Polemics & Exchanges

On Reconsidering Churchill

Derek Turner’s review of Andrew Roberts’ Hitler & Churchill (“Style in History,” Reviews, September) is flawed.

He writes that Roberts “is a conservative and a patriot” and that “All his books are informed by these identities . . . ”  And, according to Turner, Roberts writes “to counterattack various revisionist views of Hitler and Churchill that have been making headway in recent years.  [He] singles out revisionists as diverse as David Irving, Christopher Hitchens, Clive Ponting, Patrick Buchanan, Ralph Raico . . . To some degree, he shares John Lukacs’s concern that, if Western civilization keeps unraveling, desperate Westerners may come to view Hitler [favorably] . . . ”

Nonsense.  This is the old stumblingblock for thinkers, some of them quite good, of being “on the horns of a false dilemma.”  Simply put, you do not necessarily have to like Hitler to dislike Churchill.  Hitler’s evil deeds are not only well known but magnified, while Churchill’s are suppressed.

When England’s valiant Fighter Command wrote one chapter of history, Chur-chill commended them with the famous words “Never have so many owed so much to so few . . . ”  Very true.  However, his Bomber...

Join now to access the full article and gain access to other exclusive features.

Get Started

Already a member? Sign in here