Hitchens devotes much of his indictment to the war at sea, arguing that the Navy had been starved of resources between the wars and was ill-equipped to fight the all-important Battle of the Atlantic against the Nazi U-boat fleet. He regales the reader with touching stories from his days at boarding school, when he and his friends built plastic models of warships. 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. 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. He argues that while the Allies were, indeed, fighting a radical evil, they sometimes used immoral methods, such as the Allies' carpet bombing of German civilians. He believes that Britain's entry into World War II led to its rapid decline after the war. This was because, among other things, it could not finance the war and was not prepared. As a result, it had to surrender much of its wealth and power to avoid bankruptcy. [1] However, Hitchens does not make a universal anti-war case because he believes that this position often leaves countries unprotected and defenceless in times of war. Instead, he argues that military power and the threat of war can be necessary deterrents against war. [2] Reception [ edit ] 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."

Phoney Victory World Illusion by Peter Hitchens - AbeBooks Phoney Victory World Illusion by Peter Hitchens - AbeBooks

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. By 1945, the United Kingdom had many of the characteristics of a defeated nation, due to the significant human and material resources that were committed to the fight against the Axis. World War Two is framed within the narrative of the “Good War” against a terrible enemy. However, in Hitchens’ opinion, the declaration of war prompted the Nazi regime to engage in the policy of extermination in the countries that it conquered after 1939.

Britain knew from 1934 of the Nazi persecution of German Jews, indeed Britain took young Jewish children from Germany to the UK in ‘Kinder transports’ They were rail transports that left the parents on the platforms to be collected up and sent to the camps. I don’t know what Hitchens wanted to do further than this, but I can’t imagine the Germans allowing us to take away their adults? Perhaps it was a visa problem however Hitchens does not elaborate. 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. What made the question difficult was not really the comparison. It wasn’t hard to conclude that foreign policy was, then as now, about national interest as seen by the government of the day and not about morality. It was clear from the documents Martin set me to read that public opinion in Britain in 1938 was vehemently opposed to war, making it impossible for the government to declare one. By September 1939 it was equally clear that British public opinion had swung round decisively in favour of a war with Germany, making it hard, to say the least, for the government not to. 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.

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

So I can respond to this book in four ways. All of which I am sure Mr. Hitchens would appreciate. This also may be of help to others, because at least you will know my biases. As a fan of Peter Hitchens, an an armchair historian, as an American, and as a Christian. Was Hitler ever going to invade Great Britain? Perhaps not. Did the RAF save England? Maybe less that we might want to believe. Historians, and I am not one, will debate this contrarian take.British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin meet at Yalta in February 1945 – Image link Hitchens has no sympathy for Nazi Germany, thinking that eventually war would have been necessary. He admires the courage of the warriors. Peter Hitchens is a journalist and commentator. He has a weekly column in the Mail on Sunday and is the author of several books, including The Abolition of Britain; The Cameron Delusion; The Rage Against God and The War We Never Fought.

The Phoney Victory by Peter Hitchens eBook | Perlego [PDF] The Phoney Victory by Peter Hitchens eBook | Perlego

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. 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. Peter Hitchens has been very brave to write this book. I have personally experienced the type arguments and reactions questioning the myths of WWII has amongst my country man. I consider myself a patriot, but like Peter Hitchens, I do not think that means 'my country right or wrong'. There are many things I disagree with Peter Hitchens but with this book he has risen even further in my already high estimation. The man is a national treasure.

Hitchens’ Basic Idea

These are now abandoned in favour of the metric system" - laments Mr Hitchens - "which was used by our enemies" (ibidem) - I'm not sure if he is aware that the first proposal of a global decimal measurement system came from Britain: James Watt proposed it in 1783 because he had difficulties in communicating with German scientists. 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). Things did not have to turn out even this well for Britain. The United States might have let the Empire fall in much more Roman manner. Winston Churchill became Britain's prime minister on 10 May 1940. As he was later to write: 'I felt...that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial'.