The Phoney Victory: The World War II Delusion

Product Information

If you get most of your history from Hollywood ( The King’s Speech comes in for a roasting), then you should read the book.

The Phoney Victory | Army Rumour Service The Phoney Victory | Army Rumour Service

This time he was exposed yet again for his phony undercover "journalism" for trying to set up the Wash Post to take the bait on yet another of his phony "stings. Zaolzie could not have been subjected to Polish language as Polish was the indigenous language of the vast majority of its native population: out of 218,000 of Zaolzie’s inhabitants, 200,000 spoke Polish; besides, Mr Hitchens is blissfully unaware that in 1938, Poland regained territories taken by force by Czechoslovakia in 1920 (this is very clearly stated by Prof. 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? It is instead that the Allies' involvement in WW2 was far more morally complicated than is commonly believed. In the years since the declaration of peace in 1945 many myths have sprung up around the conflict in the victorious nations.In this book, Peter Hitchens deconstructs the many fables which have become associated with the narrative of the `Good War'. From September 1939 to May 1940, apart from a few brief skirmishes, both sides were content to remain behind their defences. The author states that the campaign was more to do with appeasing Stalin and that Britain should be seen to be doing something.

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

the clotted, sickly assembly of sentiments which make up the supposed 'special relationship' between the countries. 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. 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. This territory was coveted by stronger neighbours – including Poland and Hungary – and unable to defend itself. He is also correct that public debate about international security would be vastly improved if politicians and pundits stopped appealing to the "lessons" of Hitler and appeasement to justify military action.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. There are some surprises like German Infantry Division being allowed passage through Finland to attack Russia as part of Barbarossa, and held secret for some time afterwards Britain and France had aircraft standing by from 1938 in Iraq ready to bomb Russian oilfields should Russia get aggressive towards either, German intelligence made this known to Russia, and gives just one reason why Stalin had no trust in anyone. When war broke out in September 1939, the German pocket battleship Graf Spee, commanded by Hans Langsdorff, was patrolling in the Atlantic. Hitchens also seeks to disprove the idea of “standalone” Britain and the “special relationship” with the United States.