Why I would be pleased to see the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square pulled down

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/04/boris-johnson-book-winston-churchill

London Mayor Boris Johnson, who said that the Woolwich atrocity is nothing to do with either Islam or UK foreign policy and who is apparently believed by the gullible, those in denial and the cowardly, is now writing a book in praise of Churchill.

Here are some questions for Boris and his fellow Churchill-lovers.

1. Why did Britain enter WW1?
2. Was Belgian neutrality worth the sacrifice of so many British lives?
3. What document provided for Belgian neutrality?
4. Are you aware of the contents of the Treaty of London 1839?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)
5. Can you discern from its contents what it was that was so important about Belgian neutrality to Britain that made its leaders sacrifice so much over it to so little effect?
6. Were you aware that the German Ambassador in London was aghast at the British for going to war over what they called "a scrap of paper"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)#.22Scrap_of_paper.22
7. Are you aware that the British went to war in 1914 over a document signed 78 years before that?
8. Was Britain the most militaristic nation in Europe?  (A militaristic nation goes to war at the drop of a hat and over scraps of paper.  It is understandable that Germany would go to the aid of Austria if it was being threatened by Russia, if it had recently agreed to do so.  It is understandable that the Russians who are Slavs would go to the aid of the Serbs who are also Slavs if they were being threatened by their Austrian overlords, but what the fuck had Belgian neutrality to do with the British??)
9. Could it be said that British foreign policy at the time before WW1 and WW2 consisted of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans?
10. Could it be said that the British policy of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans ended up in the disintegration of the British empire?
11. Why couldn't Germany have Poland when Britain had its world empire since Germany had completely missed out in the scramble for Africa?
12. Did you know that Poland had a Saxon ie German king as recently as the 1600s?
13. Did you know that Germany regarded Poland as its backyard in the same way that Britain regards Ireland as its backyard?
14. Could it be said that WW2 was a continuation of WW1?
15. But for WW2, would Britain have lost its world empire?
16. If WW2 was a continuation of WW1, and Britain lost its world empire as a result of WW2, could it be said that Britain lost its empire over "a scrap of paper"?
17. Was Hitler's greatest mistake his belief that the British would be reasonable about Poland (which was outside their sphere of influence anyway) when they had already gone to war over the scrap of paper that was Belgian neutrality?
18. How rational do you think British foreign policy is?
19. How rational do you think British foreign policy has been in the last hundred years or so?
20. Did you know that Hitler liked children, was an animal-lover, a vegetarian and was kind to his servants, while Churchill was a drunkard, a depressive and was rude to his servants?
21. While Hitler was an infamous antisemite, did you know that Churchill thought "Keep England White" was a good slogan?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#Return_to_power
22. If you have gone to the trouble of acquiring an empire, shouldn't you at least try to hang on to it for as long as you can?
23. Could it be said that Churchill gambled away the empire the British, acquired with so much blood, sweat and tears, in a roll of dice?  (What is war but a speculative gamble?)
24. Are the British fools or knaves for overlooking the enormity of Churchill's folly?
25. Could British foreign policy be better conducted by Claire Khaw who takes a Palmerstonian view of British interests?  (Palmerston would have taken a dim view of the Special Relationship.  "Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.")
26. Is it time for the British to stop being the poodle of America and instead become the Pekingese of the Chinese, which would mean shutting up about Tibet?
27. Do you think British MPs ever discuss foreign policy in an honest or reasoned way?
28. Are you are of any serious and detailed discussion taking place as regards UK foreign policy?
29. If you were a Muslim terrorist committing terrorist atrocities to make the British re-examine their foreign policy, do you think you have done enough?
30. Do you think the Germans are on the whole quite decent forbearing people considering what they have had to put up with from Hitler and the British?
31. While Churchill was not the one who in fact declared war on Germany, do you think he more or less bounced Chamberlain into declaring war on Germany?
32. Do you think Churchill fancied himself as war leader?
33. Are you aware that tinpot dictators like starting wars so that they can strut around being war leaders?  

An evening with David Irving

David Irving and me

https://irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.php?productid=17764&cat=249&page=1&fb_source=message

David Irving is a terrific raconteur. It occurs to me that most historians must have been.

All good historians and history teachers know how to tell a good story.  How I remember dear Miss Young who taught me O level history goose-stepping from the front of the class to the back of the class!

I am agnostic on the Holocaust since I was not there and even if I had been it would have been impossible to tell how many were killed and for what reason in a war situation.

As far as I can see, this Holocaust thing is a hangover of the conflict between Judaism and Christianity, which will one day be resolved when we have Secular Koranism in Britain.   Sadly, not many people understand it, though it is really very simple.

The debate between how history is established and taught will rage on forever more, just like politics.

David Irving makes a point of using only primary sources.  His books are popular and readable because they contain the necessary details to bring it all to life, eg the colour of the wallpaper, the weather on the day.  His books read like novels, I imagine.

He refers to Ian Kershaw as a "conformist historian", and said Kershaw would refer to his books in order to write his conformist version.

David also told us of how a postcard which Hitler sketched himself was stolen by a man who now lives in Tallahasee whose name is Michael Hesse, I think.

He mentioned the "birdy spoon" which his daughter Jennifer used for her cereal, which has been through the dish washer many a time.  I believe it must be something along the lines of the spoons found at http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&item=170833719843&nma=true&rt=nc&si=atqdK2KCATIogCrl0ZIgpXg5J14%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc#ht_2909wt_699

Anyway, I found it a charming story.

There was a book called ADOLF HITLER with some great photographs of the Fuhrer looking happy and glorious in  it, but it was in German, priced at £100.

Apparently, the Soviets tried to suppress the fact that Hitler shot himself, and claimed he merely poisoned himself like a woman.  The fact was that he did both.  It is also incredibly difficult to shoot yourself in the temple because of the kickback, and he recounted an occasion when a top Nazi attempted it twice and failed, only managing to graze the top of his head.  Someone else had to finish the job for him.

So that is why if you want to do it properly, you put the gun into your mouth.   Hitler managed to successfully shoot himself in the head, in case you were wondering.

He found most of the Hitler's private staff very approachable, though they would not have been quite so to approachable to any other "conformist historian" with an anti-Hitler axe to grind.

The story that charmed me most about Hitler was the one about how a fly saved Hitler's adjutant Fritz Darges's life.  It was high summer and the Russians were about to invade.  Hitler was in a conference with the leaders of the German Armed Forces.   There was a fly bothering Hitler, and he demanded that Fritz  Darges get rid of it.

Fritz Darges's response was that, since it was a creature on wings, it should be the job of the Lutwaffe.

His levity resulted in his being sent to East Prussia as punishment that very day.  Three days later, the bomb that was meant to kill Hitler went off.   If Fritz Dagen had been in his usual place, he would have died.

So there you go, one should have a sense of humour.

This rather indicated to me that Hitler did usually have a sense of humour, or doubtless Fritz Dagen would not have made such a joke under any circumstances.

This rather endears Hitler to me.

I asked what sort of a man Irving thought Hitler was, and, unhesitatingly, he said: "A very kind man.  He was compassionate, incorruptible, honest and decent."

He always asked after the health of the family of his generals and was kind to those who served him.  Indeed, he once demanded the stenographers be given electric heaters so they were not too cold in the draughty huts they had to work in.

I had an idea that he was a kind a man anyway, from Chrita Schroeder's book, which is eminently readable http://www.amazon.co.uk/He-Was-My-Chief-Secretary/dp/1848325363

So there we have it:  Churchill was a warmongering drunk and known for being horrid to his servants, and Hitler was a teetotaller and was kind to his servants and never would have invaded Britain, according to David Irving.

I feel sorry for the British who haven't had a decent foreign policy since the days of Palmerston.