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

The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion Reviews

• 
  BlackOxford

  The Good War Psychosis
  
  Appeasement is the magic word, the killer app, the compelling knell of imminent doom in military policy debate. Use it and armed conflict becomes far more likely. Everyone knows that it was appeasement that started the war of 1939; that appeasement is something the world cannot tolerate faced with a Saddam, or an Khomeini, or a Kim Jong Un; that democratic electorates respond negatively to politicians who are accused of appeasement. The appeasement card is trumps when it comes to national policy.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  Hitchens’s second thread is that the lack of both diplomatic and military skill by several generations of British governmental leadership has been disastrous for the country. At almost every juncture, exactly the wrong decision has been taken. The result has been the loss of many lives and much treasure with no gain whatsoever. To call this outcome ‘victory’ is, for Hitchens, obscene.
  
  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.
  
  The Good War is that which has divine approval. Despite the secularisation of society, such approval is still implicitly required for the exertion of armed power. Once such approval is claimed - by George Bush, Tony Blair, or even Vladimir Putin - the mythology of the 1939-45 War is set in motion. Young men and women are sent away to improve the prospects for the world. That such improvement never happens, seems to elude the grasp of the true believers in charge.
• 
  Tariq Mahmood

  This book is very relevant in the backdrop of the Brexit decision by the British people on 2016. The seeds of the great dissent felt bu the British people started right after VE day when the ‘victors’ were subjected to years of austerity and hardship. Must have been extremely frustrating for the victorious nation when they saw the loser Germans slowly build back a successful and prosperous nation rising like a Phoenix from the ashes. It was expected by the germans to pay for the war damage but why were the victorious British made to pay by the real victors USA?
  
  I think this alternate story of the British standing alone against the Germans is a continuation of the war time propaganda started by the British war time establishment which has never been challenged. And i think now it is far too late to address this historical anomaly, because after Brexit the British establishment will have to prepare its people for austerity all ever again as once again the mighty British are all alone fighting god knows who.
• 
  Steve Birchmore

  This is an excellent but troubling read.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  Peter Hitchens is just over 10 years older than me and from a very different background. Peter Hitchens was privately educated, and went to Oxford. I was born in a council flat, grew up on council estates and left school at 16 with no worthwhile qualifications. My dad worked on the buses for London Transport. But like, Peter Hitchens, I grew up building WWII Airfix models, reading Commando Comics, and watching films like The Cruel Sea, The Dam Busters and Reach For The Sky. But unlike Peter Hitchens, possibly because of our Working-class background, my parents were no fans of Churchill and didn't hesitate to say so.
  
  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.
  
  I know the most difficult bit for my dad would be acknowledging and comin to terms with what RAF Bomber Command did. I know this because I can recall him becoming emotional and then withdrawing from the conversation when I suggested the bombing of Dresden was a war crime. He got up from the table and with what seemed more like sadness than anger said "well they bloody started it". But as Peter Hitchens points out, this is not actually correct.
  
  I think he would also have found the final chapter depressing - as I did.
  
  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.
  
  Peter Hitchens expresses his concerns that myths of WWII are used as justifications for wars and military actions. In this he echoes Pat Buchanan's book on Churchill. I've read Pat Buchanan's book, and much of it was a disturbing revelation to me. Peter Hitchens mentions Buchanan's book, and although Hitchens states he rejects many of the conclusions Buchanan drew Hitchens writes he was very much influenced by the book.
  
  NB: I apologise for the numerous edits I've been trying to write this using a smart phone.
• 
  Finny

  ''Does war against an appalling exceptional evil excuse lesser, more commonplace evils committed by your own side?''
  
  ''Two wrongs don't make a right, and one horribly wrong thing may be worse than another horribly wrong thing. And yet they may still both be horribly wrong, examined by themselves as actions.''
  
  The core thesis of Peter Hitchens' The Phoney Victory is that World War 2 was not a truly moral war, nor was it a clean war, nor was the Allied victory truly a victory for all Allied powers.
  Instead, the countries involved siezed upon and exploited the war as a way to achieve a pragmatic rearrangement of power in their favours, resulting, ultimately, in our current world order.
  America callously used it maneuver into the world-ruling position it has today, and everyone, even British allies, used the war to dismantle Britain's global supremacy once and for all.
  
  Deconstructing the firmly held mythology around WW2—the idea of angelic Allied powers fighting feral Nazi ghouls—Hitchens reveals the war for what it really was: men with no real stake or ideology being pitted against men with no real stake or ideology; men on both sides being sent to their deaths for the sake of the political and economic maneuverings of the world's fanatical aristocracies.
  And innocents caught in the middle massacred in droves.
  
  While firmly acknowledging the undeniabe evil of the Nazi regime, Hitchens chooses to primarily explore the lesser known evils of the allied side. Bringing to light conveniently forgotten historical tidbits such as how knowledge of the Holocaust was covered up by the Allies for the sake of political pragmatism—with even England and America prepared to sue for peace with the Nazi regime early on, allowing it to continue its activities on the European mainland; this seemingly would have been the course of history had Nazi Germany not made so many inexplicably self-destructive diplomatic decisions.
  
  In fact, beyond the covering up of the Holocaust, many evils of the war were made possible, or directly instigated, by Allied powers—the German invasion of Poland, for example, was significantly instigated by a British blunder.
  And in many cases lesser known, but extremely significant, evils were directly perpetrated by Allied powers.
  
  We're told, those of us born in Western Europe and America—the dominion of the victors—that the Allied powers were ultimately purely heroic, and any cruelty perpetrated was in the name of heroism.
  But what's heroic about bombing raids on german civilian targets? Especially raids carried out long after it was known the tactical benefit of said raids had evaporated—if there had ever been a tactical benefit in the first place.
  Bombing raids where civilian deaths were intended. Bombing raids on german cities that were not tactical, but retaliatory and designed to kill civilians.
  Bombing raids where civilians deaths were not incidental collateral, but the goal.
  Bombing raids where the targets were explicitly women and children, who it's impossible to argue were the instigators or perpetuators of the Nazi regime.
  
  The bombing of Dresden was not an outlier event. In fact, the attack on Dresden was just one incident in a sustained campaign of attacks on German civilian targets.
  A campaign that led directly to the Blitz and other Nazi bombings of British civilian targets.
  Hitler had, until Britain began explicitly targeting civilian population centres, complied with the agreement to only launch air raids on military, economic, and industrial targets.
  Yes, the Nazis were the first to carry out area bombardment that touched civilian areas, but those attacks were intended primarily to cripple military bases and factories, and so collateral was initially limited to civilian centres adjacent to industrial zones. The pattern of purely civilian focused 'indiscriminate' bombings, however, was very much started by Britain—with British parliamentarians' contempt for the working class manifesting itself through direct targeting of working class and low income civilian neighbourhoods; neighbourhoods that were more densely populated, less fortified, and where the residents had less resources to rebuild after the attacks.
  Regardless, whether or not you consider Hitler's decision for wider civilian collateral to be morally equivalent to Churchill's decision to sanction direct attacks on civilian population centres, it's undeniable that attacking any civilian targets directly is an evil act, even during wartime.
  And further than that, we should never have outstripped the scale of their attacks to the ludicrous degree that we did. High estimates of British casualties of German air raids put the number at around 45,000. Compare that to the low estimates of German civilians killed by British air raids, which tend to put the number at around 500,000.
  
  We acknowledge the evils of tactically beneficial attacks on civilian centres in current Middle Eastern conflicts. The majority of people agree that killing one terrorist is not worth it if a dozen innocent civilians are killed in the crossfire.
  So why do our societies, schoolbooks, historians, and politicians laud murder during WW2 as heroism, when it had less tactical benefit than your average Syrian drone strike?
  
  And let's not forget the cultural losses.
  Attacks on museums, art galleries, universities, and libraries.
  Priceless one of a kind works of German, Oriental, and classical scupture. Priceless paintings both modern and classical. Last remaining copies of ancient books. Irreplaceable feats of European architecture. All destroyed, deliberately, as part of the Allied campaign of 'total obliteration.'
  Destruction of cultural heritage is now considered by all international bodies to be a war crime. And though it wasn't at the time, we can acknowledge retroactively that the destruction of cultural heritage—designed explicitly to cripple the post-war education the next generation of German youth—was a needlessly vindictive act.
  
  And then there's the forced expulsion of German descended populations from nations around Europe after the war ended.
  The 'orderly and humane' Potsdam Agreement—signed by Britain, America, and Russia—effectively sanctioned an ethnic cleansing of all German populations outside of Germany, with the lowest estimates putting the number of displaced German and German descended civilians—primarily women and children—at 12 million.
  Conservative estimates for deaths put the death toll at around 500,000—more realistic numbers put it at a million; other estimates go even higher—a majority of that number dying of exposure or starvation while interned in repurposed Nazi concentration camps or crowded into cargo carriages of trains, but a great many of them shot in firing squads.
  These victims were not Nazis, and they were not civilians who lived under and/or supported the Nazi regime in germany.
  In fact, a great many of them weren't just pre-war émigrés, but civilians born and raised in the countries that were later ethnically cleansed from.
  They were forced to dig the mass graves they themselves were buried in.
  These post-war ethnic cleansings were not carried out by incensed civillians taking revenge on avatars of their oppressors, but cold, calculating, legitimate centralised national governments.
  
  To reiterate: this post-war retaliation was sanctioned, post-war, by Britain and America. The allegedly virtuous heroes of World War 2.
  
  This was not something that happened during wartime, but a peactime ethnic revenge, sanctioned by our governments, and perpetrated on innocents for crimes committed by men who shared their heritage.
  An inexcusable evil that you've likely never heard of, because it can be brushed under the rug by pointing out that the documents officially said 'orderly and humane,' so it must have been, despite very demonstrably not having been.
  
  It is trite and disingenuous to draw parallels between the results of the Potsdam Agreement and the barbarity of the Nazi regime—despite the surface similarities—but it is important to acknowledge the results of the Potsdam Agreement and acknowledge that, was this being perpetrated on another country and sanctioned by other countries, Britain and America would undeniably condemn these expulsions as criminal.
  
  I know I've focused primarily on the book's final three chapters, but this is because those chapters are the clearest case studies of the book's overall thesis.
  They're also the book's most viscerally emotive chapters. I think anyone would be hard pressed to read them without alternating between despair and outrage every few sentences.
  
  None of this—either what I've written in my review or what Hitchen has written in his book—is intended to let the Nazi regime off the hook.
  The Holocaust was a unique act of human evil, standing as the cruelest ethnic cleansing in recorded history, and one of the world's most terrifying examples of systematic mass murder.
  The book and my review serve only to illustrate that World War 2 was not the clean and righteous war that it is often presented as. It was dirty, cruel, and vindictive, on all sides.
  There were heroic men involved, but no nation involved was itself a hero.
  
  Peter Hitchens' The Phoney Victory is a deeply necessary book.
  A powerful, well argued, highly moral work of anti-propaganda, and easily Peter Hitchen's magnum opus.
  
  Essential reading for anyone interested in European history and/or the way in which wartime propaganda becomes accepted historical 'fact' over time.
• 
  General Kutuzov

  "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."
  
  This outstanding and morally courageous book is a must read for non-interventionists. The thesis is not that intervention in WW2 was unnecessary. It is instead that the Allies' involvement in WW2 was far more morally complicated than is commonly believed. It also takes an axe to the silly, shallow sentimentalism of the war of good verses evil. No doubt- the National Socialists were more evil than the Allies- that is indisputable- but that does not absolve the Allies of some of their appalling and excessive crimes against innocent women and children, many of whom were German. The book offers a complicated picture of Churchill. He is not the blundering buffoon that some have portrayed him to be, nor is he the gritty, determined savior of the West. Far from it. Hitchens' defense of Neville Chamberlain was particularly interesting. Here Hitchens really channels the contrarian ethic of his elder, late brother Christopher. This book is important because too often WW2 is used to justify reckless, unnecessary intervention abroad. "He who controls the past," as Orwell wrote, "controls the future."
  
  True- Hitchens' writing does have some defects. There is weary nostalgia for the good old days. Like his brother Christopher, Peter does sometimes love going into excessive detail about an Evelyn Waugh novel. Though I am a dedicated reader, this has much less purchase on me as an American.
  
  There are many depressing takeaways from this book- but one that other reviewers probably have not mentioned is the disparity between journalistic writing in the UK and that in the US. I cannot imagine a TV talking head in the US writing such a well-researched and judicious work. The journalists of America are far dimmer and less educated. One thinks of the beady-eyed frat boy Joe Scarborough, whose sole contribution to the public disclosure is an occasional "What would Churchill have done?" (The man has probably never read anything more serious than the lowbrow popular biographies of his frequent guest, the self-loathing Southern dimwit Jon Meacham) If more US journalists were like Peter Hitchens, that is, intellectual, erudite, and not committed to predictable partisan sympathies, we would be far better off.
• 
  David Fisher

  I'd heard this book was somewhat controversial as it attempts to dispel some of the heroic myths the British have bestowed on WW2.
  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.
  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.
  Peter Hitchens writes well and is easy to read. If you are not a student of history and want to understand the real history of WW2 as opposed to the Hollywood version, then I'd recommend this book as a good launching point to widen your knowledge.
• 
  V.E. Lynne

  Excellent book which will not be to everyone's taste because the author, Peter Hitchens, takes a very clear-eyed, non sentimental and mainly myth busting approach to the subject of Britain's role in WWII. He takes aim at several sacred cows: the confused and perhaps wrong-headed pretext for war, the cult that surrounds Winston Churchill, the so-called 'special relationship' between Britain and the USA, the mess of Dunkirk, and the carpet bombing of German cities by the RAF. The book has obviously been well researched and deeply thought through and is full of new information, at least it was new to me. I knew almost nothing about the forced repatriations of ethnic Germans conducted after the end of the war for example and will now find out more, thanks to this book. As I said, some people will really not like 'The Phoney Victory' but I found it to be an enlightening, provoking and, at times, very sad read.
• 
  Borntolose73

  Without doubt one of the finest books I've read about World War II, busts the myths and explains in forensic detail the futility of the conflict on all sides. Easily one of the best books I've read all year, it's some reality check.
• 
  Colin

  Just an audiobook I listened to on long runs. Hitchens is reliable as ever, producing a book with plenty of food for thought and plenty of things that make you want to kick him up the arse.
  He sets out to dispel the myth of world war 2 as a manichean struggle of pure good against pure evil, mainly because as such it is used to justify many other, less worthwhile wars, simply by comparing the enemy to Hitler and opponents of war as appeasers. Obviously, in doing this, he is aware of the risk of seeming to downplay the holocaust or engage in moral equivalence, so he starts off by laying down a few pages of covering fire, followed up with occasional extra bursts whenever he gets to an especially controversial bit. There are valuable reminders that for Britain it was a war of national interest, not (at the time) a pure struggle against genocide. He also reminds us of the reluctance of the Americans to join, the dubious morality of siding with Stalin, and the horrendous cost in civilian life inflicted by allied bombing raids.
  Of course, in his eagerness to contradict absolutely all received wisdom, (Hitler wasn't planning to invade Britain, Churchill was a bastard, the battle of Britain was no big deal etc etc) he occasionally contradicts himself. So, he laments that Britain didn't wait till later before declaring War to give themselves time to rearm, and also that, having declared it, they waited for so long before attacking. Now, you can believe one of these two things, but they seem mutually contradictory.
  Anyway, all good stuff I'm sure. It picks up themes from some of his other books and of course it is well argued, well written and never boring for a single second.
• 
  Kevin McMahon

  I've read plenty by the author's late brother all of which I found to be really interesting and thought provoking so I had high hopes for this.
  
  The author starts with a warning that he is not denigrating the bravery, sense of duty and honour with which the armed services fought during the Second World War but rather he eschews the myth that this was a good war and asks the question why Great Britain declared war on Germany at the time we did when we intended to do nothing in support of Poland in the same way that we did nothing for Czechoslovakia the year prior.
  
  He also covers the errors of Churchill and Lindemann as well as questioning the efficacy of the RAF's bombing campaign where area bombing proved to have little effect on the wartime economy of Germany.
  
  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.
  
  Similarly I had always believed that we had a special relationship with the United States of America but they effectively took all our gold as it was secretly transported to Kentucky.
  
  For anyone who enjoys the history of the Second World War I do suggest you read this - it is an easy read with excellent notes and bibliography
• 
  Scipio Africanus

  A less idealized look at WW2 from the British perspective. Was it really a glorious victory fought in defense of the entire world and for the liberation of jews in concentration camps? Or is this the legend that was contrived afterwards to mask the devastating reality that this war was recklessly started and poorly planned, won only because the Americans entered into it at with the price tag of every liquid asset britain had, and ultimately the reason why the British Empire ceased to exist.
  
  Scathing analysis and somewhat depressing but reliably sourced on every level. A big black pill to say the least.
• 
  Paul Creasy

  Fantastic!
  
  A wonderfully written, as you would expect, masterpiece from Peter Hitchens. So many myths and patriotic bubbles are popped it is hard to count. I will say, as somewhat of a WW2 history buff, this is one of the few books I've read that really challenged my base assumptions. And this is a good thing! You will come away shaken, but better informed. The long sepia-toned, legendary and glorious bender we have all been on has left for one hell of a hangover. This should be required reading for anyone interested in the history of the second world war.
• 
  Marie Belcredi

  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.
  My own brother-in-law was not born until after WW2 had ended but his mother pregnant with him and two other children in tow, fled east Germany and was on a train bound for Dresden. Luckily the train broke down before it got to Dresden and she missed the firestorm.
  Peter Hitchens examines many myths about the second world war starting with a quote from a speech from the Prince of Wales in 2016
  

  "I was born in 1948 -just after the end of World War II in which my parents' generation had fought and died in a battle against intolerance, monstrous extremism and an inhuman attempt to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe"

  
  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.
  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.
  

  "In return for these decrepit vessels, the USA received land in the Bahamas, St Lucia, Trinidad, Antigua and British Guiana on 99 year leases rent free. "

  
  An excellent book showing that in war there are no goodies and baddies (Sorry Tony Abbott you were simplistic and naive). There was never a "Special Relationship" between the Americans and the British. The Americans were only there for what was good for the USA .
  
  
• 
  Pastor Greg

  He's probably best known as the brother of the late atheist Christopher Hitchens. Peter is a professing Christian. Most recently, you might have seen Peter walking in the streets of London with dozens of "Black Lives Matter" activists following him and screaming at him because he dared call the fascist movement for what it is. That is who Peter Hitchens is.
  
  And in this book he angers a mass of mainstream historians, politicians and average Joe's by differing with the accepted narrative regarding the World War II effort, specifically as it is presented across the culture in the United Kingdom. He honors those who fought while refuting the fictional narrative of most facets of the war effort. It's a war that need not have happened, yet by the time it did happen... it had to happen.
  
  If you find that comment hard to understand, you need to do more research and reading on the causes of World War II. And this would be a good place to start.
• 
  Adrian

  Peter Hitchens examines what I have long suspected to be true, but perception was obscured by prevailing narratives.
  As an undergraduate I was always mystified that Britain went to war for Poland only to give it to the Soviets 5 years later. In fact, Britain never actually went to war for Poland, and war could have been avoided.
  Peter Hitchens's book certainly is not one for those who wish to avoid painful truths or to cling to romanticized myths. Hitchens examines painful truths that are well known, but rarely publicised, such as the senseless bombing of German civilians, or the even lesser known ethnic cleansing of Germans in European territories after the War.
  Hitchens book uses painful truths and presents a very different Narrative. No doubt difficult for many to accept, but a truly compelling read.
• 
  Ryan Belworthy

  Really insightful read exposing a lot of truth behind Britains part in ww2.
• 
  George

  War is Hell, and its Glory is all Moonshine
  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.
  Peter Hitchens is one of my favorite media personalities. I'm saddened that we do not know more about him here in the United States as I think that we would greatly benefit from his takes. Something I admire about Peter Hitchens is that he is willing to state his opinion no matter what public blowback will come his way. I disagree with him on some things, but in an age where people's careers can be ended quickly I admire his bravado. As a Hitchens fan I enjoyed this book. I do not think it is his best work, but I could feel his sarcasm and dry wit drip through. I think if one appreciates him as an author than this book is worth picking up solely for its tone. If you just happen to be a fan of his work I recommend this.
  The book becomes more interesting to wrestle with from a historical perspective. Peter Hitchens is not a historian, a fact he readily admits. While it is full of historical tidbits and facts this is not a historical piece of work, but rather a political treatise on the effects of Britain's entrance and conduct during the Second World War. Many of the negative reviews of this book are more focused on attacking Hitchens' historical claims, rather than his philosophical ones. These are all fair critiques and ones that I am sure Hitchens may even accept. But the primary point of this book is not to lay out history, but challenge prevailing culture thought. If you are a hisorian and you wish to read this book for its historical arguments I would point you to some negative reviews and see if they can help clarify your purchase of this book.
  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.
  Lastly, and most importantly for me I read this book as a Christian. This book is sprinkled with religious imagery and themes. Hitchens is quick to equate British thinking about the Second World War with religious awe that would be directed towards God. This is similar in the US, and I believe Hitchens' strongest point is that we should be able to question history as it has been taught or perceived. We should not view the past as untouchable and unquestionably holy especially when it bears significance to our current situation. I believe this book hits at the idolatry that many people can form in their hearts about nationality and nationalism and Hitchens' book serves as a good warning to avoid that temptation. Because, as he well points out it could lead us into other troubles. So if you are a Christian who enjoys history, this is worth a read.
  Overall, I enjoyed my time with this book. I was impressed with his writing and the general thrust in his arguments.
  
• 
  Andrew

  This book, which is essentially broken down into a series of articles, argues that the great delusion of the traditional WWII narrative is that it has - ever since the victory of Allied forces in May 1945 - garnered a near mythical status as a war fought for all the right reasons. Hitchens has chosen with this work to challenge those assertions, which he argues have so thoroughly deceived the British people that they seek foreign military adventures in a modern age due to a misconceived notion of fighting good and moral wars - just as their ancestors did.
  
  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.
  
  These topics are indeed interesting, and the arguments made by Hitchens can indeed provoke much introspection on the ingrained ideas that have grown up since the end of the war. However, for every chapter devoted to the tragedy of the post-war forced extradition of millions of Germans, we are given a chapter on the Battle of Britain and the argument that a majority still believe a German invasion of the British Isles was imminent. From the very statt of this book, Hitchens actively seeks to challenge the assertions and perceived wisdom of the historical footprint left by the War on British consciousness. However, some of the myths he decides to tackle - such as the controversial bombing campaign - do not require the author to challenge perceived wisdom. Such aspects of the war are already widely debated and highly emotive.
  
  Regarding the book itself, it can be highly repetitive with the same information presented in numerous chapters and often repeated several times in the space of a few pages. I wonder whether the author could have done with an editor, to help to streamline the work and organise it better.
  
  This book does challenge notions and narratives that have existed since the war, of that I have no doubt, however I do question exactly who all these people are that he is trying to engage. As I have argued, he is hardly a trailblazer in many of these arguments - there is a wealth of analysis out there and often easily accessible.
  
  However, the main point that struck me having finished this book is that I can maybe now understand - in light of the political turmoil that has ensnared the British nation since the unfortunate Brexit referendum of 2016 - the myths and attitudes that have driven many to abandon our place in Europe, all due to a perceived greatness and national identity that we never had, doesn't match the evidence and one we should really abandon.
  
  This book is not perfect and not all of his arguments stand up to scrutiny, but it does provoke some well-needed introspection on the notion of a national identity and character - dominated by the actions of an earlier generation - which have been given near-mythical status.
• 
  Daniel

  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.
  
  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 have some disagreements with the author's analysis. I think that Churchill should have accepted Adolf Hitler's offer of peace in 1940 if only to buy us more time. While I agree that Britain did not officially enter the war to save the Jews of Europe, I do wonder if the author gave enough consideration to Jewish agitation for a war with Germany prior to September 1939. I mention this point because the likes of Sir Oswald Mosley complained at the time that the Jews were doing this very thing. Nevertheless, I agree with Mr Hitchens that it is a fundamental mistake to think that we fought the war to stop the Holocaust.
  
  Coming to terms with the mythology surrounding World War II is painful, yet I believe it is essential both for our national good and to understand where we are today. I do not wish to disparage those who fought in it (nor does the author), but there is nothing patriotic about refusing to accept our nation's faults - in fact, a real patriot must be prepared to point them out or else he has become a jingoist.
• 
  Joe

  This is the most interesting books I have read and given such a low rating. The basic premise is that it is a myth that England won the war after an heroic lone stand against Hitler. (I often remembered the Thames TV series, World at War, which was about a war in which England defeated Germany with some help from the Soviet Union. . . and oh, yes America was there too.) Hitchens takes the stand that
  England was foolish to confront Germany when it was unprepared for a land war. Further, he claimed that Germany was never serious about invading England. One more point I would like to address in this review was his analysis of England's area bombing of German cities at night.
  
  First as to England and France waiting to confront Germany, I disagree. Time was not at their side. Germany's incredible improvement in military technology staggers the imagination. Jet warplanes, ballistic missiles, super tanks, infrared scopes, helicopters, submarines with advance air systems etc. etc. .. were just a few years away for Germany. The price of delay would have made a bad situation worse. Unless of course Germany, immediately after conquering Poland, invaded the Soviet Union without engaging the West.
  
  Also, as Hitchens points out, no could have predicted the Soviet German entente and trade agreement which made the Nazi's invulnerable to a blockade.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  Though many interesting observations were made, I think bitterness and anger clouded the author's judgement.
• 
  Alan Marr

  As a person who tries to advocate non-violent approaches to conflict of any kind, I have been inclined to grant an exemption to WW2 - the "good war". Hitchens has provided an alternative narrative to the good war story i was brought up with.It seems that WW2 has as much ambiguity, deceit, selfish greed and cruelty as all the other wars.
  The book is not only well written but extremely convincing.
• 
  Justin Hourigan

  A very interesting book. It give an insight into why today's English people voted for Brexit.
  
  "Poland was a pretext for war, not a reason. And it was a pretext for an essentially irrational, idealistic, nostalgic impulse. We were a Great Power, after all. We had to do our duty and stand up to Germany, even if we had no serious weapons with which to do so. We may even have feared (with some justification) that Germany would never provide us with any excuse to go to war with it."
• 
  John Pedrie

  Hitchens is, of course, a great writer. The thesis of this book was a little scattered though. It was strongest towards the end when discussing the bombing campaigns over Germany.
  
  On the main point, that WWII was a major cause of the decline of Britain as a great power, I find little controversy. Perhaps as an American this is less painful and more easily explored than it would be for a Brit.
• 
  Tony Comer

  Interesting read. Confusing at points but an interesting re-examination of conventional narratives surrounding World War II.
• 
  Philip Brown

  Solid.