Posted on 06/20/2008 8:12:50 AM PDT by kellynla
So asks Newsweek's cover, which features a full-length photo of the prime minister his people voted the greatest Briton of them all.
Quite a tribute, when one realizes Churchill's career coincides with the collapse of the British empire and the fall of his nation from world pre-eminence to third-rate power.
That the Newsweek cover was sparked by my book "Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War" seems apparent, as one of the three essays, by Christopher Hitchens, was a scathing review. Though in places complimentary, Hitchens charmingly concludes: This book "stinks."
Understandable. No Brit can easily concede my central thesis: The Brits kicked away their empire. Through colossal blunders, Britain twice declared war on a Germany that had not attacked her and did not want war with her, fought for 10 bloody years and lost it all.
Unable to face the truth, Hitchens seeks solace in old myths.
We had to stop Prussian militarism in 1914, says Hitchens. "The Kaiser's policy shows that Germany was looking for a chance for war all over the globe."
Nonsense. If the Kaiser were looking for a war he would have found it. But in 1914, he had been in power for 25 years, was deep into middle age but had never fought a war nor seen a battle.
From Waterloo to World War I, Prussia fought three wars, all in one seven-year period, 1864 to 1871. Out of these wars, she acquired two duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, and two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine. By 1914, Germany had not fought a war in two generations.
Does that sound like a nation out to conquer the world?
As for the Kaiser's bellicose support for the Boers, his igniting the Agadir crisis in 1905, his building of a great fleet, his seeking of colonies in Africa, he was only aping the British, whose approbation and friendship he desperately sought all his life and was ever denied.
In every crisis the Kaiser blundered into, including his foolish "blank cheque" to Austria after Serb assassins murdered the heir to the Austrian throne, the Kaiser backed down or was trying to back away when war erupted.
Even Churchill, who before 1914 was charging the Kaiser with seeking "the dominion of the world," conceded, "History should ... acquit William II of having plotted and planned the World War."
What of World War II? Surely, it was necessary to declare war to stop Adolf Hitler from conquering the world and conducting the Holocaust.
Yet consider. Before Britain declared war on him, Hitler never demanded return of any lands lost at Versailles to the West. Northern Schleswig had gone to Denmark in 1919, Eupen and Malmedy had gone to Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine to France.
Why did Hitler not demand these lands back? Because he sought an alliance, or at least friendship, with Great Britain and knew any move on France would mean war with Britain -- a war he never wanted.
If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet? Why did he not demand the French fleet when France surrendered? Germany had to give up its High Seas Fleet in 1918.
Why did he build his own Maginot Line, the Western Wall, in the Rhineland, if he meant all along to invade France?
If he wanted war with the West, why did he offer peace after Poland and offer to end the war, again, after Dunkirk?
That Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite is undeniable. "Mein Kampf" is saturated in anti-Semitism. The Nuremberg Laws confirm it. But for the six years before Britain declared war, there was no Holocaust, and for two years after the war began, there was no Holocaust.
Not until midwinter 1942 was the Wannsee Conference held, where the Final Solution was on the table.
That conference was not convened until Hitler had been halted in Russia, was at war with America and sensed doom was inevitable. Then the trains began to roll.
And why did Hitler invade Russia? This writer quotes Hitler 10 times as saying that only by knocking out Russia could he convince Britain it could not win and must end the war.
Hitchens mocks this view, invoking the Hitler-madman theory.
"Could we have a better definition of derangement and megalomania than the case of a dictator who overrules his own generals and invades Russia in wintertime ... ?"
Christopher, Hitler invaded Russia on June 22.
The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust.
Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland. She did not save Poland. She did lose the empire. And Josef Stalin, whose victims outnumbered those of Hitler 1,000 to one as of September 1939, and who joined Hitler in the rape of Poland, wound up with all of Poland, and all the Christian nations from the Urals to the Elbe.
The British Empire fought, bled and died, and made Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. No wonder Winston Churchill was so melancholy in old age. No wonder Christopher rails against the book. As T.S. Eliot observed, "Mankind cannot bear much reality."
Since the invasion of Poland was basically a “Joint Venture” with both Germany and the Soviet Union participating after agreeing on which would control what territory beforehand, why did the British and French let the Reds slide while declaring War on Germany?
I meant to write “stubborn Poles,” as Pat calls them, not the “stubborn Jews.”
You can only speculate yourself whether what I said would have happened, the same as I have done. You came at it from the perspective of Lee “betraying his state”. I see that as specious but I know that most southerners look at it that way. I would tend to look at it this way: he had more (misguided) regard for his state than for his country.
My point is this: if he was as great a general as nearly everybody seems to agree that he was, wouldn’t his casting his lot with the Union rather than his state have given the North even a greater advantage than it already had, thereby shortening the war? And had he remained true to the union instead of his state, most certainly Montgomery Meigs would have found another place to bury the war dead than on Lee’s property, no matter the length of the war.
Since none of that happened, things played out the way they did and we now have Arlington National Cemetery to appreciate. I’ve been there many times. If you haven’t, I hope you enjoy it should you ever have the opportunity.
Within a month the Brits were in France. That’s how they lived up to their pact to support Poland? LoL!
That’s an ignorant statement Those Democrats (like FDR) came to the defense of the USSR, recognized it, armed it, refused to fight it, suppported it, worked for its success.
Sorry.
I guess you haven’t read the book. PJB notes that Chamberlain ignored Kristalnacht, Mein Kampf, etc when he said ‘peace in our times’. He notes that Munich gave time to arm and prepare to deal w/ Hitler. Rather, the British and Poles followed a fantasy foreign policy that led to a disasterous war, not least for the Jews and Poles
Read the book; it’s intersting.
Yes, — but Pat doesn’t deny either.
It’s commonly accepted that the Final Solution was decided at Wannsee in 1942.
Okay, Pat is to Hitler what Jane Fonda was to Ho, then.
Read the book It clearly underscores the violence and other affronts to the Jews However, that’s different from Genocide
If genocide were determined b/4 Wannsee (1942), why wasn’t it instituted in Germany starting in 1933?
Read the book; he goes over history back to the 19th c.
He’s considereed an anti-semite b/c some Jews don’t like him.
You overlooked Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare against our ships. But Pat probably didn’t mind that they were killing Americans on ships and sink our cargo. After all, the Kaiser had to defend himself. And President Wilson, Pat would reason, was a Democrat, and in Pat’s mind possibly a Jew.
WOW! You are a mind-reader? What a talent. You are so smart.
Churchill was a gentleman? Tell it to the Irish.
And the Polish pilots originally were to be mechanics (read Zamoyski’s book), but the Brits didn’t have their own pilots, and certainly not experienced pilots
Pat’s book in part is to bring to life the real Churchill.
Dude: He says that Hitler is responsible for the Holocaust. He does not defend Hitler.
It’s that sort of willful ignorance that is concerning on the Right.
That's like saying we captured Osama, and then the guy turns out to be his goat herder.
Oh, did he put that in a foot note?
He dedicates the book to 4 uncles who were in the fight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.