The good war myth

It has long been a given that World War 2 was a “good war”. The allies were fighting against the beastly Germans and “right” was on their side. A chap called Chad Crowley has put together a thread on Twitter that asks many pertinent questions and gives five books containing somewhat heretical views on that war. Two of the authors were effectively destroyed for their views, AJP Taylor and David Irving ended up in the wilderness and David Irving ended up in prison for questioning the holocaust.

The decline of the west can be measured from 1945 onwards though in our case it was World War 1 that delivered the crippling blow, the second war just continued the decline. Churchill’s desire to maintain the British Empire was one of the biggest casualties of the second war. He was desperate to involve the USA but didn’t realise how deep the American antagonism to our Empire ran. In terms of strategy Churchill was a massive failure, the Empire folded.

Some of the machinations surrounding the run up to WW II are in play again. We are being lied to on an enormous scale and the desperation to make Russia the scapegoat for all our ills is simply pathetic. Our own Prime Minister is banging the drum for a third world war and he is far from alone. As Einstein said, I don’t know what weapons will be used to fight the next world war but the fourth one will be fought with sticks and stones. We can all sleep easier safe in the conviction that none of Starmer’s offspring will be anywhere near the action and this applies to all politicians. The best way to stop wars would be to pass a law mandating their presence on the front line.

I long remember a quote that the Germany Army planned for a maximum of a two year war and armed itself accordingly. Initially their weapons were superior but for a six year slog they didn’t have the ability to out manufacture the allies and especially the USA.

A J P Taylor : The origins of the Second World War

In 1961 Mr Taylor published his book. A man who was very much against fascism, he studied the documentation and came to the conclusion that Hitler did not want a world war but was a man who improvised and jumped at opportunities. He realised that the way to war was enabled by diplomatic blunders and deliberate misjudgements in London and Paris.

Through the appeasements of the 1930s up to the declaration of war in 1939, Hitler was making it up as he went along and never believed we would declare war. Our guarantee to Poland was somewhat of a bluff, we had no means of enforcing it. The German plans were for prolonged talks but no talks were ever started, at least not in the open. There are still documents from WW2 that remain classified, you don’t have to wonder too much to figure out why.

Gerde Schultze-Rhonhof : 1939 – The war that had many fathers

A man born in 1939 and a former Bundeswehr General, Gerde disputes Germany’s sole guilt for WW2. AJP Taylor was not fluent in German and therefore all his documentary evidence is from the allied side. Gerde’s thesis is that Germany was not solely responsible for starting the war. Britain, Poland and even the USA played much more active roles than has been publicly acknowledged.

As is generally known Poland was very difficult during the Danzig crisis. Later in early 1939 the Polish military were active on their border with the fatherland. Gerde alleges they were conducting cross border raids and picking on the Germans. This does not quite tie up with the invasion that was engineered by Germany beginning with a false flag cross border raid. If they had already been attacked, why did they need to fabricate a Polish attack on the frontier.

He further alleges that the guarantee from Britain and France was done to manoeuvre the Germans into a two front war, something they faced a couple of years later. It has to be said that this book was not well received in the anglosphere and I can see why. There may be elements of truth in it but some of the allegations are a bit wide of the mark.

David Irving : Churchill’s war

The much maligned David Irving is one of the most meticulous for checking out the available paperwork. One of his proudest quotes is that there is no paper anywhere instructing the Germans to start exterminating the Jews, In fact I believe he offered a reward for anyone who could produce one. I have a problem with his style when he refers to the German soldiers as brave when he doesn’t do the same for the allies. I think this indicates where his sympathies lie.

Irving portrays Churchill as a calculating opportunist who could revive his fortunes with a war. It was well known that Churchill lived way beyond his means and was very open to financial inducements. This for me is the closest the fat Turk comes to emulate his great hero. Churchill who had once supported detente and praised Mussolini changed to one who supported intervention. Even in 1938 Churchill was urging FDR to resist neutrality and to resist the Germans,

Irving alleges that Churchill’s rise was not due to public demand but the private manoeuvring he indulged in to reach Number 10. Once he had the keys Churchill rejected every peace offer that came from Germany. Remember that Hitler never thought we would declare war on him and expected negotiations to resolve any differences. He also covers Churchill’s alcohol consumption, enough to sink any puffin by repute.

David Lough : No more champagne: Churchill and his money

Lough investigated Churchill’s financial history using purely financial records. His book paints a picture of a man who spent his adult life permanently on the edge of bankruptcy. Although a member of an aristocratic family, Winston never received much money from his family. In 1938 Winston’s debts were £18,000, well over a million these days. His income was generated mainly from writing but write as he may, his debts always exceeded his income.

Many of his articles about German rearmament and the dangers of Nazi Germany were syndicated and spread far and wide, Not really surprising since his most recent benefactor, and one who removed him from the financial mire, was a Jewish South African.

Despite his advisors urging restraint Winston insisted on keeping large quantities of vintage Pol Roger champagne and entertaining to excess. Again, rather like the fat Turk, he took advances on books he had no intention of writing. The end result was a war where he decided unconditional surrender was the only acceptable outcome and FDR was of the same opinion. In fact, many of FDR’s decisions are very difficult to square with his alleged objectives.

It is quite possible that the fat Turk’s hero worship of Winston Churchill was based on his genius for financial survival rather than his heroic leadership during the biggest conflict the world has ever seen.

Patrick Buchanan : Churchill, Hitler and the unnecessary war

Patrick ended up serving four US Presidents as an advisor. Not for him the ignominy faced by messers Taylor and Irving.

Patrick questions the motives and actions of the European leaders and puts the blame fairly and squarely on our own sceptred isle. Had wiser decisions been made, perhaps we would have been spared the bloodbath.

I am less than convinced that any war is a good war especially if it involves us. I have to say I was quite heartened by the Iraq Iran war in the 1980s. For a while it looked like they would wipe each other out. Alas they ran out of steam but its proximity was the major reason I skedaddled from Kuwait in January 1980. Kuwait City to the Iranian border is not very far at all.

Just as the war against Adolf is shrouded in mystery, so is the Pacific War against the Japanese. It is well known that the Americans were pushing Japan with economic pressure. The Japanese behaviour as they expanded their co-prosperity sphere was atrocious so there was some method in the American response. The culmination of this pressure was the attack on Pearl Harbour and this gave FDR the route to war. There are so many anomalies in the handling of this episode and these make it possible to justify almost any interpretation on that day of infamy. I prefer to think there was a deliberate plan to enable the war and of course Churchill was somehow involved to achieve his ambition of involving the USA.

As WW II progressed and descended into insanity after insanity we are left with a complete absence of information on the Fascist/Nazi phenomenon other than what seems to be propaganda. Just what was it that drove the Germans to support Hitler so fiercely, OK it wasn’t all of them but I reckon it was a majority. Similarly with Mussolini, he gave the impression of a preening narcissist but there was also a level of support for him and the same could be said of Franco.
 

© well_chuffed 2025