marijuana | Healthcare | Gun Control | Foreign Policy | Muslim World | Terrorism | Capitol Hill | Social Issues

Uncommon Knowledge: Hitchens and Hanson

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 7 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
CharlesI Avatar
Posted: 07.17.11, 02:00 AM
A quote from Churchill in his writings about various leaders: "I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations. I am sorry, however, that he has not been mellowed by the great success that has attended him. The whole world would rejoice to see the Hitler of peace and tolerance, and nothing would adorn his name in world history so much as acts of magnanimity and of mercy and of pity to the forlorn and friendless, to the weak and poor. ... Let this great man search his own heart and conscience before he accuses anyone of being a warmonger." Later on Churchill condemned Hitler but also when Hitler first came to power Germany praised him, then later criticized him.
jamesjansz Avatar
Posted: 08.02.10, 05:45 AM
In fact Hitchens goes so far to claim - quite erroneously (and this amounts virtually to a slanderous misrepresentation of Churchill) - that Churchill had written flatteringly about Adolf Hitler in his book, 'Great Contemporaries'. Hitchens ascribes a sentiment/statement to Churchill that Churchill never made in his essay on Hitler.....thus: "Churchill had written...a very flattering portrayal of Hitler saying that if Britain was ever to suffer a similar extremity as Germany he hoped that they would find a saviour of the same calibre...." - which is utter nonsense. Churchill never wrote that about Hitler. The closest he came to writing such a thing in his book is about Clemenceau, the French premier during WW1. Hitchens was either genuinely mistaken, and had forgotten the details, or was deliberately making a spurious point to appear clever (a strategem that Hitchens may not be above employing). And to his discredit, Hanson agrees - in a fatuous statement a few minutes later in the onterview, saying "Christopher is right about the sordid things that Churchill had said....". How ignoble of these two men to cast aspersions on the name of one whose heroism and courage and indomitable spirit and energy won for them and their generation a prize greater than any that any other single figure in history has bequeathed to posterity - the liberation of Europe from the Nazi tyranny and the recue of Western civilisation. I had (and still have) a great regard for Hitchens, and his uncompromising stance on various issues and against the threat that we are currently facing from the 'parties of god' and from 'verminous mullahs' etc. But my respect for him has been sensibly diminished by this rather underhand treatment of Churchill's name and achievements. Churchill's record speaks for itself fortunately, and it reflects little but shame on these chattering pygmies to seek to smirch it.
jamesjansz Avatar
Posted: 08.02.10, 05:20 AM
Sad, isn't it, that neither Victor Hanson nor Christopher Hitchens have the honesty or humility to acknowledge the massive, and practically superhuman contribution that Churchill made towards the survival of Europe and Western civilisation in the face of fearsome odds, against the connivance of defeatists and appeasers in large numbers and of great influence and power (including the Royal family and Lord Halifax and the American Ambassador to Great Britain), and practically against every ordinary counsel of prudence. The fact that they can today enjoy the broad freedoms and privileges of the West, that they can breathe freely, is due more to Churchill's heroic vision and energy than to any other single factor in the history of the 20th Century. Had they been alive during the 30's they would most probably have joined with most people at that time in bowing to what must have then seemed inevitable: the destruction of civilised Europe and the defeat of Britain. It took a Churchill to make the British see themselves as Churchill saw them: brave, resilient, and capable of great sacrifice and honour - and by the exercise of those qualities, capable of ultimate victory. His was truly the heart of a lion - unconquerable. And how lucky for us - and for Hanson and Hitchens - that it was.
Michael Labeit Avatar
Michael Labeit
Posted: 11.04.09, 06:39 PM
skinnysnorlex Avatar
Posted: 06.30.09, 04:06 AM
Hi i am david.
anubis Avatar
Posted: 10.02.08, 12:31 PM
a little known fact is that France had the largest stock of gold in it's banks while the rest of europe and the usa suffered the full brunt of the great depression, France was collecting the most gold reserves of any country, so to finance his war hitler invades France. Plus if you read mein kemph hitler explicitly stated that the jews are to blame for ww1 and must be annihalated. Also the fact that churchill wanted to invade italy was correct because if the allies took italy out germany would have been easily confronted, if American general mark clark did not for the sake of his ego continue on to rome instead of carefully taking out the germans in the siegfried line and clean out the germans, the partisan massacre and churchill's plan would have worked but gen. mark clark wanted headlines and he went on to rome to apppear on the front page, unfortunately for him, d-day occured on the same day and took the front page.