This leads him into one error after an-other. He suggests, for example, that Chamberlain had decided to bring about a world war in 1939. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this contention, and abundant evidence to the contrary; even at the beginning of the war the British prime minister was trying to arrange for the Italian dictator Mussolini to intervene to stop the fighting, and had to be overruled by his cabinet. The problem with arguing, as Hitchens does, that Britain should have waited to declare war until rearmament had created a military that was effective enough to defeat Nazi Germany is that Nazi Germany was rearming even faster than Britain was. The title ‘Phony Victory’ is at times is a ‘tongue in cheek’ expression by Hitchens, though he makes his points strongly, the reader does not have to agree to his arguments. His main point is that the war was badly fought by Great Britain to the effect that it cost us greatly in men, materials, ships aircraft and the closing down of the British Empire, which in some of our colonies was to become quite a bloody affair

Phony - definition of phony by The Free Dictionary Phony - definition of phony by The Free Dictionary

Hitchens has elected with this book to challenge the "myths" of the conflict. These include the moral case for defending the territorial integrity of a nation that was far from democratic (Poland), when a far more democratic nation in Czechoslovakia was allowed to be broken up and dismembered by opportunistic rivals (including Poland!). He examines the idea that the UK population's attitude towards German occupation of the Sudetenland was more aggressive than that of it's government, and dismisses the romantic notion of the Special Relationship in favour of a narrative involving an opportunistic foreign government taking advantage of a beleaguered UK to vastly improve it's own wealth and prestige - and at the same time simultaneously bringing a rival to it's knees. Hitchens also asserts the common belief of Eurosceptics that joining the EU meant Britain’s “absorption into the European Union – the continuation of Germany by other means” without presenting any evidence in support of this bizarre contention (we should remember for instance that Margaret Thatcher, who seems to have become something of an unperson among Tory Europhobes, was largely responsible, among other contributions, for the creation of the single market). Even stranger is his apparent belief that the UK was bankrupted by the war, leading to a collapse in living standards, whereas in fact a mere decade and a half later, largely as a result of sloughing off the huge expense of maintaining a useless overseas empire, Britain was entering the boom years of the Sixties, with rapidly rising living standards. Hitchens has no sympathy for Nazi Germany, thinking that eventually war would have been necessary. He admires the courage of the warriors. The word “we” occurs innumerable times in this book, denoting the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, who apparently hold firm to the false memory of Britain standing alone, fighting a “good war” against Nazi Germany from 1939 to 1945, when the war was in fact morally ambiguous to say the least, and disastrous for British sovereignty in its outcome. Hitchens’s “we” in truth, I suspect, means mainly elderly readers of the newspaper he writes for, the Mail on Sunday, and this book is really only for them.As for the bombing, I agree with Hitchens that though this may have contributed to Germany's defeat but that the resources needed and the cost of civilians casualties made this enterprise dubious. I heard Peter Hitchens talk about this book on the radio and thought it sounded interesting. My parents are Czech and Austrian and it was always something hinted at home about the nefariousness of Churchill, being betrayed at Yalta and, of course, the fire bombing of German civilians in cities - many more than just Dresden. He writes: “In 1939, it was not the martyred hero nation, champion of freedom, justice and democracy, of propaganda myth.” Peter Hitchens is, by his own admission, a “scribbler” and not a historian. He omits to broach the geopolitical implications that could have emerged from not declaring war against Nazi Germany in 1939. Giving Nazi Germany a free hand in continental Europe would have meant a larger demotion of the geopolitical position of the United Kingdom than the one that the country suffered as a result of the outcome of World War Two. You are here: Home / DC Authors / A Review of the Controversial New WWII book: The Phoney Victory A Review of the Controversial New WWII book: The Phoney Victory

The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion - Goodreads The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion - Goodreads

Christopher was not always right, but he was interesting and boldly opined. Brother Peter is more in my tribe (being a theist), but proves that theism does not prevent intellectual cussedness. Peter Hitchens always is worth reading whether arguing against thoughtless drug legalization or in defense of values now forgotten. My dad was the occupying British Army in postwar Europe and told a few stories, at least one which, remembering it brings tears to my eyes. So he was aware to some extent of the suffering of the German civilian population. But I'm not sure he knew just how horrific it was, or the scale of the suffering. Peter Hitchens examines many myths about the second world war starting with a quote from a speech from the Prince of Wales in 2016 A stimulating challenge to the pieties of the official British history of World War II, Hitchens argues that Britain's decision to go to war in 1939 was a miscalculation of historic importance; that the so called 'special relationship' between the USA and Britain during the war (and since!) was far more a coldly calculating move by America to squeeze the British dry before taking over their role as superpower; and that Britain's conduct of the war consisted of, in addition to the humiliating defeat at Dunkirk and loss of Singapore, bombing German civilians in a manner that should be considered a war crime. An otherwise stimulating read is somewhat marred by a conclusion that descends into a rant against modern Britain, but is entertaining nonetheless. Evans, Richard J. (26 September 2018). "Peter Hitchens's Eurosceptic take on the Second World War is riddled with errors and bizarre theories". New Statesman . Retrieved 18 October 2018.Peter Hitchens has long been one who has not shied away from unpopular truths, and this book is iconoclastic even by his standards. While many "bulldog patriots" find it impossible to imagine a patriotic right-wing commentator criticising Britain's role in World War II, Mr Hitchens shatters the myth that only crazy SJWs or professional race-baiters can be critical of Winston Churchill et al. Admittedly, this book is not a work of original scholarship, yet nor is it a work of propaganda. The author summarises the arguments of established historians in this challenging synthesis. I could not believe that Hitchens didn't take the threat of invasion of England seriously. The only explanation of Germany's aerial offensive in the summer of 1940 was to prepare the way for an invasion. Could it have succeeded? No. This has been war gamed and analyzed to death. At best, the Germans would have done a great deal of damage to the destroyer fleet which would have made the British victory a Pyric one.

The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion: Peter Hitchens

Peace, precarious peace, depends now, more than ever, on our casting off these fantasies of chivalry and benevolence, and ceasing to hide the savage truth from ourselves."My dad would have agreed with Peter Hitchens revised view of Churchill. However, as far as I am aware my dad was always very much aware of Churchill's many flaws, failures and mistakes. My dad was far from alone, it's worth remembering that Churchill and the Conservative Party lost the 1945 general election. To briefly summarise the book's thesis, while Mr Hitchens deplores the German National Socialist regime, he rejects the simplistic "goodies vs baddies" narrative, Britain did not join the war to fight tyranny and racism, nor is he convinced that we were at any real threat of invasion from Germany and that our bombing of German cities constituted a war crime. No, he is not saying that the Holocaust did not happen or that the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden was as bad as the former. Still, we cannot overlook the inhumane barbarity that was inflicted on the German population during the war and as a result of the Potsdam Agreement. I had never really thought about it before but Britain fought Germany in Europe and were routed leading to Dunkirk and we never fought the Germans again in Europe until 6 years later. Using Peter Hitchens’s inept metaphor, he might as well claim that Britain has, "like a hyena", “dismembered” Channel Islands by taking them from Nazi Germany.

Peter Hitchensâ?Ts Eurosceptic take on the Second World War

Similarly, he is flying in the face of many years of research by German historians when he claims that the German armed forces in the war were fighting for military objectives that would have been regarded as legitimate by the democratic governments of the Weimar Republic that pre-ceded Hitler’s rise to power: it is very doubtful indeed whether Weimar’s foreign minister, Gustav Stresemann, would have approved the invasion of France, Denmark, Norway or even Czechoslovakia, let alone the Soviet Union. However, I'm pretty sure there's still a sizable portion of the public that have a rather rosy image of those catastrophic years, but I can't help but think this was probably necessary to keep the country functioning during a period of rapid decline. Or maybe I wouldn't have. Maybe he'd have found it too sad and upsetting. I found it sad and upsetting, and I was born in the sixties. The British were also almost bankrupt at the beginning of the WWII. They had defaulted on their WWI debts, had an old insufficient navy and the American would only deal with them on a cash or in kind basis giving away what was left of their Empire. After WWII, the British were no longer a big power as they thought. Churchill the bombastic and verbose Prime Minister managed to hide Britain's desperate straits but after WWII, rationing continued and while Germany rebuilt a new economy, British industry remained in the 19th century. Mr Hitchens is also unaware that in some cases, Czechoslovakian authorities actually insisted that the Polish Army enters Zaolzie (e.g. the date of annexing Bogumin was changed because Czechoslovakia was afraid that it will be taken by Germans), or that Poland was only annexing territories with ethnic Polish majority (that’s why after its annexation of Morawka village, Poland returned it to Czechoslovakia, having ensured that it would not be occupied by Nazi Germany).Hitchens then examines every one of those items in the Prince's speech. This was the myth of the Good War that the British had to believe. That the events of Munich in 1939 involving Chamberlain and Hitler should have such permanent mythical significance in so many countries is remarkable. Those events are symbolic of the need for what has come to be called The Good War; and have been used repeatedly to justify armed conflict by democratic leaders ever since. Forgotten the title or the author of a book? Our BookSleuth is specially designed for you. Visit BookSleuth I don't know if it's because I'm particularly well versed on this period of history, but I found this not in the least controversial.