Chip’s Diaries

Henry ‘Chips’ Channon: The Diaries, 1918–38
Edited by Simon Heffer.
London: Hutchinson, 2021

In his 2008 book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War[1] Pat Buchanan suggests that with a bit of prescience and a steadier hand at the tiller Britain could have avoided World War II. If the policies supported by American-born MP and diarist Henry ‘Chips’ Channon had been adopted, that devastating European war would have been averted and Soviet communism might have been destroyed half a century before its fall.

Channon was born in Chicago in 1897 to a wealthy American family. His grandfather had started a Great Lakes shipping company. The young Channon spent two years at the University of Chicago before going to France to help with the war effort as a volunteer with the American Red Cross. He fell in love with Europe and never spent much time in America thereafter.

After the war he enrolled at Christ Church, Oxford where he received a degree in French and the nickname ‘Chips.’ Being a gentleman of that era Channon had no need to work for a living. As editor Simon Heffer notes “until he became a Member of Parliament in 1935 Channon seems to have had no job that paid him a salary” (XI). Not only did he have a family fortune, in 1933 he married money—Honor Guinness, an heiress to the brewing company.

Although very wealthy, Channon was not idle. He published three books between 1929 and 1933, two novels and a history, and was one the leading diarists of the twentieth century. The book considered here, 950 pages with thousands of footnotes supplied by editor Simon Heffer, is the first of a three-volume set of Channon’s journals. It covers the years 1918–1938. The second volume will cover the war years, and the third the post-war period until Channon’s death in 1958. There are three main areas of interest within these diaries. In ascending order: Chips’ personal life, his political ideology and views on Jews, and his involvement in British foreign affairs, especially with regard to relations with Nationalist Socialist Germany.

One puzzling aspect of Channon’s character was his sexuality. Editor Heffer describes him as bisexual. This is troubling because the authentic Right considers sexual deviance to be a serious social problem. There is little in this edition to indicate that Chips was other than heterosexual. He had an eye for feminine beauty and expressed that he was physically attracted to women. “Honor’s appearance was really fantastic . . . like a tousled Garbo” (656). He was deeply in love with his wife, at least during the early years of their marriage. He adored his son and wanted more children, though Honor did not. It is alleged that later in life, after his marriage failed, that he had several homosexual relationships. That period is not covered in this volume.

His sexuality aside, Channon’s diaries convey a lifestyle of European high society that is as gone with the wind as that of the antebellum South. It was a nearly all White, Eurocentric world populated by princes and princesses, lords and ladies. Even in the French Third Republic and the German Weimar Republic aristocrats and former royalty still used titles as part of their legal name. Though these titles conveyed no official privileges, those who possessed them formed a distinct social class. Money from commerce, if it was several generations old, could—but would not necessarily—permit one to enter. One example is Chips’ wife, Lady Honor Guinness daughter of Rupert Guinness, 2nd Earl of Iveagh. Though divided by politics and personalities, this was a society united by a general agreement on cultural norms. It was also a society of endless formal luncheons, dinner parties, elite entertainment, and trips aboard. Incidentally, if one has the means, entertaining is a great way to win friends and influence people. These people were privileged. It is ludicrous for the Left to speak of today’s struggling middle-class White families as privileged.

Channon’s political and social views were probably typical of right-wing Tories between the wars. He did not harbor an animus towards Blacks or Jews He occasionally socialized with Jews and had some commercial relationships with them, but he had a strong ethnic/cultural identity that viewed them as other. The expression of this consciousness was enough to cause consternation for those involved with the publication of these diaries. “The Trustees, editor and publisher deliberated at length whether to include or exclude such passages from this edition. After careful consideration, and consultation with external authorities [who might they be?] it was decided to leave them in, while seeking through the footnotes, to contextualize them” (XIV).

Henry ‘Chips’ Channon

The dreaded N word does appear once. In 1927, during one of his infrequent trips to America, Channon witnessed firsthand the so-called Harlem Renaissance. He writes, “New York is black mad.” He attends the new Broadway play “Porgy,” later turned into the musical “Porgy and Bess.” Chips notes, “a wonderful cast, all negroes.” In a footnote editor Heffer writes that the play portrayed the “culture of black Americans with what for the time was unusual sympathy and respect” (289). The play was based on a book by the same name written by a White southerner Edwin DuBose Heyward. Channon also mentions a book, Nigger Heaven that was published about this time. Also written by a White man, Carl Van Vechten, it did much to publicize the new urban Black culture of the 1920s. Certainly none of this suggests a deep antipathy towards Blacks.

There are examples of Channon’s mild “anti-Semitism” sprinkled throughout his diaries.  For instance, in January 1935 he remarks that Hannah Gubbay, ‘old black Hannah,’ had “hitched her wagon to cousin Philip Sassoon’s star—they are inseparable and always up to God knows what plots and plans and social schemes. A mysterious dark brace of Semites” (378). Three years later: “Poor Professor Loewenthal called here this afternoon to give us the crystal medallions of [his wife and son] Honor and Paul. He is dreary, gloomy, but the greatest artist since Benvenuto Cellini. He looks like one of the Pharaohs and carves in metals and precious stones. He is a refugee Jew” (900). As we will see below, Channon’s disapproval of Jews was principally political, but also cultural and aesthetic.

So what were Channon’s politics?  Today he might be considered a paleoconservative, but reactionary may be a better description. He was a vehement anti-communist at a time when Soviet-styled communism posed a real threat to Europe. He admired German culture, but was definitely not a Nazi. National Socialism was a revolutionary ideology and Channon supported the monarchy and aristocracy. This is why Chips was a firm Tory, not swayed in the least by Oswald Mosley’s fascism. Channon knew Mosley personally. He was a guest at a Channon dinner party in January 1935. The host writes, “Tom [Oswald Mosley] was charming and gentle and affectionate as he always is, except on the platform where he becomes the demagogue” (379).  Mosley’s ideology was too populist for Channon’s taste. Editor Heffer believes Channon simply “discounted as ineffectual” Mosley’s Blackshirts (543).

Channon was a strong believer in national sovereignty. Thus he had a poor opinion of the League of Nations, “a cursed body of busybodies” (486). He attended a League session in Geneva in September 1938. He saw the assembly as “an anti-German organization. The bars and lobbies of the League building are full of Russians and Jews who intrigue and dominate the press” (920). One of the Jews that Chips was referring to was Comrade Litvinov. “Meir Henoch Wallach-Finkelstein, who later took the nom de guerre Maxim Maximovich Litvinov (1876–1951), was the Soviet Union’s People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs from 1930 to 1939. . . From 1941 to 1943 he was Soviet Ambassador to the United States” (780n).

Channon considered Litvinov a loathsome creature, but later that month he dines “at Maurice de Rothschild’s, a dinner of seventeen—a rich congestionné house. . . . He lives with a young Jewess who is either his daughter, or adopted child, or mistress or all three!! [She was his mistress] . . . Everyone a touch tipsy with Rothschild wine . . . Even Maurice, our fat, sensual, slobbery, lecherous host is relieved that war is off! Or at least postponed” (924).

It is obvious that the common Jewish phenotype does not appeal to Channon’s aesthetic. While visiting his friend and former classmate at Oxford Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, he dines with the King of Bulgaria. “He looks a Jew, but is really trés Coburg, trés Orleans with the unpleasant traits of both houses” (931).  So in appearances, manners and politics, Channon and his crowd find Jews objectionable, but they offered little resistance to their growing wealth and power.

During the mid to late 1930s, British elites and the public generally were divided in their attitudes toward the Third Reich. The pro-German group that Channon supported became known as appeasers. Appeasement was an unfortunate label. It implies weakness and acquiesce. Rapprochement, realignment, readjustment, or reconciliation would have been better terms. As today, the Left possesses greater language skills and have been able to weaponize words, while the Right often has little feeling for language. In any case by the mid-30s many on the Right saw a powerful, prosperous Germany in central Europe as an asset. Channon believed that an alliance with Germany would be the best policy for Britain and for Europe. In September 1935 he wrote: “My secret [poorly kept secret] sympathies are ever with autocracies, and I’d rather have the Nazi-ism and Fascism on my side than Russian Soviets or tense, nervy croaking French Frogs. We seem not to know where our interests lie” (470). It is a bit ironic that Channon, who spent 1917–18 in France aiding the Allied war effort and who majored in French at college, had become anti-French by the mid-30s.

The era of good feeling between Britain and the Third Reich perhaps peaked during the Berlin Olympic Games in August 1936. The Channons and a number of other MPs and their wives were guests of the German government. Chips was not much of a sports fan, but he loved the lavish parties and the mass spectacles the regime provided. On August 6, their first day at the games, the crowds at the stadium were enthusiastic—ecstatic when Hitler arrived. Although the Fuhrer was physically unimposing, “One felt one was in the presence of some semi-divine creature” (557).

That evening the Channons attended a state banquet at the Berlin Opera House. The official hostess “Frau Göring, a tall, nearly naked, handsome woman was the principal figure and moved about amongst an obsequious crowd of royalties and ambassadors” (558). Two days later, Chips and Honor were the guests of Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German ambassador to Great Britain, later foreign minister. Attendees at the large luncheon included Lady Chamberlain, wife of the future prime minister.

On August 10, Channon’s trip included a visit to a “labour camp.”  As far as I can tell, this is the only instance where editor Simon Heffer’s scholarship fails him. Heffer, a well-known British journalist and historian, is considered a conventional conservative by UK standards. His thousands of footnotes are indispensable in identifying the people and events referred in the diaries. In a footnote Heffer suggests that Channon visited a Nazi prison camp that had been fixed up, a sort of Potemkin village, for the benefit of foreign visitors. It is obvious from Chips’ description that what he visited was a Reich Labor Service camp. Such a camp was comparable to a Civilian Conservation Corps camp established during the same period in America.

Channon writes that “the camp looked tidy, even gay, and the boys, all about 18, looked like the ordinary German peasant boy, fair, healthy, and sunburned. They are taught the preliminary military drills, gardening, etc., and health and strength are built up. They were all smiling and clean. . . . For 6 months they lived there, and all classes are mixed, which is an excellent system, its purpose is to wipe out class feeling, which has become practically non-existent in Germany” (563). Heffer claims that “The impression Channon had from his visit was entirely manipulated and bogus” (footnote, 562). Incredibly, none of the mainstream reviews picked up on Heffer’s editorial mistake.

Channon is in love with the new Germany. The next day, after another excursion to the countryside, he writes: “In Germany joys are simple, sun and water bathing, Wurst and beer, all pleasant, all attainable for little. What a country. It stirs me so sharply” (563). He has a “preference for the Teutonic races. . . . There is a common blood affinity between us and the Germans and Austrians. I like their lusty warm-blooded love of country, children, dogs, power—and a thousand other reasons” (563). In the following days the Channons attend formal dinners at the Ribbentrops, the Görings (with 700-800 guests), and Dr. and Magda Goebbels’ Sommerfest. The closing ceremonies were on August 16. “The crowds were enormous, and really amazingly well controlled . . . there were processions, the orchestra played, Hitler rose, the great torch faded out, the crowd 140,000-strong sang ‘Deutschland über Alles’, with arms uplifted. There was a shout, a speech or two, night fell and the Olympic Games, the great German display of power and bid for recognition, was over. Mankind has never staged anything so terrific, or so impressive “(569).  Exhausted from all parties and ceremonies the Channons left Berlin on August 18th and headed for the Austrian Alps for a quiet vacation.

While Chips was wowed by National Socialist Germany what he really wanted was a Hohenzollern restoration! The ideal scenario for him was for Hitler to be given a green light to move east and smash Bolshevism. Then, after the Fuhrer’s death or retirement, Channon’s friend Fritzi, Friedrich of Prussia, Grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, would become ruler of an enlarged German empire.

It is not possible to tell from the diaries how strong and widespread pro-German sentiments were at the time. Obviously Winston Churchill and some other MPs were opposed to a resurgent of Germany. From 1936 onward Channon notes Churchill’s increasing animosity towards the Third Reich. Was he working for Jewish interests as some have charged? Or did he simply not want a strong state in central Europe to rival British influence on the continent? In May 1936, after attending a play the Channons, Churchill, and some French and German guests had “sandwiches and drinks. The French Ambassador, Durckheim [a German diplomat] and Winston Churchill had a conversation which was really rather unpleasant, as Winston attacked Germany” (516). In July of 1937 Channon writes that Churchill’s “fear and dislike of [Germans] amount to an obsession, and threaten to seriously to undermine his judgement” (728). It is not an exaggeration to say that by 1938 Churchill wanted war.

A few additional words on Churchill: Already in early 1936 Channon identifies him as a prime mover in the anti-German group. Pat Buchanan, in the work cited above, also sees Churchill as the one most strongly pushing for confrontation with Germany. Churchill, of course, was not a man on the Left. He was a Tory, a conservative, an aristocrat, and an imperialist. Despite his skillful rhetoric he, at times, exercised monumentally poor judgement as the graves at Gallipoli attest. Channon wrote in 1938: “Is my world collapsing? Winston as PM would be worse than war. The two together would mean the destruction of civilization” (933). To paraphrase Buchanan, Churchill’s Pyrrhic victory over Germany in 1945 lost Britain its empire and lost the West the world. It is poetic justice that in 2020, a woke mob that he helped make possible, vandalized his statue in Parliament Square.

In March 1938 Channon “had a sparring match with [fellow MP] Harold Nicolson who was in a rage. Like all old women, he is having a change of life. His hatred of Germany is fanatical” (832). Several months later Channon reports that “Simon Harcourt-Smith [a career diplomat] tells me the Foreign Office is red, is trying to sabotage Halifax” who is trying to accommodate Germany. More about Lord Halifax below. At one point, Channon sees more grassroots support for Germany than elite support. “The Foreign Office, the ‘intelligentsia’, London society, Bloomsbury and a very large section of the [House of Commons] are pro-French, but the country as a whole is pro-German” (543).

The diaries record many pro-German contacts Channon had during the 1935–1938 period. To start at the top, Channon was friends with King Edward VIII who had a very positive attitude toward the new Germany. Unfortunately, he also had a very short reign, and abdicated in December 1936 in order to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice divorced American woman—another instance of a royal insisting on marrying an unsuitable mate. Earlier that year Chips had lunch with Joachim von Ribbentrop and his wife at a “pan-German festival” (519). He notes that Frau von Ribbentrop wore no makeup in the new German style. A few weeks later: “The Londonderrys [Charles Stewart, 7th Marquis of Londonderry] are very pro-German; and, indeed who isn’t?—except the Coopers [Alfred Duff Cooper, 1935 Secretary of State for War, 1937 First Lord of the Admiralty]” (519).  Another of Chips’ friends, Arthur Charles Wellesley, 5th Duke of Wellington, “was a committed pro German, and a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship” (528n).

In November 1937 Edward Wood, Lord Halifax, attended the International Hunting Exhibition in Berlin hosted by Hermann Göring. Incidentally, the racial ecologist and sportsman Madison Grant was also invited and planned to attend this event, but sadly fell ill and died shortly before the opening.  Although born with only one hand, Halifax, with the help of a prosthetic, became a skilled equestrian and marksman. He went to Germany as unofficial deputy foreign secretary (he became Foreign Secretary the following year). After the exhibition, he met with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. There he told the Führer that Prime Minister Chamberlain would not be opposed to Anschluss with Austria or to the transfer of Sudetenland and Danzig to Germany as long as it was accomplished peacefully. A couple weeks after his return Halifax told Chips that “he liked all the Nazis, even Goebbels! whom nobody likes. He was much impressed, interested, and amused by the visit” (786).

The diary identifies a number of other pro-German personalities of the time. Neville Meyrick Henderson, who was British ambassador to Germany (1937–1939) was supportive of the new Germany. Channon writes: “He is pro-German, anti-French, anti-Jew, pro-Italian, and, indeed thinks along the lines I do” (746). There was also some support from the British press such as George Ward Price, foreign correspondent for the Daily Mail, and Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times. From the pulpit there was Dean William Ralph Inge of St. Paul’s Cathedral and former professor of divinity at Cambridge. “He was a strong advocate of eugenics and nudism and rejected democracy, fearing it would bring mob rule” (877n).They don’t make clergy like that anymore!

So what happened? Why did Britain declare war on Germany in September 1939? This journal ends on September 30, 1938 with the signing of the Munich Accords. The next volume is due out later this year. A very rough sketch of the path to war sees Germany occupying Prague in March 1939. In response, Britain pledges to guarantee Poland’s sovereignty. Britain knew they did not have the means to protect Poland, but they hoped to deter German expansion. If not, the treaty would be a tripwire for war. Hitler wagered that his invasion of Poland would not trigger a wider war which he did not want.  Both sides gambled, both sides lost.

Channon, as mentioned earlier, wanted Britain to ally with Germany, giving the latter a free hand in the east. But he was a backbencher with little official authority. He did, however, have connections. The Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, was his wife’s uncle. Chips was also parliamentary assistant to Rab Butler, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Butler opposed war in September 1939 and was willing to sacrifice Polish independence to avoid a wider conflict. On the other side, Hitler’s mistake was to force the pace of events, to press forward too far too fast, and to risk everything on one roll of the dice. Commentators as diverse as Sir Arthur Keith and Henry Kissinger believe that if the Fuhrer had had a little more patience and played the long game he would have achieved his goals.

Although many academic historians would disagree, most laymen believe that the study of history should have some utility. So what is useful in reading Channon’s diaries? Besides moaning about what the leaders of the time should have done to avoid a disastrous internecine struggle, we can see from these journals that the values espoused by National Socialist Germany resonated with a significant segment of British society. Today the establishment considers these values be to so reprehensible as to be indications of extreme moral depravity.

As for a recommendation: These diaries are most suitable for serious students of interwar Britain. Much of the partisan politics of the era are of limited interest today. There is quite a bit of material on Edward’s abdication for royal watchers. A good deal of the text is taken up with Channon’s personal and social life. At times his relationship with Honor has a soap opera quality. As for Henry Channon the man, I found it hard not to have a certain affinity and admiration for him. Sure, he was a snob, a social climber, a name dropper, but he was no dilettante. He knew history and was a perceptive observer of people and events.

[1] Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (New York: Crown Books, 2008).

26 replies
  1. JimB
    JimB says:

    Fascinating read! I do believe that I much prefer reading intelligently-written (and honest) summations than poring through sets of diaries myself. Guess I’m not gifted enough to understand the subtleties and arrive at a clear picture of the person (or times) under the microscope. Mr. Rosit obviously is such a person. Excellent article. Would love to read more about Channon and the developments that followed.

  2. TJ
    TJ says:

    I’ll put this in here- it seems all of the Amazon drivers recently- [SoCal] are White males. Today the driver said G-day with what sounded like an Aussie accent.

  3. Tim
    Tim says:

    I have read Pat Buchanan’s book twice as I found it simply fascinating, but what he failed to mention as did this writer the all to probable and to my understanding overwhelming Jewish influence on all of this. One needs to remember that long before the start of war newspapers had headlines such as “Jewry Declares War on Germany”. I fear the whole war was but the Jewish “Powers That Be” exercising their might.
    It should also be noted that reportedly Hitler after many attempts at peace felt he had no choice but to go into Poland as German citizens there were being slaughtered and it is not hard to surmise why and by who this took place.

    • Peter
      Peter says:

      I read the book too. A great book laying out simple facts that have been deliberately ignored to paint the Germans negatively and cover up facts for the British. I was disappointed however that Pat failed to cite David Irving once in his book. It is extremely unlikely that Pat has not read at least one of Irving’s books and I doubt if any WW II historian could not have read at least one book of the man described as the foremost expert on the Third Reich and the only historian to meet with surviving leaders or their wives and gain their trust so that many eventually turned over invaluable papers to him for his research. It is hard to believe David Irving’s books did not help Pat with his book. Most likely Irving’s name was kept out of the book to avoid howling by Jews that hate the truth and David Irving. I wonder if the book might have gotten even more attention if Irving’s name was not kept out of the book.

      • Flo
        Flo says:

        Of course it would have rec’d more attention if Irving had been cited — negative attention! Remember the fuss that was made when an Irving book was spotted on the bookcase behind a Mideast leader? Ditto for several other public figures. But yes, I have no doubt Buchanan has read Irving’s outstanding books, as has any serious student of WWII.

  4. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    Excellent article! I knew that many English noblemen viewed with sympathy the new Germany and admired Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, the Jews already had a huge stake in the Press and, more importantly, had most of the politicians in their pockets, that is why a POS like Churchill ended up as PM and Great Britain declared war on Germany.

    Besides the “Anglo-German Fellowship,” there was also the so-called “Right Club”, a group of radical Englishmen who were rabidly anti-Jewish and pro-German. Although the article from Wikipedia is terribly biased (what a surprise!) it provides some interesting information:

      HUGO FUERST says:

      @ Angelicus
      The word “rabidly” normally precedes “anticommunist” – the routine adjunct “virulently” usually preceds “antisemitic”.
      Channon’s description of the courteous and affable Oswald Mosley offstage is more accurate than the latter’s grandson Ivo while pandering a few weeks ago to Jews celebrating the illegal violence they initiated against Mosley’s meetings and members after the war. Ironically Ivo Mosley has published a useful attack (qv online) on global debt-finance, while ignoring the ethnic aspect, and mistaking the national corporate-state of fascism as a tool rather than a barrier to multinational corporations. There has been a recent curious explosion of miscellaneous lying attacks on Mosley (who died in 1980) in the press, on television and in print fiction. He had denounced incitement to war against Germany, but it was left to Irving to unearth and publish specific evidence of the role of Jewish organisations; during the Russo-German Pact the CPSU also briefly listed those demanding US intervention in Europe.
      Mosley’s plans for the British Empire 1932-1940 and for a Greater Europe 1947-1980 would have had better results all round than the mess created solely by his opponents; see e.g. London “Sunday Telegraph” interview (January 2, 2022) with Gentile “hedge fund titan” Ray Dalio, author of a recent 500+ page study of the fall of empires and the new world order forthcoming after the euphoria of “all the money and credit that has been created” with a meantime possible American civil war:
      “The period around the Second World War is the last time the investor observes similar conditions that established…US hegemony: large debts with low interest rates and money-printing…and the rise of a new world power – this time in China”.

      • Angelicus
        Angelicus says:

        Hugo: Thank you very much for this interesting information. I always welcome data although is almost impossible (at last for me) to keep up with the huge amount of interesting information in books and articles.

        I knew about Ivo’s shameful behaviour with regards to the figure of his grandfather; but, what can you expect from most people nowadays? They have been either totally brainwashed or they are cowards that have chosen to collaborate with the enemy.

        I will look for that interview with Ray Dalio, it sounds interesting. Thanks again. Regards

  5. Al Ross
    Al Ross says:

    A snapshot of UK decadence by an American observer who could not know that American decadence would arrive so much more quickly , in civilizational terms.

    Were Channon to have kept a similar diary in , say , Astor and Vanderbilt’s New York City might we expect comments at variance with the general decadent tenor of the book ?

    I have only read Vol !.

  6. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    I believe men of that generation from patrician families (very likely to have gone to private prep, unisex schools) produced a relatively large percentage of homo/bisexuals. They were not at all overt, very well mannered and rather engaging. When traveling with my parents in high school, we visited several wineries in California and a macadamia nut farm in Hawaii. The owners who gave us the tour where refined, but unlike, say, European old money, showed deference and and patience. It may be assumed that these gentlemen had done their “finishing” in Europe, very likely during the “Lost Generation” period of many glitterati coalescing in Gay Paree. I’m talking about F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Zelda, Picasso, etc. As a literate person who has read of this era, homosexuality was open and even chic.

    They cared about form and the sybarite, cultured life and the arts. The Cole Porter generation.

    • Angelicus
      Angelicus says:

      I am not sure what is the point of your comment or even if you had a point. In all societies where there is not a military or warrior ethos and where debauchery is celebrated, you will always see a great many homosexuals/lesbians and all kind of perverts as leading figures of “high society”.

      This was particularly evident in the USA and Europe after WW1. Although this had been going on for quite a long time, particularly in England with the perverse and anti-natural system of education of their famous “public schools” where homosexuality flourished and wasn’t checked, it was worse after WW1 when the hypocritical Victorian prudishness disappeared and many people felt free to show off their worst behaviour.

      You seem to believe that these degenerates that, according to you, “cared about form and the sybarite, cultured life and arts” are people to be admired. First of all, if they had an appreciation for art or literature (good or bad) IT WAS NOT because they were homosexuals, like they want the world to believe. I have heard too many times that ridiculous nonsense that “homosexuals are very refined and sensitive that is why so many of them are artists”.

      Second: There was a clear and definitive purpose to promote and glorify all kinds of aberrant behaviour, especially with regards to sex. This was particularly evident in Berlin during the 1920s. Here is a short but excellent article about that monster called Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, the greatest promoter of degeneracy Europe have ever seen:

      • JM
        JM says:

        Promoted or not, in a class society, when middle class behavior becomes dissolute on a large scale, the ‘lower orders’ have ‘nothing to look up to’ and social disconnect/anarchy ensues. After the (ironically) social unifying effect of the Second World War, this happened on a large scale from the 1960’s to the present.

        It leads, among other things, to false ultra-democratic conceptions of society and thus a leadership void, making it far easier for those behind the curtains to manipulate.

    • Al Ross
      Al Ross says:

      Well, a patrician Englishman may have been slightly irate at not being able to be served a proper sandwich in the Sandwich Islands.

      The homosexual aspect was recognized in England and punished , Wilde style. Not only in England, because the ancient Greeks may have tolerated such behaviour but they never legalised it.

  7. donna sherwood
    donna sherwood says:

    one’s mouth hangs open in disbelief. it was one thing for the english of the time to speculate about the possibility of rapproachment, appeasement toward hitler quite another to rehash this in ’08 from a source such as buchanan. One can make strong case that a different strategy would have been preferable as the fairly recently unsealed plans of hoover lay out, but one way or another he had to be stopped. Are we really to imagine hitler smashing his way through eastern europe murdering massive numbers of slavs, jews, gypsies and other so called “undesirables” would be allowed to stand unopposed in the long run ? Better plan would have allowed this with encouragement and some support to nations to resist until he could be bogged down in the steppes of russia with an allied army at his back have been afforded time to rearm and prepare including the americans. Advantage at end was his military exhausted and trapped by an advancing crushing counter force with no hope of support from citizens in invaded nations. Also this would have rid the world of stalin and prevented the devastation of decades long communist take over in the east The filthy FDR had other ambitions and was like his disgusting ancestor kermit at least a socialist and communist sympathizer. His aims were the destruction of monarchy and end of colonialism and he was complicit if not the entire cause of the enslavement of the east and eventually China, Patton even in the circumstances of how the war did play out would have pushed Stalin back past the Volga and if my father was to be believed the troops on the ground would have followed him into an inferno. Hitler had to be dealt with but there were likely much better strategies to skin that “cat”. Churchill beside himself but felt powerless. don’t bother responding saying he agreed he did not. My first husband’s brother was married to Sarah Churchill and I am aware of much of real beliefs and opinions.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      “Are we really to imagine hitler smashing his way through eastern europe murdering massive numbers of slavs, jews, gypsies and other so called “undesirables” would be allowed to stand unopposed in the long run ?”

      I don’t understand this at all. Hitler didn’t go on a mass murder spree in the east, that’s just retarded allied propaganda. What happend was the SS was forced to engage in anti-partsan activity behind the front lines. This stuff wasn’t pretty, it never is. But the idea they were just murdering innocent people because they were fundamentally evil is beyond ridiculous, it is dumb.
      As for the millions of Russian POW’s taken, you’ve got to wonder what on God’s green earth so many Russian soldiers were doing on the new Grrman frontier? I explained to a friend this was obviously because the USSR was on the brink of an all out attack on the Third Reich, what other possible reason could there be? But he stated no, they were there to *defend* Russia.
      This is absurd, as everyone knows Russia NEVER attempts to defend their far outlying borders, they defend in depth, keeping their main forces in reserve until the attackers are tired and stretched out. This is how Russia always defends itself.
      And anyway, if for some reason the Soviet general staff had decided to abandon a defensive policy that had never failed them, why weren’t these defensive soldiers dug in? Why was the Wermacht able to scoop them all up so easily?
      This is all stated in the Icebreaker book.
      And why did Hitler just have to be stopped? What great crime had the Nazis committed? The bolsheviks stole power in a violent putch, the Nazis were voted in democratically. They also put their actions, Anschluss etc, to a plebiscites.
      The Nazis operated in the law, the best example I know of this is the little Jew who murdered the German consular staff member in Paris, which kicked off Kristal Nacht, was then tied up in the German legal system for years with the help of a clever Jewish lawyer. Does this sound like a totalitarian, jew-hating, jew-killing system?
      In Jewish run Moscow, he’d just have been tortured and killed.

    • Peter
      Peter says:

      Well, the Ukrainians, Byelorussians and many Russians disagree with you, not to mention Latvians and Estonians. Many welcomed German troops as saviors from their own murderous government and legions were formed of young men that fought alongside the Germans. The Ukrainians, Estonians and Latvians had legions. This is a review of a new book from the Norwegian academic Johannes Due Enstad. Eastern European authors are writing similar books. Many Russians hoped that Hitler would free them from Stalin. By contrast, Germans welcomed no enemy soldier and fought to the end so there is something very wrong with the narrative how awful it was to live in Germany.

      “After World War II the Soviet Union created a grandiose history of how all the inhabitants of the Soviet Union were loyal to the regime and formed a common front against the Germans in the “Great Patriotic War”.

      “It has been common knowledge for a long time that this is an untrue story, because many Baltic and Ukrainian people despised the Bolshevik regime. At the same time, western historians have largely agreed that the ethnic Russians were loyal to the Stalin regime when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.”

      “According to Enstad, who is a post-doc at the Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages at the University of Oslo, it is time to crack this myth apart. In a book recently published by the academic publishers Cambridge University Press, he addresses which side the people of Northwest Russia chose during the German occupation.”

      “This area can, in both historical and geographical terms, be seen as a Russian core area and has been part of the Soviet state since the revolution. Nevertheless people – especially the peasants in the countryside, who accounted for 90% of the population – were much less loyal to the regime and the Soviet state than has been thought,” explains Enstad.

      “Something that happened in December 1941, six months after the start of the German occupation, illustrates the positive reaction quite well. During that time people from some of the small villages collected several thousand woollen socks, mittens and felt boots as Christmas gifts for the German soldiers.”​

      Inside one of the socks there was a note signed by a Russian by the name of Mikhail Nikiforov:
      “I am sending these socks as a gift to the invincible German army and pray that you defeat the Bolsheviks so that they are eradicated forever, and also for a quick victory and a safe journey home”.

      “This is just one of a number of similar sources expressing a hope that the Germans would defeat the Soviet regime and contribute to a better life for the Russians,”

      • donna sherwood
        donna sherwood says:

        you are addressing one of the few who has believed the bolshevik’s were infinitely worse than hitler. There is no question that life for the ethnic germans and approved racial, religious and ethnic groups was quite pleasant during his tenure. I am also in agreement that in regions oppressed by the soviets there was widespread and active support for german invasion but as your quote from enstad there was a “hope” they would be liberated and have a better life as russians. However in view of hilter’s stated racialist views I tend to believe this was hollow and most would have turned against the germans. I am also aware that many in these regions were supportive of the actions of the einsatzgruppen in the east seizing property of murdered jews. It is also known that survivors returning to these areas were often mistreated if not outright murdered by their former neighbors. However with the exception of austria the invading german armies were not viewed as anything other than marauding invaders in free countries. Holland, Denmark france, greece, poland czechslovakia, croatia and others were subjugated without consent resentment and resistance high. I knew a Croat who was fighting the SS, Utashi and the serbs at same time.
        When he was finally able to return for visits to Korcula after the fall of iron curtain his son in law said there was a flotilla of ships in the adriatic; went into some hidden closet and took out his uniform covered with decorations and stood for 10 hours until he had seen all those who came to honor him. I also grew up in an enclave of greeks Germans were not welcomed nor wanted there. My position remains same hitler should have been allowed to bog himself down in the russia stepps and a better prepared ally invading force should have fought their way through continent sealing him in the russian winter as Napoleon was by General Kutuzov. At worst it would have contained stalin in russia; at best ended the bolshevik control. Instead our communist president FDR, whose ancestor Kermit was said to have penned the first communist manifesto now in british library 8 years earlier than marx, absent any moral or legal authority handed the eastern block countries to Stalin. My father (whose activities after battle of bulge liberated some concentration camps) was opposed to american entry into this war but would have walked into the jaws of hell if Gen. Patton commanded it and told me most in the ranks felt same. In other stark terms FDR delivered hundreds of millions into abject slavery due to policy failures and the genuine sympathies of an odious man. Churchill was furious about this but felt he could not openly oppose FDR. He went immediately to MS and gave his seminal Iron curtain speech quite a slap in the face to truman. Stalin had no options left and with the 7th army turning against him and cessation of american aid he would have been beaten back to the volga. Aptly commented on by Fouche at the execution of the Duc de Enghien “it is worse than a crime it is a mistake” Apocryphal perhaps but to the point. Droll and witty about one of the greatest catastrophes of human history resonates well. Although not born until well after WWII the events of the first half of the 20th century have defined my life. I come from the rockaway peninsula and although all the men were away the women and old people lived in absolute fear of waking in night and finding the wehrmacht over their beds. My first husband 1916-76 was the first successful designer of the rocket engine at lutterworth with whittle and also engaged in ongoing discussions with LeCorbusier about rebuilding destroyed cities of europe after the war. He was livid at the actions of the americans in the east as was his brother who married sarah churchill.

        • Peter
          Peter says:

          What about the countries Great Britain, the USSR and the United States invaded, Iceland and Iran? How did they feel? How did Finland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia feel when your ally the USSR sent troops into those countries? Germany would not have invaded Holland, Denmark or France if France and Great Britain had not declared war on Germany. Holland favored Great Britain and let British bombers fly over their airspace to drop bombs on Germany without raising any objections. Do you think Great Britain or France hesitated to invade countries. Great Britain was going to invade Norway and that is why Hitler invaded first.

          Germany wished Mussolini would not have invaded Greece and then he would not have had to send German troops there when the British also invaded and Germany had to bail the Italians out. Poland was a very aggressive country, invading others and proposed to France that they jointly invade Germany several times in the 1930’s. They could have avoided a war with Germany but they had in their heads that they were a world power and were encouraged by the British to behave in a way that German-Polish negotiations would fail.

          Czechoslovakia was not so anti-German until the end of the war when it was encouraged and beneficial to be so. In 1942 200,000 Czechs assembled in Prague and pledged loyalty to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

          “I am also aware that many in these regions were supportive of the actions of the einsatzgruppen in the east seizing property of murdered jews.” Really? What kind of property did they seize and where did the soldiers keep it while they continued to fight the Russians? A warehouse maybe? Were those Jews partisans? According to Russian President Putin 80 to 85% of the first Soviet government were Jews and held a commanding position in the USSR until after WW II. This is the same government that outlawed Christianity and “anti-Semitism” (however that was defined at the moment) and oversaw many millions killed, including 8 million Ukrainians. Jews held high positions in the Soviet secret police and gulags. Do you think that might be the reason their fellow citizens were against Jews?

          Prominent Jews public statements made Germany aware that they were Germany’s most dangerous and formidable enemy. They held massive rallies in different countries almost immediately after Hitler was made chancellor encouraging hatred of Germany and an attack on the country. Chaim Weizmann, one of their major leaders publicly stated that every Jew in the world was Germany’s enemy and would fight Germany and Germany felt that way too, no less so when Weizmann publicly stated it. Jewish tactics as partisans and booby trapping buildings before they would flee a city earned themselves more enmity for the many German lives they took.

          Jewish assassins also ensured all Jews would be suspected enemies. The New York Times proudly reported that “In 1943, Niuta Teitelbaum strolled into a Gestapo apartment in Warsaw and faced three Nazis. A 24-year-old Jewish woman who had studied history at Warsaw University, Niuta was likely now dressed in her characteristic guise as a Polish farm girl with a kerchief tied around her braided blond hair. …. She smiled meekly and then pulled out a gun and shot each one. Two were killed, one wounded. —- Niuta, however, wasn’t satisfied. She found a physician’s coat, entered the hospital where the injured man was being treated, and killed both the Nazi and the police officer who had been guarding him.

          Analysis: A mass-murdering young Jewess disguised as a Polish farm girl, then as doctor. This is the type of evil —- that Bolsheviks had been doing to Germans trapped in Poland long before the war had even started.”

          ““Little Wanda With the Braids,” as she was nicknamed on every Gestapo most-wanted list, was one of many young Jewish women who, with supreme cunning and daring, fought the Nazis in Poland.

          Analysis: Ya hear that? “Many young Jewish women murdered Germans “with supreme cunning” — Geneva Convention rules of humane engagement be damned. Oh, by the way, these partisan gangs were the very same “Polish” characters who had volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War of just a few years prior — in which they carried out horrific massacres of priests, nuns and other assorted supporters of General Franco.”

          Behind the scenes wealthy Jews began paying Winston Churchill huge sums of money in 1936 in return for him becoming an outspoken enemy of Germany and eventually Britain’s wartime leader. They bailed him out when he was on the verge of bankruptcy. He began attacking Germany in the media. I wonder if Germany’s secret service picked up on this too? That would not have made Germany less suspicious of Jews.

          Yes, I met a Greek that hated Germans. I conversed with another that did like Germans but not Jews. Partisan activity in any country will ensure reprisals, bad feelings and slanted media reporting omitting the fact that Germans were taking revenge for their murdered comrades.

  8. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Thank you Nelson. A very interesting behind-the-scenes look at a very pivotal point in modern history.

    I have always loved Richard Tedor’s, “Hitler’s Revolution.” Tedor makes the case that the German’s would have easily won Normandy but that it was the German aristocracy that sabotaged it. A great read that starts off with all of the empowering and great things that Hitler did for his people and those interested in this period of German history.

    If Hitler would have won…

  9. Maverick
    Maverick says:

    There is a very interesting channel 4 documentary about appeasement which can be found on U tube .Ibelieve it is called Britain and appeasement .
    It gives the anti war lobby a fair hearing ,”chips Channon ” features freqeuntly.
    What depresses me today is the endless anti German narrative which pervades practically the whole of U.K. media ,annoyingly by people who wern’t even born let alone saw combat in the conflict.
    This is stock in trade for Brexiteers ,of course the first thing they did after Brexit was sign a trade deal with the Japanese.

  10. Emicho
    Emicho says:

    This is controlled opposition operative Peter Hitchens’ review of the same book, if anyone cares for it. It’s interesting the things the two essayists see differently, though I know who I’d trust.
    Hitches is clever, 100x wiser than his late brother, and you can learn much from him, but sadly, at bottom he is a paid liar for the system he himself admits is destroying the nation he claims he loves. Well he obviously doesn’t, or he wouldn’t act the way he does.

  11. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    Are you aware of ” the real beliefs and opinions ” among your establishment familial connections, regarding the assassination of Sikorski by MI6 double-agent Kim Philby, at Gibraltar.

    • donna sherwood
      donna sherwood says:

      No I am not mostly due to fact that tony “beauchamp” married to sarah died in the mid 50s and Clive my first husband in ’76 and likely they were not aware of the activities of any of the cambridge group not exposed to public until ’79. Clive worked at lutterworth with whittle on rocket project and must have had top security clearance but I believe the formation of this group and their activities postdated WWII. I became aware of this only through watching the world at war with him talking back to olivier’s narration at times correcting statements. I NEVER questioned him about this period of his life after he told me of Dr. von Braun’s comments to him during a long meeting in NYC in 1962. He may have met some socially more likely his mother the society miniaturist and photographer vivienne would have being an intimate of many of the more prominent gay society operatives. I would be stunned if she was not acquainted with blunt

  12. Les
    Les says:

    From the article “Commentators as diverse as Sir Arthur Keith and Henry Kissinger believe that if the Fuhrer had had a little more patience and played the long game he would have achieved his goals”.
    But this way of thinking completely ignores the role of Franklin Roosevelt. He was interfering in Polish-German affairs when it was none of his business. Roosevelt had instructed his ambassadors to inform the Poles not to negotiate with the Germans over Danzig under any circumstances. He even went behind the backs of Congress and offered the Poles military assistance if it came to war. Because the MSM and Hollywood cover this up the average person isn’t aware of FDR’s complicity in the start of World War 2.

  13. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    Some interesting commentary on the Third Reich here. To help bring things into better perspective, may I suggest reading Benton Bradberry’s book: The Myth of German Villainy, as well as Tom Goodrich’s
    book: Hellstorm. And, for those wilfully ignorant English folks out there still languishing in their collapsing dystopia, there’s always Peter Nicoll’s excellent book: Britain’s Blunder.

Comments are closed.