VDHanson's Defense of Churchill, and PowerLine Jumps In

VDH pens an essay more-or-less defending Churchill's approach to WWII.  He argues that Hitler actually started WWII, claiming that Hitler's promises of peace after taking France and Poland were fake, as were his promises regarding the Sudetenland.  It is true that the question of Hitler's veracity--and his real intentions--are always going to be the most important contentious issue about "who started this."

We'll look at the terror-bombing section of his post:

...Who started a systematic campaign of terror bombing? 

The Luftwaffe first indiscriminately bombed civilian targets in Poland to instill panic, terror, and mass death. It continued that tactic unapologetically in Holland by destroying the center of Rotterdam during the first two weeks of May 1940. And despite Hitler’s false claims that the Allies had started bombing civilians first, he soon honed his air strategy of incinerating civilians against Coventry and London. 

In terms of soldiers lost versus civilians killed, Britain waged a less lethal war than most of the other belligerents, losing fewer soldiers than its two allies and killing far fewer of their enemies as well. Dresden and Hamburg paled before the American incendiary campaigns against Japanese cities between March and July 1945, followed by the two atomic bombs....

Umnnhhhh.....it would be nice if VDH addressed the issue raised by Cooper:  that England, under Churchill's regime, was bombing the living Hell out of non-industrial German cities and its countryside--like the Black Forest.  VDH also deflects, doing the "who's worse?" dance, comparing the US nuclear bombing of Japan to Churchill's fire-bombing of Dresden.  Well, then, Victor, who WAS worse?  Further, VDH blows foo-foo dust over the London bombings, conveniently 'forgetting' that London was a major industrial center--that is, that taking out London's industry was a legitimate strategic objective.  

In brief, VDH succeeds in blaming Hitler, but fails in his attempt to exonerate Churchill, unless you agree that Truman was even more a war criminal.

One wonders why.  Why is Churchill some sort of icon in the American mind?

There is another, very persuasive, element here, posted at PowerLine:

... For those who are wondering: yes, it is true, and denied by no historian of the period, that in June 1940 Hitler made a sincere offer of peace and rapprochement to Great-Britain.

Even apart from the fact that after Munich and everything else it was quite rational to doubt Hitler’s sincerity, there is a simpler and much more fundamental reason why neither Winston Churchill, nor any other prime minister of the United Kingdom, could have taken this offer: ever since it emerged as a coherent state, the overriding security imperative of the British government has been to prevent, at all costs, the appearance of a hegemonic power on the European continent....

IOW, Churchill stiff-armed Hitler's proposal on geopolitical grounds.

Maybe VDH should have included that in his essay!

Along the way, Hayward (PowerLine) takes all the usual swipes at PJ Buchanan that we expect from bitter old men whose comfy Republican Party has gone populist--exactly as PJB wanted it.

Too bad, so sad.