Peter Hitchens speaks to Ruth Wishart at the Edinburgh International Book Festival
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- A former member of the International Socialists, Peter Hitchens now leans firmly to the right. But his latest book, The Phoney Victory, may rankle with those on both sides of the political spectrum as he argues that Britain went into truncated decline after the Second World War, rather than emerging from it stronger. Controversy abounds at this thought-provoking event: hear Hitchens's views in this conversation with journalist Ruth Wishart filmed live at the 2019 Edinburgh International Book Festival.
That woman was a gem interviewer. Should be far more Scottish Grannies in such roles.
The Dolphin Christ no, she’s a horrible old lefty.
@@MrCameronian
I wasn't talking about her political leanings. I was talking about her intelligence, attitude, mental and emotional maturity, incisive technique in conversation with a great thinker like PH. If you dismiss her simply because she's "a horrible old lefty" that says more about the kind of "lovely young righties" you would prefer to see in that role, and also what a rabid bigot you are to think someone of a different political leaning to you must somehow automatically be inferior. She is a massively respected journalist and historian, (how else do you think she got the gig, you fuckwit). And, interestingly, Hitchens showed her a lot of respect, which just shows how much of a greater man he is than you! You're an ignoramous and a twat.
The Dolphin A respected historian 🤣 If she’s any kind of historian her work must have escaped me, nor is she a deep or profound thinker, she’s an old leftist hack, that’s why she’s chairing the meeting. You don’t know much about the Edinburgh literary bubble do you ... and try to refrain from ruderies, just makes you sound a bit common.
@@MrCameronian
You are indeed a curiously deluded person -- who insists on stating and then restating your political opinions and prejudices at any juncture when (1) the substance of the video interview above was intended to provide insight into Hitchen's mind and book, which I think it did extremely well, (2) Hirchen's book was about political and military history, not about present day political issues, as you have unnecessarily steered it, (3) the interviewer was incredibly erudite and well read, which made her a good choice of anchorperson.
And all I did was to state her intelligence and clearheadedness (read unbiased) in her role. And then out you burst from behind the bushes to lambast me and the interviewer. You obviously have an incredibly high opinion of yourself, such that you are unable to sort the objective from the subjective ... exactly the point I made in my first reply to you. Now good day and fuck off.
The Dolphin I live here, I suspect you do not, Ruth Wishart and her kind have instigated or supported the economic, industrial and societal decline of Scotland, she might look like your granny but she’s poison (and a big fan of Tommy Sheridan before that mask slipped). I will refrain from a parting obscenity but wish you very happy Christmas instead 🎄
When will he narrate an audiobook of great poetry?
How wonderful would that be? His Audible readings of his own books give such great pleasure.
To that old Scot in the audience. I love Britain too, but it doesn't mean I don't want to know everything. I want to see it, the good, warts and all. To love one's country doesn't mean that you ignore the injustices or the wrongs it has done. "Oh stop being negative" is such a redundant thing to say and it is fundamentally against the truth. I love Britain but truth must come first or else we're just being dishonest and what's that worth?
True. It killed me to see an adult say "oh just stop being negative", what an asinine statement. I wonder if the lad had to take LSD and watch children morning shows after this rare check-in with reality.
Make the UK great again.
@@NickAlekseyevich We Happy Few
Yeah I'm glad the interviewer glossed over him. Peter hitchens on britain: "I love every field and hedgerow"
Fw. vewgdsq|
As a german, I found this to be quite an interesting and nuanced talk. Stating some of Peter Hitchens' points in Germany is - ironic it might seem - highly frowned upon and you'll find yourself accused at least of revisionism if not being a right-wing extremist or even neonazi. This debate seems to be as difficult and heated to conduct in Germany as it is in Britain.
Hitler gambled a lot on Britain not fighting against it's own interests. It did.
@@mrh9635 simply tragic when you read "Wagner: memoirs of a confidant". Resisting Germany in an area where Britain had no interests simply to appease warmongers on the opposite side of the House of Commons was the most ludicrous episode in history.
@@witssen9954 Now that's not simply true. All Germany was doing was reversing the effects of the treaty of versailles, which was giving people unacceptable standards of living.
The invasion of Poland, like Hitchens noted, was a result of Poland nullifying a Germany-Poland non-aggression pact because Poland created a pact with the Western powers against Germany, which implicitly violated the agreement. Germany thus declared it null. Poland had begun drafting war plans against Germany (before Germany did), and begged France/UK to start a war with them. Poland then fully mobilized their army, and many higher ups were starting to think they should launch an invasion against Germany now while the agreements with the Western powers were still fresh.
None of Germany's demands are materially odious to the war-making capabilities of Poland. Danzig isn't materially odious. The corridors aren't materially odious. Neither of these reduced Poland's combat power, nor do these lands were ever as big as the lands that Poland have taken from Germany after WW1 in the first place.
@@witssen9954
He doesn't. David Irving stated that Churchill's denial of Hitlers 'peace-offer' was the most stupid blunder to make.
“The wars of democracies are much crueller (not speaking about doughnuts here, damn I love doughnuts!) than the wars of kings.” How true is that?! Peter’s perspective is so needed in this trigger happy age. What a great video.
Has there been a war of Kings where they laid waste to each others kingdoms ?
As we all saw, the plutocracies were all too willing to smash up europe, hell people say if Germany defeated the USSR then the plutocracies would have just nuked europe too until Germany surrendered.
@@AFGuidesHD Not plutocracies, more like progressives(commies) would have destroyed Europe to achieve world domination, which they did and we are still living in the new deal nightmare
it's an absolutely enormous oversimplification of history though, as the deadliness of war in the 20th century was due far more to scientific advancement than it was failures of democracy. The wars started because of the main weaknesses of democratic systems, but technology is what made it brutal, hence why many of the monarchies that also participated in both world wars were every bit as brutal as their democratic counterparts.
Yes...Peter H is getting to the truth. Today I ordered all his books from an original bookshop
Yes I've read the lot
Plus those of his brother
I reckon the only person in that room who's ever actually been in a war-zone is The Scottish Grannie.
My grandfather was from Keith (Cameron), and was an RSM stationed in London during the blitz. He would have wholeheartedly agreed with Mr. Hitchens...
Refreshing take on official narrative. Thank-you, Peter.
41:00 In defence to Lord Palmerstone. The UK had agreed to help Denmark in case of Prussia breaking the London protocol of 1852. However it was Denmark who broke the treaty by trying to incorporate Slesvig directly into their country, so public opinion in the UK was greatly against helping them, and it provided London with a perfectly valid excuse not to.
Peter please stick around.
my god yes ! if he fades away the collective intelligence of the nation will drop through the floor !!
russian sailors still hold a service for our sailors sacrifices to bring them arms every year , but we wont let them represent there thanks to us on the 75th anniversary of the end of the 2nd would war !!!!! shame on us ,and it tells you where we are heading, these spoon fead rich kids , that never done a hard days work in there lives, are takeing us (SAD)☹
I can come up with several, more or less minor, disagreements with Peter Hitchins 'The Phoney Victory' (2018) after reading it, but I differ with him on very few major points, especially as he specifically points out, in this interview at any rate, that the Royal Navy in WWII were the best, most successful and best led British Armed Force. The most important point is that Chamberlain knew Britain could not win a short war militarily, and could not afford a long war. Churchill, half American, did not think bankrupting Britain and making her dependent on on the USA, really mattered, FFS. It is well worth watching this interview.
One point to make is that after WWI, while Britain did default on debts to the USA, France and Belgium and Italy, etc, did exactly the same thing to Britain after WWI.
Never always agreed with him but Hitchens has gone up steeply in my estimation.
51:30 PH opposed Afghan war, Kosovo, Iraq, Libyan and PH criticisms the government enthusiasm for war , for Syrian war
I am glad he refers to the Dresden bombings which were evil as well as other events and what happened to the Russians
36:18 was Stalin the no.2 tyrant .... do Brits overlook Stalin's crimes to rationalize the UK role ? PH elides past the question .....
If your well read and able to ignore BBC/Hollywood etc narrative then Peters right, trouble is most people are not well read in this Country.
'It would be foolish to have a large amount of well-educated unemployed people living in our cities.' Margaret Thatcher.
jaye see And Tony Blair implemented Thatchers Policy,.
No Mr. hitchens is not right. He has a point of view, a perspective, an angle. Faulting others for doing the same is not the same as making a case.
jaye see - re your quote from Margaret Thatcher, it beggars belief that people with such an attitude can get in to positions of power. I presume she said that in private and did not mean for it to become public?
Correction - If you are (you're) well read and not your well read!!!!!!
12:05 Narvik was a destroyer battle. google AI : Around Narvik, German naval losses were high: they lost 10 destroyers (50 percent of their entire destroyer force), one submarine, and several support ships. In exchange, they sank one aircraft carrier, four Allied destroyers and damaged several others.
Amazing how often Polish and British contribution into starting WW2 is overlooked.
Explain just how Poland was responsible for starting the Second World War?
@Eric Hamilton nothing to do with Hitler's policy of Lebensraum and forcibly taking territory in the East, staging an incident involving concentration camp inmates dressed in Polish army uniforms then?
@@simonholyoak8869 you should read the book peter mentioned "March 1939: The British guarantee to Poland" also, even more interesting is "documents on british foreign policy" there you will find hardly anyone defending the actions of Poland apart from the British ambassador to Poland, during the summer of 1939. With its aggressions against Danzig.
Particularly you should read the reports by M. Shepherd, the British consul general in Danzig. For example on his report 3 days after the German invasion ""It will be remembered that Gauleiter Forster made certain suggestions to the League of Nations High Commissioner on the 19th July designed to lead to a détente over the Danzig question. Even before this there had been signs that a détente was desired. It seems in retrospect as if the détente might have been achieved had it not been for the action of the Polish government in sending what amounted to an ultimatum on the night of 4th August"
Did you know Poland threatened to bomb Danzig?
Did you know Poland issued an ultimatum to Danzig?
Did you know Poland blocked food exports from Danzig?
No of course not because the Poland-Danzig issue is totally ignored in Western Historiography for obvious reasons, because when you actually take these issues into account suddenly "mustache man's war of conquest" merely becomes allied propaganda.
@@simonholyoak8869 The British Ultimatium gave the Polish government great confidence leading to a very aggressive foreign policy towards Germany. Only a few years earlier, the two nations had excellent relations.
The "cadet version of the 2nd WW". LMAO.
15:12 USA mostly stripped Uk of its assets...resentment over WW1, over unpaid debts
10:20 for 4 years from June 1940 to June 1944, UK never encountered the main body of the German army
"In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of The Great War. The vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished. Whatever else might be thought about these exploits, they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world." - Winston Churchill, 1935
Germany modernised and adapted its culture. The UK didn't. It's as simple as that.
Probably unfair to blame the failures in asia on churchill. He sent equipment where he thought it was needed and the data being sent to the government about the japanese gave every impression that they werent a threat. The info about japan from japan itself and from london was far more accurate than the info from people observing the actual japanese army in the field in china.
The old china hands described the japanese as third rate. Mainly because of their particularly low opinion of the chinese forces they were beating.
Even the better info described the japanese artillery abilities as worse than any western power. The use of artillery by japan in china was poor in part due to terrain, that difference wasnt relayed back. Also mistaken was that the japanese 2nd rate artillery skill was compared to western artillery in europe, it didnt realise that british asian abilities didnt match those of the forces in europe.
By british asian, i mean british imperial forces in asia, not a distinction of the origin of the men in the army. British born or expat descendants suffered the same issues as indian soldiers as the problems were institutional.
THE MAN SPEAKS THE TRUTH THANKS PETER
Never had Peter down as the trainers wearing type 1:53
That’s quite silly given the context - grow up.
@@123prestolee Ooooeeewww. Calm down, love.
Deep Zepp indeed. I quite enjoyed imagining him to be dressed as a hipster. It rather adds a new vibe to his address.
123prestolee Life is silly - grow up.
Actually Peter is not wearing trainers 23:47 - Ruth is one wearing them.
Legend thinker/talker.
A lot of historians seem to forget that they have the benefit of hindsight. The first victim in any war is the truth. And when you don't know what the outcome will be in your struggle for survival, you will make mistakes, and more importantly you will not care too much how many people die to ensure your own survival. So I find a lot of pomposity in people like Hitchens who think they know better and would have done better if they were there.
33:10 1st comment : man rejects all the revisionism that PH said !
I’ve only made to the :44 mark but who can dispute that we were lied to about “winning” the war? Not to mention the Cold War.
The phrase “managed decline” keeps running through my mind...
40:57 This is actually factually wrong. GB gave Denmark a guarantee in case someone violated the treaty of London which gave Denmark control over Slesvig under the provision that it would not be integrated into the Danish state. However Denmark did just that, and thus violating the treaty and voiding the guarantee.
Hitchens comments about the Russian economy are surprisingly ignorant. Russia is growing by leaps and bounds, she has virtually no debt, huge savings and stores of gold, is the world No.1 wheat exporter, and on a PPP basis is about the 5th economy As for saying it's less than Italy, Italy is in fact a major economic nation, with considerable product. As for the Russian Navy, perhaps Hitchens could go back to Russia, which he seems to think is still in the post USSR tears, and see the massive brand new, state of the art, fighting ships.
Great session, really loved it.
interesting how people scorn the first world war as mindless mass slaughter yet celebrate the second...cause NAZIS
the actual people who fought the nazis had less of an hysterical notion of them than kids born in the 90s due to hollywood movies and other nonsense. the post waar order is now crumbling, the EU could collapse in the next few years with mrs merkel leaving the stage and thanks in no small part to her stupid decision. Churchill was a bastard, no two ways about it. Europe and western civilisation itself was arguably murdered in WW2. The self hate and psychological damage [self inflicted and inflicted by people who despise Europeans for their own ends] done has been fatal. its enormously tragic given the enormous contributions to human advancement made by Germans throughout history to see the demoralised state they are in.
anyway, strap yourselves in! next few decades will be very interesting
Hitchens don't give a f**k. And his late brother didn't either lol. Always enjoy listening to Peter 👍
the unknown war 20 part series narrated by burt lancaster american actor on youtube
Always enjoy Peter Hitchens. 'The Abolition of Britain' was a great book.
Churchil's conduct was utterly incomprehensible. Luckly for all of us, he wasn't 80,000 pounds in debt to Natty Rothschild, imagine if he had been...
I don't think anyone who is Russian, or claiming to be, can criticise Churchill when the Russian war was overseen by a homicidal maniac called Stalin. Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur.
'If you don't know
your history..
You won't know
where you're coming from'...
Buffalo soldier, dredlock rasta
Bob Marley...
"We will force this war on Hitler, whether he wants it or not" - Winston Churchill, 1936
An appalling war monger. Disgraceful man.
Europe to be demographically non-european by the end of the century, but at least we aren't speaking German!
@Stevie0445 Stalin was responsible for the exact same crimes, and we gave him half of Europe when it was all said and done.
We declared war on Germany for our own interests, don't pretend the world leaders at the time gave a shit about European countries being invaded, thats a poor excuse.
This guy knows.
@@AleXoEx0 You wont need cheap labor if you develop ai and robots.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who drew a Hitler moustache on the truth."
Voltaire.
Voltaire died in 1778, that's 111 years before Hitler was born.
I think he's joking.
37:55 EU is the continuation of Germany by other means ... Wilhelmine policy continued ...38:45 RU is a shell, hollowed out ..... PH ridicules the supposed threat posed by WW2.
In 1939 2 regimes invaded Poland.
1 had already murdered 20 million in peactime; the other had killed a few hundred.
The UK fought WITH the 20 million regime.
@AL AL exactly
@AL AL and Caspian sea Navy. And Archangel
Do remember the timeline. Britian fought against the germans in 1939 although the actual fighting with them largely began in 1940. Germany then attacked the soviets in 1941. We didnt exactly pick between them, we were already fighting germany and then found ourselves fighting the same enemy as the soviets.
@@andrewshaw1571 !!! Wow. Your history knowledge is appalling. Read my message again. The words "1939" & "Already" might help.
@@jonesalex565 I didnt contradict the claim of the soviet (particularly under stalin) mass murder/neglect. I am also more than aware of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
You'll have to forgive me if the statement that we fought with the soviets was taken as an implication that we chose to side with one as opposed to finding ourselves fighting the same enemy 2 years later and choosing to join forces. Or were you implying we should have either fought both at the same time or attacked the soviets, who were considered a lesser threat at time and abandoned poland to the germans?
Otherwise, i cant think what the point of your original comment was or what its relevance was.
Peter Hitchens is a great moral force in the world. God bless.
After watching the full talk, I agree with you.
3:46 perpetually trapped in Munich 1938. To PH the question is limited to as to why the Brit army was so poorly prepared for WW2 with its focus on defensive weapons eg Spitfire fighters, RADAR... PH supports Churchill not accepting an exit from the war. 7:08 great power status was already lost and could not be restored by means of war with Germany ....7:30 PhD thesis of Newman ...... could not honor the Polish guarantee -- so UK transferred decision making to Poland...... UK made guarantee to prevent the Poles from coming to an arrangement with Germany . Chamberlain updated navy., defensive weapons such as RADAR, Spitfire
I was reading Christopher Hitchens before he swerved into his final beliefs. Either way, he always forced me to think. I will miss his his opinions, his voice, forever. Hate him or love him, he was a superb rhetorist.
George Friedman, "Europe: Destined for Conflict?"
Chicago Council on Global Affairs 2015.
“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for a century we have fought wars the First, Second, and Cold War - has been the relationship between
Germany and Russia, because united, they are the only force that could threaten us - and to make sure that that doesn’t happen.”
Mr Hitchens getting closer to the truthe. The lacck of edukation in Englande is apaliging. Peoples are woken up. You wont hair this outsidde of the Westmigste elitwe
I think Mr Hitchens became slightly confused, Adam Tooze's 'The Deluge' is the First World War.
Incompetent politicians? Surely not! I mean, just look how thoroughly competent the current lot are! In any Boardroom they will be an asset: which is, presumably, why so many of them end up there!
Peter getting closer and closer to the truth. Still, how can anyone logically argue that Hitler was a “worse tyrant” than Stalin.
@James Dowds kulaks,gulags, rape of East Germany, ethnic cleansing of many groups, expansionist etc
@James Dowds Hitler was a sentimental amateur compared to Stalin. Read up on the biographies of the two. Hitler cannot even begin to compare. Also, the level of state tyranny was incomparable. While Hitler did target many groups based on race and ethnicity to absolutely terrible degree, the "master race" populations were largely left alone (relatively speaking of course). Stalin's USSR was total terror, all the time for everyone and in addition to this he deliberately genocided whole particular nations and peoples just like Hitler did.
Historical bias made us skew our perception, and while both were excerable human beings leading horrible dystopias, Stalin was the worse one. When you read up on Hitler you can't escape the impression that he was somehow playacting this role of the Great Dictator and Superman, like something he picked up from books, a deeply childish personality - a twisted Peter Pan reliving his childhood historical fantasies of total power. Stalin, on the other hand... he was a natural, the sheer matter-of-hand brutality of the way he conducted his daily life of mass murderer is in a stark contrast to Hitler who went to inordinate lengths never to directly face the results of his orders or to sign a single execution order (except in, again, a childish fit of rage regarding British commando units)
@James Dowds I wasn't talking about the absolute scale of the holocausts, but the proportion of people who were impacted, as well as the totality of tyranny.
Also, when asking who was worse, are we talking about the regime or the person?
Imho, Stalin was "worse" than Hitler both as a person and in the impact of his actions on the population under his rule at large. We might talk about "what ifs" but this is mere speculation. Hitler could have well cooled off after WWII, or got removed or.. whatever, just like Stalin mysteriously and suddenly died and got replaced by a much milder and (relatively) more humane Khruschev. Coulda, woulda, shoulda...
And while we're at the subject of awful people in power, no one in the 20th century holds candle to Pol Pot. Both Hitler and Stalin look like paragons of enlightened humanity compared to that deranged monster even though he managed to kill less people in absolute terms than either of them.
@@electricdreams8237 Nobody really cares about Hitler, the man, or Stalin, the man. What can one man do? What is being compared here is the ideology of the Nazis on the one hand and that of the Bolsheviks/Communists on the other. The National Socialist Party had full control over Germany for only 12 years, yet the evil they perpetrated was far worse than anything the USSR did in any 12-year-period. Stalin was in power for FAR longer. Moreover, Stalin did NOT attempt genocide: if he had done, he would have had plenty of time to see it through. Yet the Ukrainian people are still here, as are every other ethnic group that suffered under his rule. He (or rather, his ideology, since there is every reason to suppose that history would have been pretty much the same with a different leader of the USSR, even if Stalin had died young) targeted only certain TYPES of people (middle class, intellectuals, and anyone who outspokenly opposed communism, etc.). The Nazis, on the other hand, planned (and went a long way toward achieving their plans in only a few years) to exterminate whole ethnic groups - Jews, Romani, and eventually the Poles and other Slavs -- whom they regarded as inferior classes of human being. What they would have done if they had managed to grab hold of a part of Africa does not bear thinking about. The Russian communists, like the Chinese communists, were motivated by an evil ideology, but most decent ordinary people recognise that the evil of Nazism was on a unique and higher level. Normally, one does not have to explain such things to people, with the exception of those suffering from that particularly disgusting (and apparently incurable) form of mental illness known as "anti-Semitism."
@@DieFlabbergast A note: Stalin did not target people only on the basis of class. He did plenty of ethnic cleansings of his own. There are many ethnic groups in former USSR who you have never heard of, and why is that? Because Stalin was uniquely successful in wiping them out completely, unlike Hitler who, it might be argued, never got enough time to finish the job.
And as for which ideology is "intrinsically" worse.. I'm not really interested in that, intentions do not equal results - some of the worst crimes in humanity were made in the name of Love or Peace. Who cares if Pol Pot wanted utopia on Earth? And besides we're not talking about that, the ideologies or even regimes. We were talking about particular persons - Hitler and Stalin and which one was "worse". My personal opinion, based on reading histories and biographies is that Stalin was "worse" and that, for example, Himmler was a much "worse" person than Hitler who, in my view, was a bit of a dunderhead and a patsy who really, really wanted to play the role of a super-villain (or super-man in his mind) but never had the stomach, for example, to face the consequences of his actions or even sign an execution order. He left these "distasteful details" to others, unlike Stalin who relished in personally signing off whole families, peoples and nations to oblivion with his treasured colored pencils.
Let me put it in another way - what is worse, a person who professes to be bad and does exactly that, or a person who claims to be good and does even worse?
Great interview, although Mr Hitchens was badly wrong about Russia, which shortly after this interview invaded Ukraine
I really really don’t want to agree with Christopher but sadly on many points I do.
This is Peter?
Peter's magnificent baritone, intellect and breadth of knowledge totally do wonders for me 😎😄
"That means she's on my right"
excellent talk and Q&A and it is a must read book! pity many anti-war/imperialists outlets haven't invited peter on to discuss this important topic
I'm a big fan of Peter Hitchens but I feel this is one of his less convincing forays. As a 69 year old I grew up in the era of heroic war films and what at school we called 'trash mags', depicting our noble military endeavours, but as an adult I've always been aware of the mistakes, the incompetences and compromises, material and moral, that were made. He says that the Prince of Wales has opined that we entered the war to save European Jewry, then sashays seamlessly to saying that we shouldn't think we entered the war to save Anne Frank. Well, I never did think that, nor have I ever heard anyone else say that. I completely understand that he's not doing the standard Britain bashing so popular today but feel there is nothing much new here. The morality issue is fairly well-trodden ground. Our financial relationship to the US however is interesting and not so widely known.
True, to those of similar ages to ourselves, the assertion that Britain fought to save Jews is palpable nonsense. Trouble is, the generations that have followed us are more remote from the historical facts of the day, and are therefore much more susceptible to the rebranding of WWII to suit various political agendas that have sprung up comparatively recently. And to which the organisers thereof will consider a co opting of a false interpretation of the actual aims of the time to be helpful. Clearly, if even the Prince of Wales sees fit to parrot such nonsense then one might be forgiven for thinking that such a bogus reinterpretation has taken root to the point of becoming an accepted fact in minds of many.
He is England’s Pat Buchanan. Not in style but in substance.
Pat Butcher. Lovely woman.
Without doubt a soul of a real Global Saint
Enjoyed this book immensely.
Probably the most tedious interview I've heard in ages
I wonder whether she's a scottish widow.
If you want to read a Churchill biography that isn't hagiography, try Clive Ponting's "Churchill".
To which one should add Ponting's 1940 Myth and Reality. A volume that progressed to the remaindered trade with surprising swiftness, sadly.
Yawwwwwwwn
Prof Antony Sutton,
Facts,
Edinburg yup
Know your place,
And
Keep Spitting in the well.
We were fighting the Germans regularly at sea durring that time. Wheather he thinks it was poinor not, the fight in north Africa against the Germans was huge.
Hopefully making friends with veterans in Texas who had the shittiest job of the lot at Point 'd Hoc. I have been there and paid respect. Always best to make friends and not war.
Groyper check at 40:00
The alleged Russian threat. How did that turn out Peter?
Germany was terrified all through 1940 to June 1941 that Soviet Union would attack them or their interests elsewhere. They would not have invaded Britain even if they had been inclined to, which they weren't since Hitler for some reason liked the British Empire. The lack of a few destroyers wouldn't have stopped it.
Operation Sea Lion was a feint meant to convince Soviets that Germany was going after Britain so the Soviets would think they have more time to prepare their attack and also have an opportunity to invade Germany in major conflict with Britain.
Peter Hitchens may an eloquent speaker - but he is certainty not a great historian!
I'm not sure he was correct when he said Russia is no serious threat to any of it's neighbours. People of Ukraine probably feel like Russia is a serious threat
He says something that Russians have known for decades and Americans joke about to this day. By the end of the war Britain was an also-ran, eclipsed by the Superpowers, and whose only major relative asset, the Empire, was unquestionably destined to disintegrate over the coming years. Her dominance in finance and naval tonnage were both ended and the Americans firmly in the driver's seat, something almost laughable to speak of in 1930. Finally, the great goal of the peace deals in WW1 was mooted completely since the Russians now had an empire extending further than they had in 1914!
But I would argue the problems go back even deeper, to the airheads in charge during the end of WW1. Britain had dragged herself into a war, but then deferred the post-war order to be run by the French, which was obviously a terrible idea from the start. Britain SHOULD have stood on the sidelines and played peacemaker, with millions of fresh manpower and her navy and the potential blockade being the implicit backing. After having spent herself on the continent, deferring post-war leadership allowed the German pot to be stirred. Ultimately any action taken was too little and too late to change the course of things.
So ultimately, after Britain spent her young men fighting WW1, she then spent her navy and her treasury in WW2, deferring post-war leadership BOTH TIMES to other allied powers. National suicide indeed.
To some extent the UK tried to do that thro' a succession of goverments.First there was the E.C.S.C. & EFTA, with UK belonging to the latter. The US supported the E.C.S.C and despite a great resistance from UK, which pro free trade, UK & the other 6 members of EFTA eventually joined up with the 6 Common Market countries which was not about free trade in a common market but one with a customs union limiting free trade to members only.This of course affected the Commonwealth. It also showed that "free market US "was nothing of the kind.
Your right WW1 was almost 100% certainly a mistake for the UK.
It really ended the UK. As Hitchens says the UK in effect defaulted on its WW1 debts in the 1930's.
The UK went from being the world's banker in 1914 to a bankrupt 1918.
Its youth was decimated but most importantly a lot of its intelligentsia had lost faith in the Imperial experiment. And indeed the ending of the whole Age Of European Empires happened because of WW1.
Nazi Germanys actions possibly the worst of all time? Give me a break Peter man
32:23-33:15 "Peter Hitchens and Ruth Wishart Gathered Together with Several Hundred Humans at the Edinburgh International Book Festival and Grooving with a Pict."
Kudos for the obscure floyd reference. I suspect the Hitchens family always ate their meat before their pudding.
Ruth Wishart is very sharp, but sweet as molasses :)
This article says different but again there is a fair history in regards to repayments www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-pays-off-final-instalment-of-us-loan-after-61-years-430118.html
35:54 - 36:55 : "Waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, wa."
36:56 : Interviewer: "And your question?"
Nice one! Great interviewer.
In an age where the minority is looked after, the majority is ignored, the priority, is normally given to the minority, these days, with this virus, the short comings of that are only to apparent, and governments are being forced to deal with that policy in a very realistic way, which is funny, as the pc mind set is such a fragile thing. Therefore, this dealing with reality is painful for them, and it will take a long time for them to address in a contextual way
War, even when in necessary defense, is atrocious. I agree we shouldn't pretend otherwise, but on the same note, if you dwell on the negative too much you paralyze yourself. Trying to moralize survival is ultimately pointless. Was it good? Was it bad? Aspects were one, the other, or both. It was survival. Acknowledge and move on.
Didnt Hitchens brother Christopher take the reverse view of world War Two,I'll stick with the views of the late Christopher I think.
David Irving told the world all of this and more over 40 years ago ......
Hitchens is very good on Trotskyite influence on British political and social life, and utterly deceptive on foreign affairs and his view of WW2. Just one point tears apart the entire foundation of his subsequent arguments. Britain *and* France offered the Poland guarantee. Britain did not need an army to fight in Europe. The French army was, outside the Soviet Union, by far the largest in Europe, amounting to 90 divisions.
Damn!!!
Sound quality on this really SUCKS!!!!!
He's barely audible!!!
He's far better than his over rated brother.
Absolutely wrong. He is outdated and has absolutely no EQ, no wit, no curiosity, no charm, no charisma and no sense of humour.
@@quentinjalapeno1344 So what? He's a man of peace, Christopher was a drunken bloodthirsty warmonger.
@@corrocot1 A man of peace? He supports the death penalty, criminalising addiction and huge government overreach. Christopher was wrong about Iraq and this was one of his major flaws, but he understood resisting authoritarianism, the need for compassion in politics and was entertaining to listen to. What does Peter actually do apart from tediously whine and drone about how Britain isn’t an outdated conservative nanny state while claiming to be a champion for liberty? He’s a paradoxical, classist bore who has nothing but contempt for the underclass and the disadvantaged.
Those who argue the British had no option but to fight the Nazi's from a pragmatic perspective, and not from an altruistic one, will often bring up the fact that the Nazi's made a non aggression pact with the Soviets, and then stabbed them in the back. It doesn't however follow that they would have been bound to betray the British had there been an Anglo/Nazi pact.
Anyone of any perception in power at that time should have been able to see the Nazi attack on the Siviets coming. All one would have needed to do was look into Hitler's mindset . That was easy, he had published a manual for doing so, "Mein Kampf"..
Anyone who read Hitler's book would know that he saw the Slav as inferior, the Soviet Union as a massive threat, and Communism as untenable, unatural, unacceptable and in need of eradication. He also wrote "France is our implacable enemy. Our only friends are England and possibly Italy".
There lies in "Mein Kamof", very clear evidence that Hitler's would have viewed the making of war on a powerful Germanic people such as the British without any necessity to do so, as counter productive and even distasteful.
No Britain need not have fought the Nazi's, the British could easily have been as free as the Swiss and the Swedes to make huge profit from the war.
Instead they chose to lose , lose ,lose. They chose their finest hour.
The British Empire went down in a blaze of glory. It is wrong to try to take that glory away from them.
31:54 😂
💙💚💙💚💙💚💙💚💙💚🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Thank You !
Also, please look up :- Huge !!! Canadian Court Victory.
I'm reading The Deluge now.
7:14
My own view is that Britain's and its military and Naval problems stem somewhat less directly from what happened in World War two than from the events in mid 1950s when the bungled Suez adventure, the prolonged and inceasingly senile Churchill premiership, that preceeded Suez with its nostalgia and lack of social and industrial modernisation and reorganisation to a modern labour market and the desire by Churchill and others to see the bomb and the rather unusable nuclear or rather mega bomb Hydrogen mega bomb as, rather simplistically ending the direct possiblity of major inter state war, all served to create a situation from about 1961 that Britain was rapidly disarming as a serious military power in terms of the attitude, training and equipment suitable for any form of high level conventional war , even though British military expenditure remained high and the delusion of oontiuning British military and moral influence continued through the ridiculous Tony Blair years.
One of the great minds of our time.
Only one equal = Christopher Hitchens.
I totally agree. As for the previous person that posted, it's definitely Lady Penelope's chauffeur from the Thunderbirds films. Parker. That's him. Pink Rolls Royce etc
The guy who says Germany has become a neutralised force. Oh dear.
So. Austria-Hungary; WW I :: Poland: WWII.....
FOR ALL DANCE LOVERS FIGHT FOR EUROPEAN/ POLISH SOCIAL BALLROOM DANCES: POLONAISE AND MAZURKA ESSAYS, VIDEOS AND INSTRUCTIONS: GO TO THE INTERNET AND SEARCH FOR: ACADEMIA.EDU………..RAYMOND CWIEKA TO VIEW THE VIDEOS PASTE THE VIDEO - WORD - ESSAY TO A WORD DOCUMENT AND THEN CLICK & PRESS THE CTRL KEY ON THE VIDEO.
Aquinas - there is a morality of war and ww2 was not moral.
It was moral to resist and beat Nazi tyranny.
@Awoken Starship Captain .....and the Nazi were told that if they invaded Poland, that would be a trigger for war. 😎
@Awoken Starship Captain ...the German were expecting the Poles to put up the resistance that the Poles did. And nor did Hitler think that France and the UK would declare war on the advent of invading Poland.
You’re very good Peter🇦🇺
lol you stupid fuck
Even if we hadn't given a guarantee to Poland surely we would not still have stood by whilst it was invaded by Germany.
the major point and debate is that there might not have been a German invasion without the British guarantee, strengthening Poland's resolve to resist German demands, which up until March 31st were certainly pretty modest (and in the German view, very generous). Evidence to support this view is to look at what actually happened, weimar Germany was far more anti-Polish than Mustache man's Germany, Mustache man began his pro-Polish policy with the non-aggression pact and it culminated with addressing Polish issues in Czechoslovakia. However the major obstacle of a proper rapprochement between Germany and Poland was Danzig where Poland refused to relinquish it, even though Mustache man offered to protect Poland's special rights in the city and even recognizing post-Versailles Polish Borders in his much wanted Treaty of Friendship with Poland.
However, instead Britain got involved and stiffened Poland's will to resist the Germans, and since March 31st German-Polish relations went downhill somewhat.
Weather malice or incompetance, Britain did have a large part in starting the war, as Noel Mason-MacFarlane would argue to the foreign secretary "without war our desired results may never be achieved" .... "war, and war now with a near eastern front". The eastern front of course being Poland.
It all started long before, Battle of Spionkop.