"The best that can be said about Churchill is that he was a successful failure, while it would be more accurate to describe Hitler as a success who subsequently failed."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/30/1059480402192.html contains a review of Andrew Roberts' book Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of Leadership. In it Roberts' suggests that all European Jewry would have been exterminated and the Empire would have been effectively mortgaged to Britain by the grace of Hitler. Rather hysterical and unlikely, in my view. Hitler planned to expel the Jews to Madagascar (which, incidentally, makes him a Zionist). The Madagascar Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan is therefore conclusive evidence that he meant to expel rather than exterminate. The plan was not carried out due to the fall of Vichy France. Very arguably, if it had not been for the warmongering of Churchill and the fatal diplomatic blunder of France when it declared war on Germany, fewer Jews would have died in WW2.
2 comments:
'In it Roberts' suggests that all European Jewry would have been exterminated'. You say that like he is positing some theory of his own, rather than stating the obvious fact. The final solution was almost that- are you calling into question the Holocaust?
Are you accusing me of Holocaust Denial for saying that the Madagascar Plan suggests that the Nazis intended to expel rather than exterminate?
While I am aware that no historian has discussed this, I cannot but help wonder if doing so would generate the kind of accusation you have just made against me.
Perhaps that is why these poor dears keep quiet.
Would you like to make Holocaust Denial an imprisonable offence in the UK?
Perhaps you are not aware that historians are, after 70+ years, redefining the terms of debate into Intentionalism and Functionalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism
Post a Comment