The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Churchill’s War: An Addendum
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Some readers have trouble with long articles. When my recent review of the second volume of David Irving’s Churchill’s War hit 2,500 words, I broke it off. Among the interesting information left unreported are Churchill’s cover up of the Katyn massacre by the Soviets of thousands of Polish officers, a coverup continued as late as 1988 by the British foreign office. General Sikorski, head of the Polish government in exile, would not go along with the cover up. This made him a problem. He died in a plane crash 17 seconds after take-off in what appears to be foul play.

Assassination was a British and American policy. Charles de Gaulle was an intense problem for the British and Americans. Although only a junior general, he was determined to locate French authority in himself. He made it difficult for the British and Americans to secure the cooperation of Vichy France against Germany. President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Eisenhower, a poor field commander but ruthless in military politics, hated de Gaulle and wanted de Gaulle assassinated, but British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, who was in de Gaulle’s pocket, saved him.

Instead Eden boosted de Gaulle by arranging the assassination of the Vichy French Admiral Darlan, who paved the way for British/American occupation of French Africa and was cooperative with the British/American aims.

Initially the British and the Germans were ahead of the Americans in developing the atomic bomb. The Germans’ heavy water plant was in Norway. Despite an earlier British failed attack on the facility, the Germans failed to attend to its protection, and a second attempt succeeded. The British lacked the ability to produce sufficient heavy water and turned their results over to the Americans as their contribution to a joint project, only to find themselves frozen out. Having got himself into a war that he lacked the resources to fight, Churchill’s dependency on Washington cost Britain her world influence and her empire.

Churchill was seldom hesitant to sacrifice British interest and war-making capability to bolstering Stalin. Churchill understood that without the Red Army even in its defeats taking its toll of the Wehrmacht, the British and Americans would be hard pressed to win the war. No Normandy Invasion could have succeeded if it had to face the army that Hitler threw at the Soviet Union.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 28 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “The Enemy Below” is a good movie, with good performances.

    It’s based on a novel of the same name by Commander Denys Rayner, RNVR (I’ve read it). Rayner was in the thick of the fight himself–he commanded a destroyer in the Battle of the Atlantic. (Rayner ends his novel with the British and German skippers getting into a fight in the lifeboat!)

    In the movie, the American tin can was portrayed by U.S.S. WHITEHURST (DE-634).

    • Replies: @Jocose
  2. ” . . . and Eisenhower, a poor field commander but ruthless in military politics . . .”

    Well, yes and no. Ike rose to five-star rank without ever having commanded troops in battle. He’d missed out on combat service in World War 1, and when World War 2 began, he was a planner in the War Department. Marshall made him Supreme Commander.

    Senior British military opinion was critical of Ike. Montgomery (as is well known!) didn’t think much of him–“Nice chap, no general!”–nor did Field Marshal Brooke, the CIGS. However, both men also regarded Ike as a great conciliator, a great manager of the war effort.

    • Replies: @Franz
    , @The Alarmist
  3. “…paved the way for British/American occupation of French Africa”

    The British and Americans invaded neutral French Africa and lost over 1000 killed. The necessity of this is questionable and the motives unclear. American Generals objected to the idea but Roosevelt had agreed with Churchill to invade months before Pearl Harbor.

    • Replies: @Ahem
  4. Rich says:

    It’s probably true that if the Germans hadn’t been fighting a two-front war, the Brits and the Americans would have had a difficult time winning the Western Front. But would the Soviets have won in the East if the Germans didn’t have to also fight in the West? The USSR was close to defeat before Stalingrad and it wouldn’t be surprising that if Hitler had a few more troops to throw at the Reds, he might have defeated them, or at least fought them to a standstill. If the US hadn’t been preoccupied in the Pacific with those pesky Nips, WW2 would’ve been over before Stalingrad.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
    , @Kouros
  5. Jocose says:
    @Orville H. Larson

    A really good WW2 movie made in the ’50’s- I’ve seen it several times , the first time as an 11 year old in a DC theater .

  6. Franz says:
    @Orville H. Larson

    Montgomery (as is well known!) didn’t think much of him–“Nice chap, no general!”–nor did Field Marshal Brooke, the CIGS. However, both men also regarded Ike as a great conciliator, a great manager of the war effort.

    George S Patton was more forthcoming. While aware that Ike was a politician (Ike know how to get squabbling staffs to agree), Patton also considered Ike the man chosen to facilitate allies. As such he constantly referred to Ike as “that ally”.

    When Patton called someone an ally toward the end of the war, he meant “traitor.” Odd fact: My old barber told me that, years ago. I suspected Johnny cut hair well, but was getting on in years and though he was a message runner for Patton, he was just embellishing stuff.

    I was wrong. In the book The American Tradition, the anthropologist John Greenway also recounts Patton’s use of the word ally as his code for traitor. Sorry I doubted ya Johnny, and RIP.

  7. Vaterland says:
    @Rich

    Without lend-lease the Red Army would have lost. Stalin and Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev knew and confirmed it. Bolshevism would have been driven behind the Urals. Either of the 3: the USA, Soviet Union or British Empire siding with the 3rd Reich would have decided WW 2 differently. Imperial Japan is overrated and never stood a chance against the USA, naval warfare is built warfare more than anything and “those nips” had no chance to rival Americas industrial output. Although it wasn’t an Italy of course and a distant relative of mine was part of those paratroopers who had to bust Il Duce out of captivity. A real Clint Eastwood type, not just an actor.

    A different question is of course: If George C. Marshall or Patton could see the USA today would they have continued their war effort? Because as Irving proclaimed: If the British and Americans who stormed Normandy, could see the USA and Britain today and what awaits both, they would not have gone single yard up that beach. And we know what Patton wrote in his diaries, which may one of the reasons why he was assassinated. Half a century before desegregation, gay marriage and hardcore pornography, or even “bug chasing”, transsexuals on kids TV and drag queen story hour.

    It remains unfortunate that Patton and Rommel never could fight on the same side. The best men sacrificed to bring about a world order which will rot and destroy everything valuable about Europe and old America.

  8. Rich says:
    @Vaterland

    Good points, and I agree the men of the West, whose victory led to the commies wreaking havoc over Eastern Europe for 50 years, would’ve all stood with Lindbergh and avoided WW2 if the pro-war propaganda hadn’t been so strong and the stupid Japs hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor. My Uncles, who all fought for America in the War, were already disgusted with the direction of the country by the late 60s, early 70s.

    I’m not sure the alternate universe where the Nazis win everything turns out great, either, a little too autocratic for me. I prefer the one where weak Monarchs and unruly legislatures rule with a laissez faire attitude.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
    , @Curmudgeon
  9. Franz says:
    @Vaterland

    Without lend-lease the Red Army would have lost. Stalin and Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev knew and confirmed it.

    Very true.

    Werner Keller laid all this out in a very old book. East Minus West = Zero. Though it was a seriously Cold War title, Keller told the tale in amazing detail, with entire factories being built in Pennsylvania and California, then cut up and shipped to Russia like giant do-it-yourself kits.

    We saw nothing like this till the 90s, when (for just one instance) an old Kaiser steel mill in Fontana, California was cut up, shipped to China and rebuilt. The Chinese had a tonnage target to hit.

    Lend-Lease happened twice: Just before the middle of the 20th century in a shooting war, and just before the end of the century for the class war. Both times successful for the plutarchs.

    • Agree: Vaterland
  10. @Orville H. Larson

    MacArthur said Eisenhower was the best clerk he ever had.

    Nixon was heard commenting in the infamous tapes that Ike enjoyed being the hero and let others do his dirty work.

    Ike reportedly drank fifteen cups of coffee a day, smoked four packs of cigarettes a day, worked under great tension, and had a hell of a temper that made White House staffers dread seeing him headed their way.

  11. Jake says:

    Each paragraph above is a must-read. Churchill is accounted great by almost all Americans who conceive of themselves as ‘conservative.’ And Churchill was a monster.

    That sums WASP culture.

  12. Jake says:
    @Vaterland

    If Patton could have seen what the USA today would be not merely by today by, say the Neocon total take over of American foreign policy during the Reagan years, he would called for the South to secede again, with him, a VMI grad, as the new Robert E. Lee, who could lead the call for Western states to join the South.

  13. Kouros says:
    @Rich

    By the time of Normandy, the Soviets were on the Bagration offensive and got into Poland while US/UK barely advanced in tens of kms in France.

    The size of the Eastern front dwarfs the western front by an order of magnitude.

    • Replies: @Rich
  14. Eckbach says:
    @Vaterland

    In the end Patton wished he could have.

  15. Vaterland says:
    @Rich

    The forces which made sure that the European conflict escalated into a true World War 1 to bring about the end of monarchies, which actually remained impervious to them, are identical to those that made sure WW 2 would escalate. The same forces which established the Federal Reserve and a debt and interest money based economy which has to grow and expand and invade, or face collapse. Thus going back to Alexander Hamilton and Admiral Perry’s black ship which forced open Japan.

    As has often been stated: Japan had little choice but engage in Pearl Harbor, because the US oil embargo would have suffocated their nation and entire war effort and it was already an undeclared war, same with the 3rd Reich. The American administration also had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor (likely similar to 9/11) and made preparations to ensure the attack did as little damage as possible. Surprisingly this even made it into main stream historiography and publications.

    James Allsup and that anonymous guy from TRS did a quality job describing US infiltration by the usual suspects here https://therightstuff.biz/2019/12/28/ftn-focus-sellout-nation/ They also did one which described the media warfare by American Jewish power with Henry Ford, Lindbergh, father Coughlin(?) who had the most influential Christian anti-war broadcast with 20 million regular listeners back then and others, but I can’t find it right now.

    These are agendas, systems and plans which are centuries in the making and all of us are mere players in their game. The last resistance ended in 1945 and since then they have conquered the USA and rule the West by proxy unchallenged.

    • Replies: @Rich
  16. Ahem says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    “… to invade months before????? Pearl Harbor?”

    What?

    “Lost over a thousand killed…”

    You appear to have forgotten about the many thousands of allied troops killed in the 1800 mile advance by the Eighth Army from El Alamein to Enfidaville and Tunis. (Yes, Tunis).

  17. @Vaterland

    Without lend-lease the Red Army would have lost. Stalin and Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev knew and confirmed it. Bolshevism would have been driven behind the Urals. Either of the 3: the USA, Soviet Union or British Empire siding with the 3rd Reich would have decided WW 2 differently. Imperial Japan is overrated and never stood a chance against the USA, naval warfare is built warfare more than anything and “those nips” had no chance to rival Americas industrial output. Although it wasn’t an Italy of course and a distant relative of mine was part of those paratroopers who had to bust Il Duce out of captivity. A real Clint Eastwood type, not just an actor.

    In the beginning the USSR wasn’t even prepared for war. The conflict with Finland (1939-1940) exposed Soviet military incompetence and emboldened the German high command.

    Khrushchev’s gratitude is well placed as is his critique of Stalin whom he blamed for the terrible toll in human lives.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  18. @Vaterland

    Because as Irving proclaimed: If the British and Americans who stormed Normandy, could see the USA and Britain today and what awaits both, they would not have gone single yard up that beach.

    ‘This isn’t the Britain we fought for,’ say the ‘unknown warriors’ of WWII
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229643/This-isnt-Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html

  19. Wally says:

    – Roberts curiously omits a most important part of WWII, in spite of Allied propaganda and staging, there were no ‘Nazi gas chambers’, no 6M murdered Jews.

    – Not to be missed, you’ll see the staged ‘human skin lampshade, shrunken heads, tattooed skin’ placed on tables by the Allies and the likes of Hollywood’s Billy Wilder:
    Buchenwald—A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil, By DenierBud
    https://codoh.com/library/document/1529/?lang=en
    more here:
    Nazi Shrunken Heads / A 24-minute free video about lies to justify war: http://codoh.com/library/document/1528/
    and:
    Buchenwald: Legend and Reality: http://codoh.com/library/document/180/?lang=en
    and:
    The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies: http://codoh.com/library/document/865/?lang=en

  20. @Rich

    I’m not sure the alternate universe where the Nazis win everything turns out great, either, a little too autocratic for me.

    The idea that “the Nazis” wanted to control Europe, then the world, is Zionist projection. Had Poland accepted the generous peace offer to settle the Danzig question, there would have been no WWII. Poland’s borders would have been guaranteed for 25 years. Perfidious Albion and the French, both controlled by the “terrible power of the purse”, puffed up the idiots running Poland to create a no win situation for Germany.

    Years ago, I read an article by that quoted Hitler as saying that it cost him the same to manufacture an artillery shell as build a house for a worker, then question why would he want to build an artillery shell, for which no one would thank him, whereas building a house would have thousands thanking him. Germany’s peace offers throughout the 1930s, including permanent disarmament, were all rejected by Britain and France.

    • Replies: @Rich
  21. @Amerimutt Golems

    In the beginning the USSR wasn’t even prepared for war. The conflict with Finland (1939-1940) exposed Soviet military incompetence and emboldened the German high command.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  22. @Curmudgeon

    Sorry, wrong button.
    Germany wasn’t prepared for any large scale war, and was short of supplies when it invaded Poland.
    By the time of Operation Barbarosa, the Soviets had massed the largest invading force in history to invade Europe. While the German high command may have been emboldened Operation Barbarosa was akin to a suicide attack. It succeeded only because the Soviets were in attacking formation, putting them at a disadvantage.

  23. Rich says:
    @Kouros

    Guess you forgot abut N Africa, Battle of the Atlantic, US and British airpower disabling the Germans ability to concentrate on fighting Soviets, eh? I can understand a Russian wanting to believe his country did the most work, but anyone with any honesty at all, has to admit that without a Western Front, the war probably would have turned out very differently.

  24. Rich says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Of course I’m aware that much of the anti-German propaganda from before, during and after the war was nonsense. That being said, had the Germans won, do you doubt that totalitarianism would’ve been more the norm throughout the world? They were much better than the Reds, but the Nazis weren’t exactly libertarians and neither were the Fascists. Hitler made a lot of strategic mistakes and in my reading of the history of the war, it was ultimately he who caused the German defeat. If the German military had been able to take him out, as they tried to on several occasions, I believe Germany may have been able to sue for peace and not have suffered the horrors of the allied invasion.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  25. Rich says:
    @Vaterland

    The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was one of the biggest blunders in history. By bringing the US into the war, with an attack that failed to cripple the US Navy, they ensured their demise. Had they followed the wishes of the Germans, they would have joined the fight against the Soviets and, perhaps, defeated the communists. Plenty of oil within the borders of the old Soviet Union.

    • Replies: @the shadow
  26. @Rich

    There is a lot written on both sides. Some claim that Hitler wanted a “drive” to collect winter clothing after the invasion, but the Generals convinced him Moscoow would fall before winter. Others point to a brief period of about a week, where he was incapacitated unable to be on top of events, and in that brief time, Generals countermanded his orders. Still others suggest that the regular army, not the Waffen SS volunteers, regularly ignored orders or deliberately slow walked them.
    Last but not least was Canaris and his followers, who was intentionally providing faulty intelligence.
    This may be of some interest to you.
    https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/worminapple/wa00.html

  27. @Rich

    As James Stellman in Hitler’s Great Gamble reviews Germany’s options, there is no doubt that the Japanese joining the Germans and following the northern strategy advocated by the army rather than the souther strategy of attacking Pearl Harbor advocated by the navy would have been the superior option for both countries even but almost especially if the Japanese had struck the Soviets at the same time as Pearl Harbor that was just at the start of the Soviet Moscow counteroffensive.

    A key advantage to the northern strategy was the Japanese could easily have secured the Soviet portion of the Sakhalin Islands that had sufficienet oil production to supply most of Japan’s need.

    If they also wanted to strike south, they could have hit the Dutch East Indies and the British possession.

    It really was madness to strike at Pearl Harbor and piss off the American people to the point that nothing could hold then back from seeking revenge. It is inceivable that the Japanese leadershiop did not foresee that result. Moreover, had the Japenese not attacked the US and had instead gone into Russia and against European imperialist interests in the Far East, Roosevelt would have had enormous difficulties getting the American people to jon the war to pull British chestnuts out of the fire no matter how hard he and Churchill tried to make it happen.

    Just severing the Trans-Siberian railroad would have created enormous difficulties for getting Lend Lease to Russia when just ABOUT 44% OF IT WENT BY THAT ROUTE.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS