Raico on Churchill

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 12 September 2005 23:28.

Thanks to Michael R for sending me this lecture (excerpt) to the Mises Institute by Ralph Raico, titled Rethinking Churchill.

Raico’s argument is that, whilst magnificent as a war-time leader, all his life Winnie was an indefatigable Welfarist/Warfarist. Notwithstanding the inevitable anti-statist slant underlying Raico’s thinking, I think he is broadly right. Winnie can certainly be criticised for his lack of Conservative principles (any principles at all, according to Raico). That lack is most starkly visible in the destructive consequences of so many of his actions.

The only caveat I have about Raico’s ideas concerns the one small area of specialised knowledge in which I have an advantage over him. It’s frequently the case that the personna of authority which many public intellectuals possess masks either a highly selective opinion or a lack of knowledge of the real facts. In as much as Raico makes some pretty stale, second-hand observations about the airwar I could see that his is no air historian - or he is careful to choose those facts which support his pre-determined stance.

That said, I enjoyed the lecture. It has a few good jokes and one particularly telling passage:-

The time is coming when the Establishment view of the 20th Century is going to be shaken very badly. You see, people don’t just come up with crazy ideas: “I’m going to massacre all the Slavs … I’m going to massacre all the Jews … I’m going to massacre all the bourgeois, and so on.” There is a cause and effect involved here. And the first great blood-letting and the first total destruction of rules and morality was the first World War.

Here’s what one historian says, “The victimised youth of Germany of the first World War” … the ones who survived the starvation (caused by the British naval blockade – Ed) … “were to become the most radical adherents of Nazism.”

I have often attempted to make the argument that social instability flowing from war and the dislocations of progress is responsible for the sickness at the heart of 20th Century man. Raico is more specific and lays the blame on the destruction of rules and morality, which I find interesting. Instability-wise, I might want to pre-date his choice of WW1 by eight decades though, which would take matters back to the Reform Act - and destroy part of Raico’s anti-Churchill argument (you see what I mean about selectivity).

However, the passage I have quoted is more interesting still if it is applied to the present day:-

The time is approaching when the crazy idea the liberal establishment has come up with in our time will be shaken very badly. It might take only a few more riots or a few more bombs. It might take ten or twenty years. The longer it takes, though, the more certain it is that extreme circumstance will attend its arrival. That would do none of us very much good.

Raico isn’t thinking along those lines, of course. But do take a half hour to listen to his lecture for yourself.

Tags: History

Comments:

Posted by White Knight on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:21 | #

I know this is a WN site, so everyone should definately have a look at this link:

http://whitewomeninperil.com/

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:15 | #

White Knight,

I am self-described WN, but I can assure you not everyone that posts and comments on MR is or welcomes that appellation.

We are not an echo chamber in that way. Of course I believe all whites, in a matter of time, will become white nationalists.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:20 | #

White Knight, I glanced through the site you linked. It seems to be concerned that there may be a pattern of young white women being targeted more and more for foul play. No surprise there: if non-whites see white civilization crumbling (and they most certainly do) they’ll take advantage of the situation. What’s the solution? To do what you can to bring the crumbling of white civilization to an end. In any such endeavor there’s no avoiding the issue of race and sub-race. Weaklings can’t handle that issue. It takes strength, both intellectual and moral, to handle it. You’ll see the weaklings running blogs all over the internet. You’ll see those with strength too, if you know where to look.

GW, that was an important log entry: this Raico’s ideas are important. I haven’t yet listened to the lecture excerpt—at the moment I must attend to something—but will do later tonight or tomorrow. Look—I don’t know if others feel it, but I do: a tide is turning. Our side is growing. People are waking up and finding out the truth, bit by bit. Part of that finding-out of the truth is going to involve and is going to result in, exactly as you suggest Raico believes, a complete reassessment of the 20th Century right the way back to 1914. The new generation of scholarship which we see the beginnings of around us is going to rewrite the history of that century in a way that is going to help lay the foundation for a restoration of sanity in the world.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:21 | #

Soren:

> Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

Well, my German History teacher laughed when I mentioned that book. I read it anyway, and then I read Gordon Craig’s Germany, 1866-1945 and then read David Irving’s Hitler’s War (free download!).

after finishing those books I realized Shirer was a sensationalist, and just plain shallow in his understanding of Nazism. Plus Shirer’s book is dated, much new documentation has been revealed and uncovered from archives, with special credit going to David Irving.

Posted by Amman on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:40 | #

How so, if I may ask? Other than that, I’ve only read parts of D.J Peukert’s book, “Opposition and conformity in everyday German life, 1939-1945” (It was a long time ago, I forgot the actual title). How does Craig’s wrok differ from Shirer’s?

Also, I haven’t read anything by Irving, so I’ll refrain from commenting on him, but can you recommend any authors sympathetic to Hitler’s regime that haven’t attracted as much controversy as Mr. Irving? I’m just wondering, I don’t want people to accost me on the street because of the book I’m reading :(

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:03 | #

> but can you recommend any authors sympathetic to Hitler’s regime that haven’t attracted as much controversy as Mr. Irving?

Tell me who generates such controversy, my dear Ammon. Who owns the presses and who whips up controversy. Tell me who has shot holes in Irving’s book Hitler’s War. Did you read what Keegan has said about Irving?

Here is Sir John Keegan on Irving’s book: http://www.fpp.co.uk/reviews/Keegan.html

> Who is Gordon Craig
Compare Craig’s resume to Shirer’s (if he has one)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_A._Craig

> Shirer

If you want the pulp history version of the Nazi time read Shirer and enjoy it - thousands of others have.

Posted by Malphas on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:10 | #

Well, I can certainly appreciate Craig’s impressive resume. I was hoping though, could you tell me what, exactly, differentiates his history from Shirer’s, since you’ve read both? (Also, have you ever read Peukert’s work? I found it interesting, what did you think of it?)

And about Irving, again, I haven’t read his stuff, so I can’t comment on him. Still, aren’t there any authors, preferably academics, who take a similarly sympathetic stance towards Hitler?

~This is Amman, I changed my name because people might confuse me with Amon, who also hangs around here.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:16 | #

> Peukert

I’ve never read that fellow’s work.

Its been years since I read both Craig and Shirer (1993?). I read Irving just last year.

My recollection of Shirer was his work was sensationalistic and pandered to the less serious reader - I know that sound condescending but compared to both Irving and Craig his work comes off as demotic.

Posted by Malphas on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:16 | #

And, um, about the links you provide…

From Keegan’s review:

“No historian of the Second World War can afford to ignore Irving. His depiction of Hitler, by its relation of the war’s development to the decisions and responses of Führer headquarters, is a key corrective to the Anglo-Saxon version, which relates the war’s history solely in terms of Churchillian defiance and of the Grand Alliance. Nevertheless, it is a flawed vision, for it is untouched by moral judgement. For Irving, the Second World War was a war like other wars—a naked struggle for national self-interest—and Hitler, one war leader among others. Yet, the Second World War must engage our moral sense. Its destructiveness, its disruption of legal and social order, were on a scale so disordinate that it cannot be viewed as a war among other wars; its opposition of ideologies, democratic versus totalitarian, none the less stark because democracy perforce allied itself with one form of totalitarianism in the struggle against another, invariably invests the war with moral content; above all, Hitler’s institution of genocide demands a moral commitment.”

From the Wikipedia article:

“Like many historians, Keegan became embroiled in the David Irving controversy, and was criticized for some comments which seemed pro-Irving. Keegan praised Irving’s ability to research, but also criticized Irving’s distortions and thought certain of his ideas “perverse.”

Keegan’s review isn’t entirely glowing. How would you characterize that? Did you see many distortions in Irving’s work? You’re a historian like Keegan, so I figure you know more about this kind of stuff than I do…

Posted by Malphas on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:18 | #

Oh, and thanks for your input about Craig—in that case, I definately should pick him up. I really would recommend you read Peukert, though. Even though it was a long time ago, he did some very interesting work on the German resistance movements, and also on the failures of the Hitler Youth to energize German youngsters.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:18 | #

Irving cuts both ways, sure. But he was instrumental in uncovering new documentation ignored by others. Like Keegan said his work is too important to be ignored.

I stand with Irving. If you want a writer that creates a book by posting together clipping from a newspaper, well there are plenty of such writers today.

Posted by Malphas on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:22 | #

Out of curiosity, how, exactly, did he do that? (this is just my curiosity, I’m very interested in the study of history) Every time I think of primary sources, I imagine things like written testimonies from the time (letters, diaries, etc.) or archealogical evidence (pottery shards, murals, the sort of stuff that we get most of our knowledge of ancient civilizations from). So how’d Iriving manage to uncover his new documentation? Did he manage to find any secret stashes of German papers or anything like that? I’d imagine finding a treasure trove like that to be a historian’s dream come true…

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:23 | #

There is another book I’ve read about the Hitler Time, Ian Kershaw’s The Hitler Myth

It deals with the Nazi propaganda efforts from about 1923 to 1945. I liked it.

The Hitler Myth: Image and Reality in the Third Reich

BTW, Irving has said critical things about Kershaw, yet I really like Kershaw ‘s book. So, I’m not a toady for Irving, but I think Irving is important.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:26 | #

> What did Irving do…

He went to Germany and learned the language, then he found and located Nazi functionaries - high and low - including Hitler’s secretaries and interview them.

In the process he uncovered Nazi documents, memoirs, recollections, and he spend countless hours in the German archives finding “lost” documents. (If I recall he did find some documents buried in a garden ).

Irving is a serious archivist and has done original research. He is not a joke or wag as his enemies say.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:28 | #

Here is Irving’s page, I’ve spent hours on it, it is fascinating:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/

Here is his Hitler index:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/index.html

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:46 | #

> Let me enjoy reading the book!

By all means, bon appétit.

Posted by JW Holliday on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:26 | #

John Ray: Purist policies don’t win elections

Which to my mind is an excellent reason to oppose one-man-one-vote democracy or, perhaps, “democracy” itself.

Responsible leadership is about doing what is best for one’s nation and people, not “winning elections.”

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:07 | #

JJR, Churchill didn’t lean right; if anything he leant left. He basically remained what he started as—an orthodox 1906-14 social democrat “liberal.”

His only right wing views were on foreign policy, where he had an altogether unrealistic view of Britain’s capabilities—don’t forget the man who in 1934-38 wanted a pre-emptive war against Hitler in 1919 wanted Britain to singlehandedly invade Russia and topple Lenin.

It never occurred to him that if we failed to wait for the US to wake up to the genuine Hitlerian threat, we might well not have the capability to survive (and if we’d fought at Munich, as Churchill wanted, we wouldn’t have.)

You need to go back before 1914 to write the revisionist history of the 20th Century; 1904, when Britain made the doomed decision to back French revanchism and encircle Germany is a much better starting point.

Books that attempt to whitewash Hitler are as misguided and indeed evil as Beatrice and Sidney Webb’s “Soviet Communism—a new Civilisation” which whitewashed Stalin.

The 20th Century cannot be made sense of without realizing that three men—Lenin, Stalin and Hitler—were apostles of big government so evil that it was worth millions of lives to crush them. The poor old Kaiser, let alone the admirable Franz Joseph, were in an entirely different category.

As Geoff correctly and thoughtfully pointed out, I am most certainly not a WN (though I am also opposed to their demonization.) I am however a Cosnervative.