Mortimer wrote:The British historian John Charmley argued in his book Churchill - The End of Glory that the British prime minister made a disastrous mistake by not coming to a peace agreement with Germany.
https://codoh.com/library/document/new- ... record/en/ Of course the establishment went ballistic.
Quite good to see that 'the establishment went ballistic' indicating that they - who otherwise say how strong they condemn any way - are actually in favor of total war, when it is against countries and politics they hate.
I always find this alarming, when I noticed that the superpacifists would viciously support war, when they hated the targets of it.
Their pacifism was obviously only an argument for them to get around compulsory military service and to be edgy in debates, when they didn't like military opposition against communists. It was also a way to gain reputation and credentials to access certain circles that tended to be pro-Communist or 'progressive' in some way. Let's face it real war isn't exactly a pick-nick, when you are compelled to be a soldier or otherwise at the receiving end of it. That is so with any type of violence. But those that are so sanctimonious about their pacifism, otherwise aren't against violence/military/war on principle. They do so to appear moralistic and when the likely foe in such a war is a political faction they may favor.
And it's good that a historian exposes what really went on in the diplomatic sphere of World War Two.
Critique against John Chamley:
Every serious military account of the Second World War shows that Germany came within a hair of taking Russia out even as it was. With no enemy at his back, tying up materiel and divisions in the West; without Britain's campaign in Africa; without the Americans and British succoring Stalin by sea; without Roosevelt's courting war with Germany in the Atlantic, Hitler would have thrown everything he had into Russia. The siege of Leningrad, the attack on Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad would almost certainly have gone the other way, if not in 1941 then certainly by 1942.
Priceless: They essentially admit that their largest concern was that the Soviet Variant of Communism would have been smashed thoroughly.
This of course coming from people that not even in their dreams would have thought to become a "Soviet Citizen". Rather be a lefty in some wealthy Western country together with your fellow academic activists and students.
I recall this with the rabidly 'antifascist' History teachers. Marxists or Stalin could not really do anything wrong, except perhaps, when they purged fellow Marxists from the party via a bullet in the head. But even then it was "for a good cause"... The argument is then that NS was for "a bad cause". The bad cause being to their "authoritarian Nationalism" and saying that not everyone on Earth is 'born equal'. Funny how they do that neither, when it suits them of course.
To manipulate others they have to resort to atrocity propaganda over and over again. And that gas lighting works, their cucked colleagues then adopt to the "Anti-Fascism". This is why academia in the West is what it is now.
