Excellent write up! I've read about 3 out 4 of those and am now called a Nazi. Oh, well, not my first rodeo. I began my odyssey with David Irving's Hitler's War. After that, I knew we were all lied to. In the last few days, Ron Unz (from Unz.com) has an article called "The True History of World War 2" which has most of the same books and even a few others. The information about Stalin is also key. He played Britain and West from the very beginning. Looking forward to reading more.
Churchill sounds like a mentally unstable, utterly deluded grifter, which makes his successes all the more remarkable. The fates evidently found something useful in his muddled psyche, for a while at least.
Interesting how many parallels there are between Churchill’s approach to Germany then, and whoever the current transient incumbent of number 10 is now, in relation to Russia.
The imperial urge still flickers while the vitality ceased long ago. Strange how that urge, now a mere fantasy, persists embodied in a decrepit body politic inhabited by increasingly enfeebled “leaders”.
They arise again, the creatures who, lost in their beastial nature, endeavor for greatness but find only the mortality of their personalities! These are the ones we must defeat or they will murder us all. Amen Chad!
Thank you Chad! I'm a bit of a late bloomer academically, so I took the opportunity to take advantage of Hillsdale College's free online courses. I know that Hillsdale's President, Larry Arne teaches some courses in a completely different context. It's fascinating to watch bias conformation according to who is telling the story and it's subject matter. One of the lines that caught my attention was "Rigidity over Reason" and the simple logic of coordinated attacks by agent provocateurs to carry out agendas has become more evident than ever when I consider the police/cps conspiracies against poor natural families and the show trial courts upholding martial law in the name of "a polite, civilized society". I think Herbert Spencer's "The Man versus the State", appeals to the logical side of those who do not deal proudly with ancient moorings to sanity. Inverting blackmail, extortion and absurdities too numerous to list seems to be the tacit understanding of those who deal in favors and ever abominate any dissenting opinion against their chosen bias.
A.J.P Taylor was the man who set me on the road of thinking critically about the history I was being presented with. In the early 1970's he was editor in chief of a weekly periodical titled 'History of the 20th Century'. My father had subscribed from the first issue, and when I discovered them as a boy in the 1980's I would pour over the pictures, fascinated by the depictions of the 2 great European conflicts of the century. As I got a little older, maybe 9 or 10, I began to read the actual articles related to aspects of the wars and began to understand that what was being presented on TV and in Film was a very simplified version of events with many important and relevant details left out.
From this I learned to read as many different perspectives on any historical events as I could, and to be aware of the possible motivations behind how how they were being presented.
All british or american sources. Not a great list. The only way to get the truth is to read widely over many years and read the actual people in their own words. In other words, you have to be your own historian with this as well.
As the essay clearly states, this is the first in a series of essays exploring the Second World War. This installment focuses specifically on the origins of the war in the European theater, with particular emphasis on British policy, miscalculation, and strategic decisions. Hence the abundance of Anglo sources at this stage.
Furthermore, the second work discussed, “1939: The War That Had Many Fathers,” is quite literally by a German general, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.
A critique such as yours, which misses such a basic detail, makes it clear the essay was not read carefully, if it was read at all.
Excellent write up! I've read about 3 out 4 of those and am now called a Nazi. Oh, well, not my first rodeo. I began my odyssey with David Irving's Hitler's War. After that, I knew we were all lied to. In the last few days, Ron Unz (from Unz.com) has an article called "The True History of World War 2" which has most of the same books and even a few others. The information about Stalin is also key. He played Britain and West from the very beginning. Looking forward to reading more.
Churchill sounds like a mentally unstable, utterly deluded grifter, which makes his successes all the more remarkable. The fates evidently found something useful in his muddled psyche, for a while at least.
Interesting how many parallels there are between Churchill’s approach to Germany then, and whoever the current transient incumbent of number 10 is now, in relation to Russia.
The imperial urge still flickers while the vitality ceased long ago. Strange how that urge, now a mere fantasy, persists embodied in a decrepit body politic inhabited by increasingly enfeebled “leaders”.
They arise again, the creatures who, lost in their beastial nature, endeavor for greatness but find only the mortality of their personalities! These are the ones we must defeat or they will murder us all. Amen Chad!
Thank you Chad! I'm a bit of a late bloomer academically, so I took the opportunity to take advantage of Hillsdale College's free online courses. I know that Hillsdale's President, Larry Arne teaches some courses in a completely different context. It's fascinating to watch bias conformation according to who is telling the story and it's subject matter. One of the lines that caught my attention was "Rigidity over Reason" and the simple logic of coordinated attacks by agent provocateurs to carry out agendas has become more evident than ever when I consider the police/cps conspiracies against poor natural families and the show trial courts upholding martial law in the name of "a polite, civilized society". I think Herbert Spencer's "The Man versus the State", appeals to the logical side of those who do not deal proudly with ancient moorings to sanity. Inverting blackmail, extortion and absurdities too numerous to list seems to be the tacit understanding of those who deal in favors and ever abominate any dissenting opinion against their chosen bias.
A.J.P Taylor was the man who set me on the road of thinking critically about the history I was being presented with. In the early 1970's he was editor in chief of a weekly periodical titled 'History of the 20th Century'. My father had subscribed from the first issue, and when I discovered them as a boy in the 1980's I would pour over the pictures, fascinated by the depictions of the 2 great European conflicts of the century. As I got a little older, maybe 9 or 10, I began to read the actual articles related to aspects of the wars and began to understand that what was being presented on TV and in Film was a very simplified version of events with many important and relevant details left out.
From this I learned to read as many different perspectives on any historical events as I could, and to be aware of the possible motivations behind how how they were being presented.
Thank you AJP Taylor.
Fantastic summary of the relevant literature, Chad. You've extended my reading list by 3; Buchanan's book was already on it.
All british or american sources. Not a great list. The only way to get the truth is to read widely over many years and read the actual people in their own words. In other words, you have to be your own historian with this as well.
As the essay clearly states, this is the first in a series of essays exploring the Second World War. This installment focuses specifically on the origins of the war in the European theater, with particular emphasis on British policy, miscalculation, and strategic decisions. Hence the abundance of Anglo sources at this stage.
Furthermore, the second work discussed, “1939: The War That Had Many Fathers,” is quite literally by a German general, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.
A critique such as yours, which misses such a basic detail, makes it clear the essay was not read carefully, if it was read at all.