The Phoney Victory: The World War II Delusion

Product Information

Mr Hitchens claims that this extended operation was mostly a waste of time and money and just a propaganda exercise where French and British brave men and women, of which over a hundred parachuted to their brutal ends in France and Germany and were never heard of again, and that we pulled ‘romance’ out of the operation by romanticizing glamorous women and even making films about them. I would argue that it kept the Germans on their toes in France and used up no end of German troops and Gestapo agents, and was a good precursor for gaining intelligence in the run-up to D Day. 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. 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). 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.

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

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin meet at Yalta in February 1945 – Image link 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. Peter Hitchens believes that in Britain, myths about World War II infest policy making and cause bad decisions. World War II is the “good war,” appeasement is bad, and Churchillian rhetoric beyond reproach. Britain stood “shoulder-to-shoulder” with the United States of America in a “special relationship.” Equally novel is Mr Hitchens’s reminder that British refugees from bombed London met with active hostility and violence in other parts of Britain, notably in Essex (p.126). For a British author, it takes courage to write such things and in fairness, Mr Hitchens, rather courageously, is not afraid of any controversy; also, he is refreshingly unequivocal in calling the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact “the most cynical and devastating stroke of diplomacy in modern times” (p.83); he even admits that “Britain was actively obstructing the largest single escape route open to European Jews who wished to flee Nazi persecution” (p.35). Why am I not persuaded? This fine book (and you should buy and read it for the good debunking it does) reminds me of an early draft of my dissertation. I made a case for a particular reading of Plato . . .covering all my bases. The entire thing failed when my advisor asked in so many words: “Maybe. You have answered the objections, but why believe this to start?”

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. If my dad, who was an eighteen year old British Army conscript in 1945, were still alive, I'd have bought this book for him or lent it to him. Peter Hitchens’s Eurosceptic take on the Second World War is riddled with errors and bizarre theories 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. Forgotten the title or the author of a book? Our BookSleuth is specially designed for you. Visit BookSleuth

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

Giovanni, Charles (14 January 2019). " "The Phoney Victory - Reviewed by Charles Giovanni, Vanzan Coutinho, New York" ". 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. 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 Hitchens refers to the attitudes contained in the evolved narrative of war as a theology. As he says, “The theology of the ‘Good War’ demands a great deal of evasion, suppression and forgetfulness.” I think he is right to do so. There is a metaphysical component of this narrative which is obvious once stated. It pervades discussion in debates about NATO, the European Union, national boundaries and the motivations of national leaders.

phony

Hitchens questions whether the country was prepared to fight a war against Germany in 1939. He also states that there is no conclusive evidence that Germany was planning to invade the United Kingdom in 1940. Furthermore, Hitchens proceeds to demystify a number of commonly held assumptions regarding the British participation in World War Two. The author argues that the United Kingdom was not forced into war by Nazi Germany. At the same time, Hitchens rightly states that Poland was not a “bastion of democracy,” as it was governed by an authoritarian and anti-Semitic regime. Hitchens has two central threads in The Phoney Victory. The first is that the narrative of the Second World War, particularly with regard to appeasement of evil but also extending to the ‘moralising’ of the conduct of the conflict itself, is largely mythical. The use of this narrative to justify involvement in subsequent conflicts is reprehensible and no more than manipulative propaganda on the part of government.

Peter Hitchensâ?Ts Eurosceptic take on the Second World War

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. From September 1939 to May 1940, apart from a few brief skirmishes, both sides were content to remain behind their defences. This contrast with the blitzkrieg ('lightning war') tactics of the Polish campaign resulted in the war being labelled as the 'sitzkrieg' and the 'Bore War'. 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.As an American this was a very interesting read. Peter has a quote that I like, "If you do not have an empire, you are living in somebody else's." I am very ready to admit that the American Empire is the large and dominant one right now, even if we do not view it as such. Much of Hitchens' ire towards the British government during the war is their kowtowing to American demands and the breakup of the British Empire due to American interference and demands. I think this has much to say about the current state of Anglo-American relations and what the future could hold for our two countries. However, I believe that the largest critique I have is "hindsight is 20/20." It may have been bad for the British to behave in certain ways during the war, especially towards the USA, but I am less confident than Hitchens is in the British government's knowledge of their choices and their affects at the time. Still worth a read as an American even though it is not aimed at us as much as the UK. 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 examines many myths about the second world war starting with a quote from a speech from the Prince of Wales in 2016 He writes: “In 1939, it was not the martyred hero nation, champion of freedom, justice and democracy, of propaganda myth.” Richard Evans is provost of Gresham College and former regius professor of history at Cambridge. His books include “The Pursuit of Power: Europe, 1815-1914” (Penguin)