I
wonder if these ambassadors ever
realized the responsibility they
bore, in terms of later blood and
suffering? |
January
6, 2003 (Monday), London A SUPPORTER sends me an angry e-mail,
because I rejected "Salvadore Astucia" (a
rather pretentious pseudonym for an
American) for last year's Cincinnati
weekend as a speaker. I reply: His rhetoric was so violent
that to have associated Cincinnati with
it would have destroyed what I have
spent five years building (and last
year's function lost $15,000, which is
why I am very carefully nurturing it).My website, books and activities
have a very carefully orientated
thrust; if another person wishes to
propagate more violent views, that is
his First Amendment right, but then he
must build, finance and operate his own
platform! Off to Cambridge today. At Churchill
College I work on the rest of the 1944
diary of Admiral Sir Bertram
Ramsay; he was General Dwight D
Eisenhower's naval chief during the
Normandy invasion. The archivist tells me
he cannot recall any other person having
bothered to read the pudgy blue
leather-bound volume. It has taken four
days' hard work to read the tiny, spidery
pencilled handwriting of the 1944 volume,
and to transcribe from it what I need for
Churchill's
War, vol. iii, about 60 pages of
single spaced typing; the diary ends on
December 31, and there are a few brief
notes for 1945 and jokes, including one
about Georgie Patton, on the back
fly-leaves. Then silence. I go back to the
shelves to check up when Ramsay died (in a
plane crash, I recall), and it is rather a
shock to find that he was killed just two
days after the diary I have finished
transcribing. I
then turn to the "diary"
of Sir Eric Phipps, Britain's
ambassador to Berlin 1933-1937, which the
library recently acquired, which I suspect
is just rehashed from his dispatches;
anyway, the Foreign Office refused him
permission in 1942 to publish it. I have no doubt whatever that people
like him, with their snooty, sardonic,
old-Etonian attitude, were largely
responsible for the pre-war souring of
relations between Germany and Britain; I
wonder if these ambassadors ever realized
the responsibility they bore, in terms of
later blood and suffering? His diaries are
spiced with witty epigrams and poems in
flawless French, which clearly indicates
which side of the divide his own
sympathies lay. Phipps (called a "drunken buffoon" by
Hitler and, yes, his diaries do reveal a
certain taste for official banquets) was
replaced in April 1937 by Sir Nevile
Henderson, left, who did his
level best to repair the damage that
Phipps had done. But by then Fleet Street
had stepped in, with its maniac drumbeat
bark for war; and the voice of Winston
Churchill, now in the pay of The
Focus, was beginning to bleat in the pages
of the daily press as well. I read
Henderson's Failure of a Mission
when I was perhaps 13, and it deeply
impressed me. I can recommend it as an
introduction to what really caused World
War II.
DER Spiegel is starting a serial
revealing the history of the bombing of
German cities, and of course saying that
Adolf Hitler started it. I find in
Phipps'
diary however a passage where Hitler
is clearly calling for the prohibition of
all bombing as a war crime back in the
1930s. May 14, 1936 [Hitler
receives him with Ribbentrop. Air
treaty impossible given the size of
Russia's huge air force.] "He again
urged general prohibition of bombing
altogether as being far more
practical." Despite all the noisy promotional
suggestions to the contrary, Der
Spiegel is not the first to publish
the appalling story of our saturation
bombing offensive. Back in 1961 and 1962
Neue Illustrierte (Cologne)
published a 37 week series of articles
giving the inside story, based on
interviews with hundreds of airmen and the
then available docments and the recently
released British official history, The
Strategic Air Offensive against
Germany. I know, because Werner
Höfer, editor of Neue
Illustrierte, commissioned me to write
that series. We went right across Germany,
from city to city, and the magazine
increased its circulation by 1 million in
those weeks. The magazine carried
magnificent photos spread across double
pages which stunned the Germans, who had
never seen them -- I remember one
particularly vivid photograph, looking
vertically downwards from the bomb bay of
a B-17 Flying Fortress, showing another
B-17 right beneath it, its starboard wing
broken off like a leaf and doubled back by
the bomb that had fallen right through
it. I remember that series well. I wrote it
forty-one years ago
No German
historian was daring to touch such a
sensitive subject! Ja, die feige
deutsche Historikerschaft! Home from Cambridge at 7 p.m.
Frazzled. January
7, 2003 (Tuesday), London Up at 7:45 a.m. History master at
Oundle phones, to ask if I can step in at
short notice and speak to 240 of their
fifth and sixth formers on Friday; they
have been let down by a speaker. He has
"Churchill's
War", vol. ii: "Triumph in Adversity",
and thinks it is a spectacularly good
book. Yes indeed. He then remarks that two
years ago they had Richard
Evans to speak there, and that he
was absolutely dreadful. He wanted to
speak on the Holocaust, but the school
asked him not to as they had that as part
of their course and the students were fed
up to their back teeth with it. Evans had arrived late and
ill-prepared, shuffled his notes, was a
poor speaker and seemed to know little of
what he was talking about. "I shouldn't
speak ill of any of my speakers," says the
teacher, "but for Evans I will make an
exception. I told him that you were a
magnificent researcher, and that other
historians round the world like Gordon
Craig and Hans Mommsen had
spoken famously of you." I
said yes, but Evans had derided them all
as ignorant and lazy, and for that reason
we had accorded to him the icon of a
skunk. I confessed that I too, if I had
been paid a quarter of a million pounds as
a fee by one party in a trial, would have
found it hard to remain balanced and
neutral. But then, of course, I don't take
payments of money for my opinions. For the Lipstadt Trial, Evans had hired
a team of postgraduates and they had spent
twenty man-years trawling through my
thirty books looking for errors; they had
found less than twenty, but flourished
them with triumph in the High Court as
proof of my distortion and falsification
of history (e.g. I had misread
one word written in Heinrich
Himmler's appalling handwriting in
1941, long since corrected in the latest
editions of Hitler's
War). [--] says that a female
historian at Cambridge had told him
privately that Evans chaired a committee
on which she sat, and that he was the most
appalling chairman they had ever had. I
wonder how such people get their jobs? All day with an assistant at the Public
Record office, reading Cabinet Office
files for 1944. As we leave I catch sight
of a familiar face at Table 31 beneath a
mop of rusty fair hair. It is Robert
Jan Van Pelt, Evans's expert witness
on Auschwitz, studying a file
intently. I am impressed. It is not often that we
see a conformist historian in an archive,
doing actual field work. I wrote Pelt
a
letter some years back recommending
that he do just that. Seems like he has
learned something from the revisionists
after all. Of course, he may find it
difficult to bend the files in the
archives into shape to fit his own
hypotheses. I shake hands briefly with him
as I pass (he goes pink) and hand him a
slip of paper, reading: "You will find I
have posted the entire
Aumeier file, 150 pages, on my
website," and give him the URL. Seven p.m. to Lady M's for
dinner in Kensington. Six others there,
with an empty chair left, and a place set,
for my kind backer Jeannot, killed
in that mysterious road accident in Texas
just a year ago. M. remarks on the
Tutankhamen curse that seems to afflict
all my wealthier backers: Henry K.,
the Prince, and then Jeannot. But we
expect to see the curse lifted in the next
few weeks. Barrister Adrian, who is
there, talks well of the prospects of our
coming action against Penguin Books
[The
Last Gavel]. Sir Richard Body, who retired
recently after forty years as a
Conservative MP, sits to my right; his son
went to school with me, in Brentwood, I
recall. As did the son of his predecessor,
Sir Bernard Braine. Many a quip was
muttered in Billericay, his constituency,
about body succeeding brain. He
is most kind about "Churchill's War", vol.
ii: "Triumph in Adversity", and I leave a
copy of Hitler's War with Professor
Brian Thwaites, who talks volubly
during the dinner about his crystallizing
plans to force legal action in the High
Court against Tony Blair
(right) to prevent the war crimes
and crimes against peace that he seems
determined to commit in our names against
Iraq. Some good legal thoughts here from
Adrian, who suggests that an Iraqi citizen
should apply for a qui timet
injunction or restraining order. That is
one of the delights of the British
constitution. Only Her Majesty can declare
war; so long as Blair is bent on waging
war without declaring it, he is an
ordinary citizen committing an unlawful
act and must personally face the
consequences. Ho-ho. Where is the Conservative party which
should be speaking this kind of language?
Melting down and trickling away between
the cobblestones of Westminster, and soon
destined to become invisible. After that I work until 2, when
Benté comes up from the dungeons,
or Grumpyland as I sometimes call the
lower floor, to ask me to stop rumstering
around: namely, thinking too noisily.
[Previous
Radical's Diary] on this
website:
-
Dossier
on The Final
Gavel
(password protected)
-
Sir
Eric Phipps diary: a guide to
|