THE practice of writing history by studying the lives of "great men" has experienced a revival, and in this case author Andrew Roberts has gone for the "double", picking two contemporaries who lived their public lives in opposition to each other.

And what greater creative tension could there be than that between Churchill and Hitler, two utterly contrasting politicians and human beings who between 1940 and 1945 were both national icons during the world's bloodiest conflict?

This approach is not entirely new. Alan Bullock examined Hitler and Stalin in tandem, and Roberts himself has previously written on Napoleon and Wellington.

Roberts is not perhaps the most objective of writers, a trait which makes for a lively style (he describes vegetarianism, which Hitler practised, as a "perversion"). It seems pretty clear that he loathes Hitler about as much as Churchill did, while admiring the British Prime Minister in roughly equal measure.

So readers need not expect too much balance in this work, which reads at times like an extended essay, although Roberts keeps a strong grip on his material, so the pages fairly fly by.

He contends that, despite their differences, Churchill and Hitler shared many leadership characteristics - both were masters of mass communication, and exercised "will" to triumph over adversity.

And he stakes a claim for the continued relevance of both men to the 21st century, citing Churchill as an inspirational leader, who remains a talismanic figure for the West.

He describes Hitler as a charismatic leader, whose creation of a mystical aura to sustain his followers is characteristic of those who have often proved enemies of the West - such as Osama bin Laden, whose "leadership style is essentially Hitlerian in its vernacular and antecedents".

Roberts' point is that, in order to combat such hostile leaders, those in the West must understand their appeal - and then draw on Churchill's example to find the strength to defeat them.

Updated: 08:47 Wednesday, March 17, 2004