In the Times today William Rees-Mogg dared to raise the question of whether Chamberlain's "appeasement" policy was really as bad as it is usually made out to be. Not much substance to the article, really, but it's interesting that he dares to raise the issue at all.
For American supremacists, and their British quislings, the "appeasement" episode forms the cornerstone of their entire worldview.
I posted a reply to the Rees-Mogg article which was blocked by The Times website censors, so I'll reproduce it in full here :
"Appeasement was the right choice for Britain, both before the war started and after it. The Rudolf Hess flight was a peace overture. It should have been accepted. The smart play for Britain was to divert Hitler into a war with Stalin, while we sat on the sidelines, husbanding our strength. The idiot play was the one Churchill conducted.
It led to the absolute ruin of Britain: the loss of all the wealth accumulated over hundreds of years; the British empire gone thanks to the free trade policy that the Americans shamefully foisted upon us in our moment of weakness; and, of course, we emerged from the war as peons in the service of a barbarously belligerent foreign empire - a peonage that has continued to this day. In other words our "victory" achieved exactly what we nominally fought the war to prevent. This must be accounted the greatest Pyrrhic victory in all of history.
What makes it all the more painful is that all of our military efforts were in vain. They barely affected the outcome of the war in any way. We lost almost every battle we fought against the Germans. The British Army vs. the Wehrmacht was like a pub team vs. the Premier League champions. The Soviets defeated the Nazis (accounting for 90% of German casualties) and would have defeated them regardless of what we did.
It's one of the supreme ironies of world history that we venerate Churchill as the man who saved Britain, when, in truth, he is the man who destroyed it."
To anyone who wants to get a true picture of the revered Churchill and the catastrophic consequences of his misrule, I recommend reading the following books:
If you're only going to read one anti-Churchill book, read Nigel Knight's. It covers Churchill's entire career, and demonstrates convincingly that the Greatest Briton was a train wreck on two legs who left a trail of carnage behind him throughout his government service. Among other things, Churchill was responsible for one of the greatest catastrophes in British military history at Gallipoli; and for the ruination of the British economy during the early 20s when he was Chancellor, provoking Britain's only general strike. He was also a big fan of Mussolini, which will certainly come as a great surprise to those of his fanboys who hail him as the great anti-fascist.
"Churchill, the Greatest Briton Unmasked" by Nigel Knight.
Picknett et. al. write mainly semi-conspiratorially-minded books on unusual subjects, such as the paranormal. Here they tackle the real world. Their perspectives are interesting. I don't always agree with their judgements, but they are certainly thought-provoking. Serious research has gone into these books and they shouldn't be dismissed as mere conspiracy mongering.
"Friendly Fire - the Secret War Between the Allies" by Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior.
"Double Standards: the Rudolf Hess Cover-up" by Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior.
John Charmley is a serious, professional historian. He critiques Churchill and the American peonage he helped bring about from an old skool right-wing perspective.
"Churchill : the End of Glory" by John Charmley.
"Churchill's Grand Alliance: the Anglo-American Special Relationship" by John Charmley.
Lamb's book is primarily a chronicle of Churchill's wartime ineptitude, telling of how he was drunk in important meetings; would ramble on with irrelevancies for hours as if he was senile; would become obsessed with some remote piece of land somewhere which he would convince himself held supreme strategic significance, requiring the top military professionals to expend extraordinary efforts trying to talk him down from his lunatic plans to assault or capture it.
Strangely, Lamb considers himself a Churchill fan. Although he acknowledges the ineptitude, he seems to think Churchill's ability to inspire made up for it. I beg to differ. You have to give Lamb credit, though. He lays the facts down coldly on the table, even when many would see them as refuting the basis of his own admiration. Not many historians have the gumption to do that.
"Churchill as War Leader" by Richard Lamb