A different take on things that seems to be very Euro-focussed at the expense of everything else. The premise that Churchill was evil...:frusty: Repetitive work equates Churchill with Nazi leaders :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Neil Steinberg
Nothing here that can't be found in the pro-Nazi websites and in stuff by David Irving etc. Ok, this chap is a left-winger. But some of these left-wing, liberal types hate the British and US establishments so much that they forget where the real evil came from.
Indeed, which is why it surprises me he appears to be getting so much press about it (now thinking I shouldn't have posted!).
Two things that make this book preblemmatic are: 1) he has taken statements, speeches, selective quotes etc, and not given much in the way of commentary, whether to prove a point or to contextualise them. So the quotes are expected to stand alone to prove a point. However, he has made the effort to explain the fact that Churchill, Roosevelt and Hitler were all great orators who made statements that were sometimes at odds with their actions. Without putting this in context of course the their statements are going to sound bad. They were, more often than not, intended to to be used as propaganda - let the enemy know what they were thinking rather than them being blueprints for action. 2) Baker is a pacifist, his agenda is one of political pacifism, and so one should read his book in light of that. I have no problem with Pacifists - their intentions are worthy. And in the current political climate, very commendable. However, in context to the run-up to WW2, pacifism failed. Appeassment was a form of political pacifism, as Chamberlain realised that the British people would not react in the same way as they did at the outbreak of WW1.
The first chapter is available from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/b...-human-smoke.html?_r=1&ref=review&oref=slogin
