Has anybody here ever read “The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion” by the Hitchens brother that most of you detest (you know, the one that’s still alive)? As one of the many boys of my generation anything about WW2 was lapped up. We were still connected to the old servicemen back then, many of whom were respected in our communities. Parliament was full of MPs from all sides with either proud military records or some secure place in our wartime political history. We were brought up to think of Dunkirk as some sort of triumph against adversity, of The Few that saved the many over the skies of Southern England in the late-summer of 1940, of how Monty showed Rommel in El Alamein and how plucky Old Blighty fought a lone battle for freedom until the USA entered the war following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Most of all we grew up believing Churchill to be one of the greatest Britons of all time. This book examines much around the circumstances leading up to Britain declaring war on Nazi Germany, presenting interesting evidence that we were spoiling for a conflict that we were ill-prepared for (and for quite some time) simply to maintain our supposed status as a Great Power. It paints a picture of a rather unlovely and antisemitic Poland that wasn’t shy in seizing land for itself when Hitler took Czechoslovakia. The same Poland that Britain & France entered the war to supposedly defend. Hitchens examines much of the communications between the USA and Britain, for me dispelling the myth of the ‘special relationship’ once and for all. There were only two winners of WW2 and they were the two superpowers of the following Cold War: the USA and the USSR. Churchill’s vanity and hopelessly outdated romanticism of how a war should be fought are frighteningly clear. The story of the ‘Prince of Wales’ and the ‘Repulse’ and their sinking by the Japanese off the coast of Malaya is but one example, albeit a biggie. His government’s insistence in fighting a largely unnecessary war in North Africa and of ill-equipping Singapore are other sorry episodes. Not all of this book is news to me. I’ve read other accounts of the war and read criticisms of Churchill before - he was the architect of the massacre at Gallipoli in WW1 too, of course - but the stockpile of evidence in Hitchens’ remarkable book is compelling. In fairness, where Churchill got things right are also acknowledged, particularly when he was a lone dissenter, so there is some balance. There’s much, much more in this book than one could write about here. It’s been out a good few years, but hadn’t got around to reading it until now. If those brutal years of the late-30s and early 40s are your thing - very much mine - then I highly recommend reading this. Footnote: there is much about the years leading up to WW2 that feel eerily familiar as war continues in the Ukraine. The parallels are quite disturbing.
How dare you - don't you know Churchill won the war for us, and we'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for him.... Put that on the politics thread, then stand back and watch the fireworks
I still believe Britain needed a figure head like Churchill during those times; somebody to drive the country along and to turn every disaster into a triumph of sorts. I have no idea whether he got more things wrong than right, or whether his motives for some decisions were down to personal ego or the greater good. But I do think that when it came to a number of the major policies, such as insisting upon Germany's unconditional surrender rather than suing for peace, he was correct. When he was wrong, he sadly & needlessly cost lives.
Unsurprisingly not read it Ubes, but it clearly made a big impression on you, that’s a proper detailed review, nice one. For the record I’ve gone off the dead brother as well, now comes across as a sarcastic bully more than a witty polemicist. Probably equally unsurprising that I’m not Churchill’s greatest fan either - I think he had a pivotal role in shoring up morale and defiance 1940-41 until the USSR and US entered the war and the ultimate outcome became inevitable, even with a very painful route to get there. In those circumstances it’s not surprising that retreats and fairly limited victories were written up as great successes for propaganda purposes, it’s more surprising that the propaganda has become the accepted version. Bit unfair to link Churchill to supposed U.K. strategy prior to his becoming PM, well after the war started. He was an isolated figure, unless I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, before then. If you ever spend any time in the Far East, you will find that there are no illusions about the disgraceful non-defences of Hong Kong and Malaya/Singapore there. These were military disasters of the highest order, strategy and performance pathetic. An interesting fictional take on it is JG Farrell’s The Singapore Grip, an account of the fall of Singapore which has a good bash at the arrogant, idle, old fashioned expat business people who own the city and the exhausted, old, second rate military leaders who are meant to defend it. Was made into a very poor TV series quite recently, avoid that.
My bad, as I didn't mean to imply this. Yes, the book recognises that Churchill was one of the first voices to warn of Germany's threat in the 1930s, but he also apparently played a part in Britain's declining military capabilities in the years between the two World Wars. My understanding of the British Far East WW2 experience has previously been somewhat limited to the 'headlines' of the Burma campaign and fall of Singapore, so have found Hitchens' research and opinions in this area of particular interest. He makes quite a defence of General Percival, commander of the British forces in Singapore, who he claims warned of the Japanese threat through Malaya and had his demands for military strengthening in that region utterly ignored by Churchill. I'm a slow reader because I tend to go off at tangents and do independent research on certain aspects of this book. Percival was an interesting character in that he's (kind of) portrayed by Hitchens as the unsung hero of Singapore who had to endure many years of brutality as a POW of the Japanese, but further reading shows him to have been particularly brutal & sadistic to the Irish during his time fighting the IRA etc. in the 1920s, which Hitchens doesn't mention at all. One thing I really love about history is how seemingly different chapters are inextricably linked. For example, Henry Leach, who was the son of the captain of the Prince of Wales (John Leach), was a midshipman stationed in Singapore and could hear the battle that sank that battleship and killed his father. Henry rose to become First Sea Lord and was instrumental in convincing Thatcher that it was feasible to retake the Falklands in 1982. (Hitchens is also highly critical of Thatcher's military expenditure cuts that exposed the Falklands to the possibility of Argentinian invasion in the first place - nobody particularly cared about them until that happened.) I'm not sure about 'big impression', but certainly a very interesting read. Maybe that's the same thing? P.S. Anybody watching ITV's remake of 'The Ipcress File'? It's very good and the lead actress is very beautiful in her 1960s finery.
I’ve been assuming that my hearing is getting worse for some time now, age and loud music/environments etc. I know that certain voices I can’t make out, especially in crowded noisy places like pubs. Saw that the Royal Institute for the Deaf do a free on line hearing test. https://rnid.org.uk/information-and-support/take-online-hearing-check/ Turns out my hearing is within ‘normal range’ (and they didn’t even ask age, health status etc - only caveat was don’t use the test if you have already been diagnosed with hearing loss). I can only assume that I subconsciously block out some peoples voices.
Tom Kerridge, moonlighting from his job as a football pundit with Sky, is the toughest judge ever on the Great British Menu. Nothing good enough for him….
I've been catching bits of Master Chef Australia on BBC3 of an evening - really jazzed up version of ours. Guest chef this week is Gordon Ramsey, who's ran them ragged
He’s a very good chef, runs a Michelin starred pub called the Hand and Flowers in Marlow, and now a few other places as well, and puts together the Pub in the Park food and music festivals that visit various spots around the country and which I’ve been to a couple of times. From the West Country, hence the Gabbidon accent issues, and was once extremely fat (think Buster Bloodvessel, 30 stone) but has lost a lot of weight in the last few years, largely through stopping drinking. I’d much rather get a table at one of his places than at one of Heston Blumenthal’s. Though I wouldn’t say no to Heston.
Don’t worry. ‘‘Twas only joshing with you. Heston’s the guy who serves pilchards with rum & raisin ice cream in a Wellington boot, innit?
New series of TopBoy now on Netflix……gonna binge watch it from series 1 as forgotten the main plot. Gangs, violence, sheffing and food…….what I need right now. Watch it
