March 18, 2015

Finest Hour 160, Autumn 2013

Page 46

By William John Shepherd

Churchill Versus Hitler: The War of Words, by Peter John. Bennion Kearny Limited, soft- bound, 354 pp., $17.99, Kindle edition $9.99.

Based upon three years of archival research Mr. John, an economist and former economic adviser to the British government, believes few feuds in history compare in scope to that of Churchill and Hitler. Much has been written comparing them, so saying something new is a challenge.

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024

More

The two antagonists addressed diplomatic and military events before and during the Second World War in their speeches, writings and private conversations, often taunting each other with colorful and original epithets. Churchill called Hitler a “monstrous abortion of hatred and defeat” (179) and a ”blood-thirsty guttersnipe” (200). Hitler called Churchill an “undisciplined swine” (224) and “senile clown”(274). The author logically uses a chronological rather than thematic approach and early poses a thoughtful question: when did each first become aware of the other?

There is no definitive answer, but John makes a convincing argument that Hitler must surely have known of Churchill soon after the latter became First Sea Lord in 1911, given the budding tension and wide reportage of the Anglo-German naval rivalry. Hitler first came to prominence in the English speaking world via The Times, which reported on his failed “Beer Hall Putsch” of 1923 and his subsequent trial.

Neither ever modified his view of the other, John claims, and both were “tribal leaders of the 1940s” (323)—a misplaced critique of nationalism. While Nazi Germany is the epitome of nationalism gone wrong, it is a gross disservice to judge British nationalism similarly, since this was the force Churchill marshaled to save Western civilization.

John effectively contrasts their respective performances while literally under fire. Churchill, he notes, often went to the rooftops during bombings of London, later making personal visits to inspect damage and rally survivors. Hitler stayed in a bunker and turned a blind eye to damage and casualties.

John praises Churchill as “the greatest man in the world” (316) but also serves up snide criticisms. Churchill in 1947, he says, gave “a long and rather hysterical speech” (309) comparing Hitler and Attlee. Churchill’s 1954 statement praising Israeli agriculture does not explain why enhanced irrigation “gave the Jews a right to land occupied by Palestinian Arabs” (314). There are also mistakes: Churchill met Pope Pius XI, not Pius XII (52) in 1927; Churchill was not “ineligible” for a military medal in World War II (234).

Major problems are the endnotes and bibliography listing of author, title and page number but not publisher, edition, city or date. This might be acceptable for a hyperlinked website but is inadequate for print publications, since it is difficult to check without the missing data. Page references from the Hugh Trevor-Roper edited Hitler’s Table Talk do not match the popular 2000 Enigma edition, suggesting the author used an older edition; his reader should not have to be a detective to determine such information. There are similar problems in checking references to Churchill’s The Second World War, since volume numbers are rarely given.  Another questionable practice is using Hitler’s War by the discredited writer David Irving (1977) as a major source. In response to an email query, Peter John said he used it because it was “highly praised by many distinguished historians, all utterly free of any taint of Nazi sympathies,” including Trevor-Roper, A.J.P. Taylor, Paul Addison and Andrew Roberts. John added that he “used Irving’s unequalled research, not his flawed judgments” because Hitler’s War “is an almost unparalleled collection of primary sources from those who worked with the dictator” that is otherwise “rather sparse.” They are perhaps rather sparse because they are unsubstantiated: “Mrs. Goering to the author,” for example. This defense might have been made in a source note, though it is not in my view adequate.

This book is not without merit, posing intriguing questions and presenting unique perspectives. But the lack of illustrations, except for the cover’s bizarre, cartoonish caricatures of the antagonists; the inadequate citations; the pedestrian quality of print, size, and format give the impression of a self-published rather than a professionally published work. Readers would do well to consider previously published and generally praised works on the subject: Andrew Roberts’ Hitler and Churchill (FH 127), John Strawson’s Churchill and Hitler (FH 106), David Jablonsky’s Churchill and Hitler (FH 88), and John Lukacs’ The Duel (FH 70).

Mr. Shepherd is Associate Archivist of The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.