the good of the country over his own personal interests. Much of what can be said about Halifax is that he got some things wrong and others right. He always had the best intentions though and any person of reasonable firmness can empathise with his decision making.
The book reads excellently and Andrew Roberts provides analysis, rather than giving an A-Z chronology and ending the book. The book does take the reader from cradle to the grave, but is like a thick sandwich. Life before 1938 and after 1941 it are covered relatively quickly with the bulk dedicated to those crucial months. For me there could have been more dedicated to him around this, however one might argue this is not very interesting.
Roberts is clearly a fan of Halifax and I don’t hate him. He has played a critical role in British History and provides a different viewpoint from the know ideas of WSC. He deserves to be remembered for this. However he is not a titan, but sits in the centre. A great read for anyone interested in WWII or British political history.
July 13, 2022
Roberts’ first major biography written in 1991 is a shadow of his later works , on Salisbury, Napoleon, George 3 .. I suspect for 2 reasons , the inferior subject matter and the discovery of his writing style which has developed wonderfully since
None of the ever so slightly superior irony is present in this work , and in his subject - Lord Halifax , a more difficult , “ product “ to sell. Tall aloof unsympathetic rather snobbish aristocratic - yet who does he think he is , only the 2nd viscount !!! - Edward Wood is a rather unattractive figure .
Roberts has decided to try and rescue Halifax reputation. Instead of arch appeaser , R makes a case for H having been the first cabinet minister after Godesberg in 1938 to have hardened their line against appeasement, and to have worked within government to try to change official policy. Later R pays great tribute to H standing aside to allow Churchill to assume the premiership .
Both of these points are carried I believe .. as well as H role in restraining Winston - who had 20 new ideas per day - during the first year or so of his ministry.
An enjoyable read but Lacking spark in both tone and subject matter
None of the ever so slightly superior irony is present in this work , and in his subject - Lord Halifax , a more difficult , “ product “ to sell. Tall aloof unsympathetic rather snobbish aristocratic - yet who does he think he is , only the 2nd viscount !!! - Edward Wood is a rather unattractive figure .
Roberts has decided to try and rescue Halifax reputation. Instead of arch appeaser , R makes a case for H having been the first cabinet minister after Godesberg in 1938 to have hardened their line against appeasement, and to have worked within government to try to change official policy. Later R pays great tribute to H standing aside to allow Churchill to assume the premiership .
Both of these points are carried I believe .. as well as H role in restraining Winston - who had 20 new ideas per day - during the first year or so of his ministry.
An enjoyable read but Lacking spark in both tone and subject matter
March 19, 2016
On the outbreak of World War 2, Halifax was told "You have struggled for peace devotedly to the last minute…and it is largely due to you that we all go into this horrible business with a good conscience. The country, and history, will give you thanks." Roberts biography primarily seeks to redress his concern that, as a result of misunderstanding Halifax’s motives, Britain has done nothing of the kind. Instead, as noted in Halifax’s obituary in the Observer "Lord Halifax dies a controversial figure, and is likely to remain so for some time to come." ‘It is for the part he played in appeasement that Lord Halifax stands in the dock of history.’
In setting out a path to redemption, Roberts takes readers through Halifax’s conversion from passionate proponent, with Chamberlain, for appeasement, to a staunch supporter of resisting German aggression. He believes ‘there ought to be some recognition for Halifax, who stayed on and took the hard decisions, tackling from the inside the ghastly business of pre-war decision -making.’ ‘In November 1937, he shook hands with some of history’s most evil tyrants and failed to find them anything by quite charming.’ But Halifax was the first statesman of seniority and prestige in the government to conclude that until Nazism was destroyed there would be no peace in Europe.’ Roberts also credits Halifax’s contribution to Churchill’s coronation as Prime Minister: ‘The finger of the Holy Fox was on Churchill’s arrival at the Premiership at that precise moment in 1940.
In finding redemption for Halifax, Roberts fails to explore or critique some of Halifax’s views. Roberts notes that ‘although during the Phony War Halifax felt no objection to hearing what proposals Hitler had to offer, he was resolute in refusing them, believing that Britain could win the war without apocalyptic expense of blood and treasure.’ But Roberts provides no critique of this naïve and ridiculous view by Halifax that Britain could ever win the war - it ultimately took the combined effort of the USSR, the US, Britain, the Commonwealth (et al) to finally win the war against Germany.
Throughout Roberts rightly critiques Churchill and notes that Halifax was one of the few willing to stand up to Churchill's excesses and bullying. But at times Roberts reaches conclusions - eg ‘Had Churchill had his way, friendly Turkey might have fallen and Italy come in earlier’ - which he does not support with any evidence. Unlike many authors and historians, who too often ignore the complexity of the current situation as they seek to clearly outline their point of view, Roberts highlights concurrent issues, such as Japanese pressure on the concession at Tientsin in April 1939, which were influencing the decisions of the politicians, providing readers with a richer insight into the complexities of contemporary decision making.
Throughout the book, Roberts unnecessarily takes aim at fellow historians. For example he notes that recently released documents have the celebrated historian Arthur Bryant, who in the 1930s described himself as "one of the few Englishmen who may still be thought…sympathetic to the German point of view" noting Hitler as "the great man he is". Like many authors who have thoroughly researched their topic, Roberts includes too much material that a stronger editor would have removed. We do not need to know that Lady Halifax thought that Maisky’s wife looked like a man dressed as a woman; this is simply not relevant. And the opinion of Balfour’s niece on Halifax’s appointment as Foreign Secretary is even less relevant. Roberts has too many quotes from people of whom we know nothing as he fails to introduce them or explain why the reader should think their opinions matter. Roberts repeats multiple times that Halifax considered Beaverbrook ‘The Toad’ of Toad Hall, but this doesn’t really add to our understanding of Halifax or his motivations. Too often this extraneous material distracts and disrupts rather than adds to the text.
Sloppily there are numerous errors in the bibliography with author’s names and titles spelt incorrectly as well as spelling errors in the text. Stronger editing should have fixed these.
While its faults detract from this book, it remains an informative biography of one of the key players in Britain’s descent into war in the 1930s and early 1940s.
In setting out a path to redemption, Roberts takes readers through Halifax’s conversion from passionate proponent, with Chamberlain, for appeasement, to a staunch supporter of resisting German aggression. He believes ‘there ought to be some recognition for Halifax, who stayed on and took the hard decisions, tackling from the inside the ghastly business of pre-war decision -making.’ ‘In November 1937, he shook hands with some of history’s most evil tyrants and failed to find them anything by quite charming.’ But Halifax was the first statesman of seniority and prestige in the government to conclude that until Nazism was destroyed there would be no peace in Europe.’ Roberts also credits Halifax’s contribution to Churchill’s coronation as Prime Minister: ‘The finger of the Holy Fox was on Churchill’s arrival at the Premiership at that precise moment in 1940.
In finding redemption for Halifax, Roberts fails to explore or critique some of Halifax’s views. Roberts notes that ‘although during the Phony War Halifax felt no objection to hearing what proposals Hitler had to offer, he was resolute in refusing them, believing that Britain could win the war without apocalyptic expense of blood and treasure.’ But Roberts provides no critique of this naïve and ridiculous view by Halifax that Britain could ever win the war - it ultimately took the combined effort of the USSR, the US, Britain, the Commonwealth (et al) to finally win the war against Germany.
Throughout Roberts rightly critiques Churchill and notes that Halifax was one of the few willing to stand up to Churchill's excesses and bullying. But at times Roberts reaches conclusions - eg ‘Had Churchill had his way, friendly Turkey might have fallen and Italy come in earlier’ - which he does not support with any evidence. Unlike many authors and historians, who too often ignore the complexity of the current situation as they seek to clearly outline their point of view, Roberts highlights concurrent issues, such as Japanese pressure on the concession at Tientsin in April 1939, which were influencing the decisions of the politicians, providing readers with a richer insight into the complexities of contemporary decision making.
Throughout the book, Roberts unnecessarily takes aim at fellow historians. For example he notes that recently released documents have the celebrated historian Arthur Bryant, who in the 1930s described himself as "one of the few Englishmen who may still be thought…sympathetic to the German point of view" noting Hitler as "the great man he is". Like many authors who have thoroughly researched their topic, Roberts includes too much material that a stronger editor would have removed. We do not need to know that Lady Halifax thought that Maisky’s wife looked like a man dressed as a woman; this is simply not relevant. And the opinion of Balfour’s niece on Halifax’s appointment as Foreign Secretary is even less relevant. Roberts has too many quotes from people of whom we know nothing as he fails to introduce them or explain why the reader should think their opinions matter. Roberts repeats multiple times that Halifax considered Beaverbrook ‘The Toad’ of Toad Hall, but this doesn’t really add to our understanding of Halifax or his motivations. Too often this extraneous material distracts and disrupts rather than adds to the text.
Sloppily there are numerous errors in the bibliography with author’s names and titles spelt incorrectly as well as spelling errors in the text. Stronger editing should have fixed these.
While its faults detract from this book, it remains an informative biography of one of the key players in Britain’s descent into war in the 1930s and early 1940s.
April 18, 2018
History has been unkind to Edward Wood, Lord Halifax the ‘Holy Fox’, also known as Lord Irwin, while serving as Viceroy of India. He has been known mostly as one of the appeasers, who stood in Churchill’s way to mobilise the British to war. In truth, he was the most favoured candidate for Chamberlain’s replacement, for both the government and opposition, and also the King, rather than the demagogic Churchill. However he magnanimously gave that job to Churchill, while taking a rather thankless job at putting the brakes on pugnacious Churchill and stopping his more harebrained schemes to fruition. For this he was ‘punished’ by being sent as ambassador to Washington, even though he was not the best man for the job. For a while, the American public was hostile to him, mostly because of his reputation as an appeaser, and also because of the confusion between Lord Irwin and Halifax. However, through hard work, he managed to handle the ‘special relationship’ between UK and US in their most crucial times.
January 28, 2023
Maybe because I so much enjoyed the biography of Churchill by the same author that I had great hopes of 'Halifax' as well. Sadly, this was not as scintillating as the 'Churchill', but whether the problem was in the reader or the subject is hard to determine. Certainly it was not Andrew Roberts's, for he takes pains with the details, and takes Halifax's side where earlier, in the Churchill, he had been severely critical of Halifax's policies. Possibly it was Churchill himself with his overpowering presence that dwarfed everybody around to insignificance.
June 3, 2020
This gives little sense of Halifax the man, being almost entirely concerned with his political career. It certainly does nothing to dispel his reputation for being uptight and quite boring. It is interesting, however, to hear about British politics on the eve of the Second World War from a non-Churchillian perspective.
March 5, 2021
Andrew Roberts really helps you come to terms with Lord 'Holy Fox' Halifax. Placing some of his actions with the larger context of the times. I look forward to reading his biography on Churchhill next.
April 30, 2021
This book gives a fascinating insight into the world of pre World War II politics. Halifax was a very able politician and nearly Prime Minister. He did realise he wasn't the right man for the job, luckily for us. He was an appeaser and really believed he could negotiate with Hitler.
January 18, 2015
This is a very early Andrew Roberts book, originally published in 1991 but now re-issued by my publishers, Head of Zeus. It was a good choice of subject by Roberts because Halifax's reputation deserved some rehabilitation. Roberts's calls for a rethink are heard strongly, but in a balanced, convincing voice: despite his over-arching theme, he not averse to reciting those episodes that still haunt Halifax supporters.
From the evidence of my own researches (for a forthcoming book "No More Champagne - Churchill and His Money" -out in August 2015, UK; November 2015, USA) I believe he is right to put the decisive meetings that led to Churchill assuming the premiership on the afternoon of Thursday 9 May 1940, not on the morning of Friday 10 May - as Churchill asserted in "The Second World War~". And her is right to question whether, when Chamberlain met jointly with Halifax and Churchill, there ever was the legendary silence that Churchill allegedly kept until Halifax broke the ice. However, Lord Camrose's papers suggest that each of Halifax and Churchill had individual sessions with Chamberlain on the Thursday afternoon and that their joint meeting, with Margesson present, did not take place until the Friday morning, when there may have been a pause before Halifax rather than Churchill decided to give voice to the decision essentially reached (but not definitively) reached on the previous evening. I base this on the papers of Lord Camrose, owner of the Daily telegraph and a close confidant of Chamberlain at the time. He records visiting Chamberlain at 6 pm on the Thursday evening, just after the PM's separate meetings with Halifax and Churchill. As a good journalist, he committed his notes to paper straight after the meeting: Chamberlain told him of the two separate meetings and that Churchill would almost certainly become PM the next day. he also told Camrose the reasons and explained that he had agreed with Churchill that he, Chamberlain, would remain leader of the Conservative party and in the cabinet. Notwithstanding this difference, Roberts's central contention is surely correct: that Halifax had been most people's favourite to become PM, that he himself decided that Churchill was the better qualified candidate and stood aside at the vital moment.
From the evidence of my own researches (for a forthcoming book "No More Champagne - Churchill and His Money" -out in August 2015, UK; November 2015, USA) I believe he is right to put the decisive meetings that led to Churchill assuming the premiership on the afternoon of Thursday 9 May 1940, not on the morning of Friday 10 May - as Churchill asserted in "The Second World War~". And her is right to question whether, when Chamberlain met jointly with Halifax and Churchill, there ever was the legendary silence that Churchill allegedly kept until Halifax broke the ice. However, Lord Camrose's papers suggest that each of Halifax and Churchill had individual sessions with Chamberlain on the Thursday afternoon and that their joint meeting, with Margesson present, did not take place until the Friday morning, when there may have been a pause before Halifax rather than Churchill decided to give voice to the decision essentially reached (but not definitively) reached on the previous evening. I base this on the papers of Lord Camrose, owner of the Daily telegraph and a close confidant of Chamberlain at the time. He records visiting Chamberlain at 6 pm on the Thursday evening, just after the PM's separate meetings with Halifax and Churchill. As a good journalist, he committed his notes to paper straight after the meeting: Chamberlain told him of the two separate meetings and that Churchill would almost certainly become PM the next day. he also told Camrose the reasons and explained that he had agreed with Churchill that he, Chamberlain, would remain leader of the Conservative party and in the cabinet. Notwithstanding this difference, Roberts's central contention is surely correct: that Halifax had been most people's favourite to become PM, that he himself decided that Churchill was the better qualified candidate and stood aside at the vital moment.
August 16, 2016
Andrew Roberts set out to rehabilitate the reputation of Edward Wood, the Earl of Halifax, a Tory politician prominently associated with the appeasement movement. Roberts' thesis is that after Munich, Halifax became convinced of the dangers and moral peril of Nazism and vigorously opposed it. But even a sympathetic biography cannot dodge the facts: Halifax was dangerously wrong about Hitler, and in the crisis of 1940, a scared Halifax wanted peace with Germany at almost any cost. And although Roberts tries hard to humanize Halifax, his weaknesses are all too apparent. Halifax was a disastrous example of the dilettante aristocrats who formerly held Cabinet positions. Despite spending his entire working life in government, he knew nothing of economics or military matters. Instead he relied on his innate sense of personal superiority and aristocratic connections as a substitute for knowledge and expertise. The portrait that emerges is unintentionally damning: Halifax comes across as vain, excessively concerned with his own reputation and blatantly anti-Semitic, a trait common to his class and so unexceptionable to him that he didn't bother to conceal his prejudice. But for the accident of his aristocratic birth, he would never have risen to high office, for he was never better than a mediocrity. I read The Holy Fox thinking it might improve my view of Halifax. instead, it reinforced my low opinion of him.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews