History

James Monroe: A Life

James Monroe: A Life, by Tim McGrath ★★★★★

This book is one of many biographies that I have completed in the last few years on the founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Monroe makes the fifth president that I’ve read. I’ll be skipping John Quincy Adams and going to Andrew Jackson, then Polk, and Lincoln as well as the chronology of other Civil War notables and history of the war. The authors in all the cases so far, present their biography most resembling a hagiography, viewing the world from the subject’s perspective and defending their positions. I suggest this because the subjects of the other biographies I’ve read tend to take a beating, including Washington, and are left as less-than-perfect characters. Hamilton and Jackson are the most frequently attacked, though no founding father has escaped the critical hand of contemporary biographers.

Tim McGrath gives us a picture of a great though flawed fifth president. Perhaps the Monroe Doctrine is best remembered, though Monroe played an enormous part in the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase, as well as Florida. Monroe had a somewhat elitist upbringing in Virginia on the farm, becoming a lawyer through the aid of close family members. He fought in the Revolution along the side of Washington and Lafayette but was critically wounded at the battle of Trenton, leaving him on the sidelines for the remainder of the war. After the Revolutionary War, Monroe struggled continuously with his financial situation, while alternating between being a somewhat successful lawyer, running the plantation(s) that he owned, as well as serving stints in politics. He became the American ambassador to France under Jefferson, and then the secretary of state under Madison before being voted in for two terms as president of the USA. At the inception of our republic, civil servants, including the president were woefully underpaid, so that many functions of the president, such as travel or White House dinners with foreign dignitaries, came out of the president’s own pocket. The legislature was rather stingy with funds, including necessities such as maintaining an army and navy or building infrastructure such as roads, for the good of the whole nation. What this all meant was that one had to be a person of means to even survive civil office, not exactly fulfilling the constitution’s preamble of a government “of the people” since it was a government always of the elite.

Besides learning much that I didn’t know about Monroe, I also learned that the government even in the “golden age” of the Republic was seriously disjointed, manifesting extreme disagreements that nearly cost the nation its existence (such as political battles during the war of 1812); infighting, bickering, jealousy, and downright loathing of other political figures were abundant, leading one to wonder how the nation even survived. Indeed, it was not the elitist politicians, most of them truly nominal “Christians”, but the common man and his freedom and faith that allowed our nation to thrive and grow. The rift between the North and the South was quite extreme even at this early time of the Republic, and was over issues such as tariffs and management of the Indians, though the most prominent even back in Monroe’s time was the issue of slavery. Those who argue that the Civil War was not about slavery are deluded ideologues or confused states-rightists, driven more by ideology than an interest in discovering the full historical facts. Slavery was a bitterly hot issue in Monroes’ day, and while most of the early founding fathers (eg. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe) owned many slaves and knew that slavery was inconsistent with the ideals of the Constitution, they frequently expressed the wish to eliminate slavery yet had no incentive or reason to do so, so that, when each of the slave-owing president’s died, they did NOT grant their slaves freedom. Such hypocrisy is excelled only by the British, as well as many of our current politicians.

History of the Christian Church

History of the Christian Church, Complete in 8 Volumes, by Philip Schaff ★★★★

This is my second time reading through Philip Schaff’s History, though, this time including the last two volumes that discuss the German and then the Swiss Reformation. This time, I read it in digital format, as I had already given away the hard copies that I had. I actually jumped between two different digital editions as found on Amazon, and both of them were awful. The other edition had huge segments of text dropped, most notably, whenever there was a reference annotation. This edition was poorly edited with numerous spelling errors, little formatting, and no reference links. What a shame.

Schaff’s history has its good and bad points. Schaff seems oriented in the liberal German tradition, having studied under Baur and Harnack. He is Reformed in his orientation. The first time I read through this set was about 30 years ago, back when I was just becoming acquainted with church history. This time, I was considerably more well informed. I appreciated Schaff’s formatting of the book, where he separates political and ecclesiastical history, then discusses historical theology, church life and liturgical practices separately, and short descriptions of the most notable saints.

No history of the church can be written in only 8 volumes. I noted that Schaff fails to discuss many pertinent aspects of church history, including offering sufficient detail of the church councils, omitting a number of the most notable saints of the church (e.g. St. Anthony, the Stylite monks, Theodore of Mopsuesta, etc). The history of the German Reformation was nicely covered as well as the history of Zwingli, but Schaff went crazy on the history of Calvin, and editing should have reduced Calvin’s story by about a half. There is, for example, a fairly lengthy chapter of quotes from people following Calvin’s death, offering praise for Calvin and his ministry; this was totally unnecessary. Lengthy quotes from Calvin’s letters were a distraction, when a short summary commentary should have been offered.

Sadly, Schaff’s History needs an update and critical editing as well as corrections, though I doubt that it will ever be performed. There are really no quality histories of the primitive church to the Reformation that are available that are as complete as this. I’ve looked far and wide and found nothing, so I welcome recommendations. There are excellent texts that address one small aspect of church history, such as the books I had just read on the seven ecumenical councils. Our age seems to put little weight to our historical origins, much to our own loss.

Know the Creeds and Councils

Know the Creeds and Councils, by Justin S. Holcomb ★★★

Holcomb is an episcopalian priest who teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary. This book was written to inform the general church-going public about the creeds and councils. I’m not sure he accomplished his task. The writing is at the 8th-grade level, i.e., fairly simplistic. There are facts that he either got wrong or was confused about. His selection as to which creeds or councils he would discuss is at times a touch problematic. I certainly appreciate that he doesn’t attack certain individuals or groups (eg., the 19-20th century Roman Catholic church) like a vicious Doberman. Unfortunately, the creeds and councils are for Christians of such intense significance that a superficial reading does the reader a disservice. Thus, I would recommend reading the book but only with the understanding that the reader uses this text as a springboard for further study.

Holcomb superficially covers the first 6 councils, omitting altogether the 7th council. Various other minor Western church councils are briefly discussed, such as the councils of Carthage and Orange regarding Pelagianism; unfortunately, the discussion was so abbreviated as to leave the reader more confused than informed. Various Catholic councils were discussed including 1st and 2nd Vatican Council and Council of Trent. The development of the Heidelberg & Westminster Confessions as well as the 39 articles of the Anglican church but nary a mention of the Formula of Concord, the Belgic Confession, and other Reformed confessions. And, no mention of the Anabaptist confessions. The deficits don’t help the reader grasp the dynamics of those who wrote the most popular Reformed confessions.

This book might be best used as a junior high school text, supplemented by teacher insights to “fill in the gaps”. Otherwise, there are better texts to read for understanding the creeds and councils of Christendom.

First Seven Ecumenical Councils

The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology, by Leo Donald Davis ★★★★★

Growing up as a child, I was sternly taught that the word “ecumenical” was a bad word and that we just didn’t participate in that sort of thing. Thankfully, time and maturity have corrected that notion, while still acknowledging that “ecumenical” is not synonymous with “truth”.

Davis is a Roman Catholic theologian though he writes a book that may easily be accepted by both Protestants and Roman Catholics alike; the seven councils referred to in this text were well before the theological crises of the Reformation had occurred, and indeed, at least the first 4-6 councils were found to be acceptable to the Reformers, such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. Davis quotes heavily from the Protestants, and especially such scholars and JND Kelly.

This book starts off a little slow and stodgy, though Davis is highly successful at eventually drawing the reader into the spirit of the age. Better than any of the authors I’ve read on early church history, Davis provides the detailed historical context of each of the seven councils and includes a summary of council conclusions as well as the aftermath of those councils. I am not going to go into blow-by-blow accounts of the councils, as they are too detailed, and anything other than reading the book would do one a disservice.

I find a few details most interesting. First, all of the first councils were initiated by the state, and NOT the church. Politics and religion don’t mix well, a lesson that Luther should have learned and that today’s so-called conservative pundits that identify the USA (or any other country, for that matter, including Belize) as a Christian nation or in need of Christian nationalism surely get wrong. Second, oftentimes we allow the crisis of the moment to dictate our later opinions. A perfect example is the battle between Nestorius and Cyril. Both characters were slimy and despicable in many accounts. Yet, Nestorius is branded as the heretic and Cyril is not. A recently discovered document written by Nestorius and found in Armenia demonstrates that Nestorius mentioned that the Council of Calcedon precisely stated his view. Simultaneously, the entire “heresy” of Monophysitism was generated from the writing of Cyril. Go figure.

This is a wonderful book to read and I enjoyed it from cover to cover, but only after a rough start. If you have any interest in the church, please get a copy and read it!

Truly Divine Truly Human

Truly Divine Truly Human: The Story of Christ and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, by Stephen W. Need ★★★★

Stephen Need is an Anglican priest who has taught for many years at St. George’s College in Jerusalem. This text reflects a strong bent toward the Eastern Orthodox perspective of the seven councils. In this text, Need shows great skill in that of being a teacher and producing a book that is easy to read, with supportive summaries and tables. After a chapter describing the situation before the first council (Nicea), Need walks through each of the seven councils, identifying the theological crisis, and detailing the solutions resolved at the council. He also includes a summary of other church management decisions made at the council, such as prohibitions against the purchase of church office, or prohibitions against bishops moving from one See to another without permission.

I truly enjoyed this book and how Need painted the councils. At a few times, there were comments made leaving suspicion for Need being a liberal in the theological sphere, but that did not distract from the overall quality of the text.

Conquests and Cultures

Conquests and Cultures: An International History, by Thomas Sowell ★★★★★

Conquests and Cultures is the last of a series of three books by Thomas Sowell, the first being Race and Culture and the second Migrations and Culture. In Sowell’s words, the overarching theme of this series is to show that “racial, ethnic, and national groups have their own respective cultures, without which their economic and social histories cannot be understood.” In this text, Sowell focuses on British, African, Slavic, and American Indian cultures, though he generalizes a prevailing concept. This concept is that all civilizations have been subject to invasion and conquest, and how conquest has often enhanced a culture, and at other times has destroyed much of that culture. Beginning with the Roman Empire, Sowell demonstrates how countries that had a strong Roman presence have later come out stronger than their non-Roman counterparts, even after the demise of the Roman Empire.

It is hard to give a detailed description of this book, yet it held my interest through all of its pages. It is written from a distinctly conservative perspective, and Sowell uses his expertise in economics to further show how economic policy has affected the rise or fall of various cultures. The book is heavily referenced, and every page demonstrates a plethora of facts and details to support his thesis. I found the chapters regarding Africa and Western Hemispheric Indians to be the most fascinating, and greatly in support of the thesis of the previous book that I had recently reviewed, Not Stolen. You don’t find this stuff in standard textbooks. Reading this book will help round out one’s education with details that would never be taught in a liberal school or university.

Not Stolen

Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World, by Jeff Fynn-Paul ★★★★★

I’ve already posted several reviews of books related to the conflict between the European settlers and Indians. In this text, Fynn-Paul provides a more comprehensive review of the interactions between the Europeans and the Indians. This text offers a rebuttal to claims made beginning in the 1970s that the Americas were “stolen” from the Indians. In that, Fynn-Paul is highly successful.

Columbus was the first European mentioned, followed by the Spaniards in general, then the French and English. The Pilgrim Thanksgiving was discussed, the trail of tears, settlement west of the Mississippi, and the western Indian “wars”. In each of these times and epochs, Fynn-Paul outlined various issues. Did the Europeans slaughter the Indians? (No; generally as many Europeans died as Indians). Did the Europeans feel superior to the Indians? (Generally, no, and often regarded them as noble races). Did the Europeans steal their land? (On rare occasions, they did, but nearly always, they paid well for the land. The cover photo of this book shows the Dutch negotiating for the sale of Manhattan Island. The Dutch got a large piece of malaria-infested swamp land, while the Indians got what they considered to most valuable–useful products from Europe. Both sides were happy, and Manhattan Island had no value until the Europeans developed it). Were the native Indians peaceful? (Almost always, no. Indian life was that of constant migration and warfare. There was no sense of permanent property, and new property and hunting grounds were obtained through bloodshed). Were the Indians the true environmentalists? (To even ask the question is laughable. They had no great concern about the preservation of either flora or fauna). Was American Democracy a gift of the Iroquis Coalition? (Again, with a little bit of information, this is a laughable question, though Fynn-Paul shows that it was definitely not). Was the Trail of Tears forced migration of the southeast tribes wrong? (For the most part yes it was, and most Americans at the time felt that it was wrong. Yet it showed a struggle by the newly formed USA to solve a vexing problem. Though it is taught as a massacre, in reality, less than 5% of the Indians perished in the process. A far greater percentage of Europeans were slaughtered at the hands of Indians in their migration on the Oregon Trail. ) Was there ever a genocide, such as putatively claimed in California in the aftermath of the gold rush? (Indian populations significantly decreased, but this was multifactorial. In addition, it is impossible to get accurate population counts on the Indians before and after the gold rush, so, it is impossible to make any hard and fast claims). Did the Europeans attempt to kill off the Indians through disease? (Even the Christian high school teachers where our children attended claimed this was true, there is hardly any evidence for that. The Indian population was exceedingly sensitive to the new diseases of the old world. The Europeans made enormous efforts to offer vaccinations to the Indians, who mostly refused).

One issue was brought up that I never considered. Fynn-Paul examines the native populations before the arrival of the Europeans. The USA and Canada had only about 20,000 TOTAL Indians in the entire area which is now filled by over 300,000,000 people. The preponderance of the Indians were in central Mexico (the Aztecs) and in western South America (the Incas). These people intermarried with the Spaniards so it is now impossible to sort out the pure Spanish or pure Indians. Thus, nearly every Mexican is a mestizo, which is of combined Spanish/Native descent. Thus, the Indians remain and are prospering, thanks to the European influence in their lives.

Many questions were raised and answered in this book regarding the interactions between the European settlers and the Indians. The chapters are nicely arranged as questions which are then answered through the text. Truth be told, there were terrible wrongs committed by both the Europeans as well as the Indians, and no group had a monopoly on virtue. The last section of the book summarizes a few contemporary issues. Did Europeans commit cultural genocide? Libtard scholars cannot provide any evidence for a physical genocide of the Indians, so the only recourse is to claim that a “cultural” genocide occurred. But is that all bad? Since when is a cultural status ever stable? As an example, before the Europeans, the Indians rarely were extremely successful at hunting buffalo, that is, until the Europeans provided them horses and guns. Would anybody in their right mind consider that to be genocide? The Europeans quickly provided education to the Indians, to learn to read and write, which is also relegated as a form of genocide. Is it cultural genocide when the Europeans put a halt to the constant Indian wars? When we name things after Indians, is that a form of cultural appropriation, and thus wrong? To even ask the question shows an abundance of folly in the questioner! Are the natives owed reparations? Heavens to Murgatroyd!!!! Even now, the native Indians receive more government handouts and are offered more privileges than any other minority group, including the negro.

This book is a wonderful text to read. I learned much, and appreciate that serious academic scholarship is refuting the ridiculous claims of the new liberal academia who are hell-bent on reconstructing truth. It is easy to read, and so I highly recommend it without reservation.

The Early Church

The Early Church, by Louis Markos ★★★★

I’ve appreciated the writings and lectures of Louis Markos and found this book to have an interesting theme worth reading. It was. Markos excels in literary criticism, and that is exactly what this book does in looking at the writings of some of the early church fathers, rather than just recording their historical details. Markos addresses a variety of topics including early church sermons, early letters of the Patristic saints, writings regarding the church itself, martyr accounts, apologists for the faith, and heresy hunters. This book provides a slightly different flavor to the church fathers through focusing on the church literature per se. Thus, Dr. Markos accomplished his objective well. My only problem with the book is that I’ve essentially read all of the source documents contained in this book. It would probably be of more value to those without the exposure to the early church literature as I have had. Hopefully, the book will encourage more people to pay closer attention to early church writings.

Church Fathers

Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine, by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger)★★★★

This book is a series of homilies that Benedict gave (mostly) in St. Peters’ Square every Wednesday in late 2007. Each homily (chapter) is a short vignette of an early church saint, with a few saints receiving two chapters, and Augustine five. Benedict is salutatory toward each of these saints, save for perhaps a few comments regarding the separatist nature of Tertullian. Benedict skillfully brings out the significance of these people to our current lives. He instructs as to the holiness and wisdom of these church fathers, traits that call all of us to adapt. A few of the saints were from the eastern desert of Syria, saints that I was unfamiliar with.

My only criticism of this work is Benedict’s inability to also instruct us as to the flaws of these fathers. Cyril of Alexandria was a most belligerent and unkind character; Origin’s speculative theology caused many including his contemporaries to accuse him of heresy, Jerome was a mean, surly character, and so on. To have flaws does not diminish one’s importance as an early church father, which must be remembered.

My criticism aside, this text has charm, and will help the Christian toward gaining a better understanding of a few of the saints who went before us. Their holiness, their steadfastness in spite of persecution and death, give us all a reminder that our faith is not a cheap faith, but rather was purchased by the blood of many of our forefathers.

Churchill’s War, Volume 1

Churchill’s War, Volume 1, by David Irving, 1987, 666 pages ★★★★★

This book and its subsequent volume 2, published in 2001, hit shock waves around the western world. Churchill, who, in his own words, “saved” Christian civilization, is analyzed by the author by means of consulting those who were near and dear to him, and by an exhaustive investigation of whatever personal and war records remained. Oddly, many records were destroyed after the war, probably because the Brits knew that the evidence would not be kind to them in supporting their pre-war and war actions. The existing records do not portray Churchill as the noble, selfless hero who through brilliance and fearless devotion to the British Empire gave his all to the cause. In exposing the “real” Winston Churchill, author Irving was not acting unfairly or acting out of revenge; Irving wrote a similar book titled “Hitler’s War” which was equally harsh to Churchill’s arch-enemy. Controversy will rage and many will still esteem Churchill as being the greatest statesman of the century, facts be damned. Perhaps Irving was a little off-sided in his commentary on this man, so we will let Churchill have the last word on himself.  Late in 1940, Churchill went down to Dover to be entertained by the bombers flying overhead, gleeful that he had finally gotten Hitler to start bombing civilian targets (Churchill first started by bombing civilian Berlin), hoping that it would get American sympathy and their involvement in the war. Without regard to his personal safety, Churchill commented at that time “Perhaps tonight I shall be in Hell…” Churchill was off by a few years, but the statement reflects a rare instance when Churchill the inveterate liar actually seemed to be speaking the truth.   If Dante were to write an update to his Inferno, the amended version would surely include Hitler and Churchill being forced to spend eternity with each other in one of the lower rungs of hell, next to Attila the Hun.

Volume 1 covers up to mid-1941, but gives a very brief account of Churchill’s early life. The focus of the text was the era between 1939 to 1941. Churchill was raised in the aristocracy with a silver spoon. Though performing somewhat mediocre in school, he excelled in the English language. He ended up as a reporter in the Boer War and was briefly captured by the enemy before escaping. Churchill’s interest in politics and war grew. During the Great War (WW1), Churchill is best known for the Gallipoli affair, a massive military blunder in Turkey leading to a great loss of British lives and materiel. This did not affect Churchill the least, and his efforts in politics remained steadfast. Churchill did have the penchant for switching sides, flip-flopping between the conservatives and liberals, siding for whatever would serve his best advantage. Though a highly effective and persuasive orator, he fell out of favor among peers in the political realm. Many lean years followed (during the 1920s and 1930s) where Churchill desperately tried to re-establish himself in politics. He lived a life of most elaborate existence at Chartwell, with multiple servants and great expenditure. His main income was through book publishing, which did not provide cash flow commensurate with his profligate lifestyle. He married an American wife and had three children, the oldest, Randolf, ended up costing Churchill dearly in the financial realm as a compulsive gambler, and he never supporting the “Churchill” political cause with consistency. Wealthy benefactors needed to occasionally bail Churchill out of crisis economic events. Churchill was a massive cigar smoker, exceeded only by his drinking habit, and all his most intimate friends knew him to be an incorrigible alcoholic who could not survive without the bottle, with brief moments of sobriety finding Churchill at his worst. Churchill rarely held the pen; almost all of his writing was while he was lying in bed with his housecoat, dictating to his secretary. This is true even of his massive multi-volume History of the English Speaking Peoples as well as the other multi-volume sets that he “wrote”.

Chamberlain was Churchill’s enemy in the British system, and as prime minister, Chamberlain behaved with the desire to keep England out of unnecessary wars. Much to the chagrin of Churchill, any effort for a benevolent solution to the “Hitler problem” was a symbol of appeasement and not strength. The empire must be preserved at all costs, and any competition for world domination was considered an affront to the British empire. Hitler had no grievance with Great Britain and no desire to be militarily involved against the Brits. Throughout the book, multiple attempts by Germany to cease and desist fighting each other and have Churchill stay out of Hitler’s affairs were clear. Churchill had no problems with other nations (Russia and Japan) engaging in power-plays; it was clear through Churchill’s writings and actions that he harbored a personal vendetta against Germany, and come hell or high water, at an enormous loss of British lives, and destroying the British Empire and bankrupting the British Empire, Churchill was going to persist. Almost sounds like Hitler, doesn’t it? Churchill made desperate attempts to return as a member of parliament to no avail as he had too many enemies, and England wasn’t interested in another war. Even with German (and Russian) invasion into Poland and declaration of war, Chamberlain remained prime minister. Without dealing a blow-by-blow account of this history, eventually, Churchill was able to oust Chamberlain and establish himself as PM. Churchill realized that Great Britain was not ready for another war, and needed to stimulate public interest into fighting the “Hun”. This demanded one of Churchill’s greatest skills, the ability to be a pathological liar. Lying to the public about the threat of Germany (even when he knew there was none), lying to Parliament, and lying to his hopeful allies like the USA, Churchill hoped to drum up the war cause. I didn’t realize this, but one of Churchill’s three greatest speeches, often quoted, “their finest hour”, occurred long before England had ever been attacked.

Note that Christian civilization as well as the British Empire has been lost. Churchill’s victory assured a new dark age, prolonged by perverted science (just think Wuhan virus as an example). He especially mentioned the US, which Churchill was desperately trying to persuade to enter the war. Rather than a thousand years, the Commonwealth lasted just a few years longer than the 3rd Reich.

Churchill made a colossal blunder at Dunkirk by overestimating the capabilities of the French army, and when begged and pleaded for help from France while the German attack was faltering, Churchill refused air support and refused the deployment of troops, instructing the troops instead to run. They did so at the mess that is called Dunkirk. Thus, the “finest hour” speech was everything but England’s finest hour.

Germany was receiving iron and steel from Scandanavia. The Germans intercepted radio signals that showed that Churchill was going to invade neutral Norway in order to stop iron supplies to Germany, and so Germany wisely preempted their strike. There were a few battles on the Norwegian coast; Churchill had several Norwegian towns bombed, but ultimately had to withdraw in shame from Norway. The propaganda arm of Churchill kicked into motion, blaming Germany for invading neutral Norway, something to which Churchill wished the Brits could have beat the Germans.

Repeatedly, Churchill’s poorly made decisions and rash pronouncements should have brought him down and removed as PM; yet, his slithering tongue held him in power. Germany began to bomb strategic military targets on the English mainland. Churchill desperately tried in vain to lure Hitler into bombing civilian centers. Churchill knew from decoded Enigma signals that Hitler had absolutely no intention of bombing civilian targets, though Churchill’s public speeches were at odds with what he knew to be true. Churchill had hoped that the bombing of civilian London would bring the USA into the war, so desperately hoped that he could ultimately lure Hitler into bombing the civilian centers. Ultimately, one misguided German bomber accidentally dropped some bombs on some civilian houses, killing nobody, but serving as a justification for British reprisal. Churchill immediately ordered a fleet of bombers to hit civilian Berlin. Repeated civilian bombings of Berlin ultimately persuaded Hitler to start bombing London. This WAS Churchill’s finest hour, the joy of seeing London bombed, hoping that it would bring the USA into the war. As an aside, an example might be used to illustrate Churchill’s character, as seen in the war up until now. Imagine being in the deep south many moons ago, when the Ku Klux Klan were active. A group of KKK members come upon a n***er (dark skinned man of African origin) who is minding his own business, and wishes no contention. The KKK members begin to irritate, poke and prod, and ultimately come near to threatening the life of the poor n***er. The black man, in defense, suddenly fights back in defense, which then gives the KKK the justification for inflicting mortal harm on an innocent soul. (These events happened frequently in the south!) Churchill was that KKK man, relentlessly irritating Hitler until Hitler had no choice but to respond in defense. To think of Churchill as representing the paragon of Christian virtue turns the devil into a saint. Blessed are the peacemakers…

British losses at sea, in Greece, at Crete, and in North Africa were devastating to their economy. A fool-hearted invasion of Vichy France in Syria and Iraq led to no military advantage or great victory. The United Kingdom was bankrupt, thanks to Churchill’s war. Hitler continued to offer Britain reasonable terms, and Churchill aggressively made sure that peace offers from Germany were not known to the public. The entirety of British gold was in US hands, and Churchill sought to bargain off British islands in the Caribbean to the USA, something that Roosevelt had enough sense not to bite at. Ultimately, the USA conceded to a land-lease arrangement to Britain, though this came short of Churchill’s intention of luring the USA into the war.

An interesting aside is noted. In mid-1941, Rudolf Hess, a leading Nazi, flew a plane into England with the offer to help negotiate a peace settlement, as he was opposed to Nazi foreign aggression. Hess was held in prison, and remained there the rest of his life, dying in 1987. Much of his life was in solitary confinement. Most of his writings, memos and messages have either not been released yet to the public, or else destroyed. Sounds like GB was trying to hide something there!

The book ends with the beginning of Operation Barbarossa by Hitler, leaving more of the story to be told in volume 2.

There are great lessons to learn from this book. Government rarely ever tells the truth, and when they are the most desperate, they are probably lying the most. This book documented Churchill’s lies and deceptions on nearly every page. A slick-tongued orator like Churchill (or Hitler) should be most greatly feared. The deep state has had a long existence and knows no country boundaries. It is said that the first casualty of war is truth; this book makes it clear that this statement is simply not true, as truth dies long before the fighting ever begins; lies serve as the stimulus for an otherwise pacifist public to offer up life and limb for the cause. We knew that this was true in the Great War, when British propaganda spoke of the mindless Hun raping women and slaughtering children, exactly what was NOT happening. Present events bear witness to the “Churchill phenomenon” in Ukraine, where most of the information that we are given is highly suspect, yet leads to countless billions of dollars flowing into a needless war against a hypothetical barbarian foe (Russia). Peter, Paul and Mary were completely correct when they sang “when will they ever learn?”.

This book had the quality of generating a profuse flow of questions and reflections on how we are experiencing deja vu all over again and again and again. Politics doesn’t change, save to exceed in the corruption of preceding generations. I am left in complete bewilderment as to why people on the right adore Churchill (see for example the Hillsdale College website, where they are offering a complete lecture series on this “great” man. The link is https://online.hillsdale.edu/landing/winston-churchill-and-statesmanship I have serious disagreement with every one of their six main points as to why one should study Churchill). The blindness of the hard political right explains why the UCSA (United Communist States of Amurika) is in our current mess. Peter, Paul and Mary…! On to volume 2…