World War II

The White Rabbit
Was his nom de guerre. Being with the Special Operations Executive was interesting, challenging, exciting and dangerous. Being captured & tortured was not fun. He got out of Buchenwald alive, which was a major achievement.

The Last Of The Few Talks [ 12 July 2020 ]
He was an Irishman and went back to Dublin. The Irish Times was also tactful enough not ask him if he thought he had wasted his time in order to see England infested with black Savages.

World War II The Foundational Lie of Our Era
Paul Craig Roberts, a worthy economist tells us that we have been lied to big time & that David Irving is a reall hisorian who does the reseach and tells the truth. I believe Doctor Roberts.
QUOTE
Historian David Irving has dedicated his life to uncovering the truth of WWII and bringing it to the public. Early in his career, he was renowned for his works on Hitler and Churchill. But ever since he questioned the conventional story of the Holocaust, he has been persona non grata. It's time to set the story straight.

In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades.

Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia.

A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.

As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the first world war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book.

Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power.

David Irving
Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.

Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.

I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.

In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.

World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.

Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.

Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.

To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.

World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.

Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.

In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.

In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.

Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.

The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.

From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.

Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.

Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.

Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency.

Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.” For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.”

Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone.”

A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.” Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout the war.” Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also.

Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths.

A German soldier applies a dressing to a wounded Russian civilian
Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.

Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country’s military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco.

Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.

Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with “von” before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.

Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.

It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.

Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover./p>

Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.

The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.

Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.

No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.

It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.

The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.

Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.

The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.

It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.

In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”

So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.

Source: The Unz Review
UNQUOTE
Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.
A remark attributed to Otto von Bismarck

Was Winston Churchill Corrupt?
Yes is the answer to that question. Jon Trew does not quite deal with that issue but gives reasons why people voted against the Tories.
Jon Trew
Former Political Researcher and Election Agent
Why did the British people vote Winston Churchill and the Conservative Party out of office in 1945?

Winston Churchill did not narrowly lose the 1945 election; Churchill’s Conservatives and his Liberal coalition partners suffered a massive defeat in one of the biggest electoral swings of the twentieth century. The Labour Party won decisively, winning 393 seats, while the second-placed Conservatives only secured 197. It wasn’t so much a defeat, as a rout.

So how could this victorious leader, who so inspiringly led Britain in their hour of greatest peril have been so convincingly rejected by his own people?

I've spoken to many people who were involved in that election and it is clear that while most of the electorate respected and admired Churchill's war leadership, they did not support his political opinions. The Conservatives had been in power since 1935, but by 1945 many things had changed; socially, politically, and economically. People did not want to return to the same old system of class deference and privilege, of hunger marches and a generation brought up in poverty. There was a feeling of ‘if we can beat the Germans, then we can take on all these social and economic problems and defeat them like we defeated Hitler’. People were ready for change.

During the war the three major parties, Labour, Liberal and Conservative all put party differences aside and worked together in a coalition government. However in 1945 with Hitler defeated, it was clear that the political truce was also at an end. Labour left the coalition and though Churchill tried to campaign under the old coalition title of the National Government, it was obvious to everyone that it was back to party politics of left versus the right.

Churchill who had been so in tune with the popular feelings during the dark days of 1940, was now out of touch. He badly misread the public mood and in a radio broadcast compared British socialists to the Gestapo. Even members of his own family thought he had gone too far. These comments were widely viewed as a huge insult to many Labour Party (socialist) supporters who had fought against the Nazis and died; even some Conservatives realised this.

The effect of the war on the home front had heralded some massive social changes. Angus Calder in his brilliant book "The People's War" points out that the evacuation of children from inner-city areas exposed people from the more ‘affluent shires’ to the reality of the lives of the slum-dwelling urban poor. Surprisingly for the poor, war-time food rationing proved to be a blessing, as many had never had such regular and nutritious food. During the war the overall health of the British people actually improved, due to a diet that was nutritionally balanced, low in sugars and high in fibre and vegetables. Life expectancy of civilians actually improved during the war.

Many British people looked on in admiration to the Soviet Union and how it was taking on the lion's share of the struggle against fascism. They naturally became more sympathetic to their political cause. Membership of the British Communist Party reached an all-time high and their influence far outweighed their size, with members in key positions in large factories and throughout the labour movement. It is important to realise this was before the cold war and the creation of the ‘iron curtain’. At this time, immediately after the defeat of Hitler, Russia was viewed in a far more favourable light by the vast majority of the population. When the football team Moscow Dynamo flew to Britain in November 1945 tickets for the games sold out in a few hours. When Dynamo played they were cheered as loudly by British fans as they did for the home side. When a story broke that these visiting footballers were to be accommodated in army barracks the public were outraged and the Soviet embassy was overwhelmed with offers from ordinary Londoners offering to host team members in homes.

The war also meant full employment. Being in work meant that workers came into contact with and under the influence of Trade Unions. For the first time Unions began to influence significant numbers of women as well as men. During the war many females had found work in factories, instead of being condemned to work in domestic service as servants for the rich. Both these factors increased the shift to the left in Britain.

Many on both the home front and overseas began to question ‘what was the war all about?’ Why did we fight? Why did we endure all those hardships? Was it simply about Poland? Was it about conserving the political status quo for the aristocracy and empire, or were Britain and her Allies fighting for a better, fairer, freer world?

There was a huge movement of individuals from one part of the country to another. Scots mixed with cockneys, who mixed with scousers and Yorkshiremen, men who worked in the industrial cities met with those who were brought up in the countryside. The forced mixing of classes and regions in war-time factories, and in the armed forces, along with the evacuation of children, all mixed up the rigid class structure. It started to undermine the idea of class deference to your "betters". Public-school boys were conscripted to work in mines and shipyards as "Bevin Boys" and the armed forces became a huge melting pot of class and nationality.

One of the reasons why the Allies won the war was the huge technical and scientific advances that were employed to defeat the Nazis and Japanese. This, too, helped fundamentally change the structure of British society. Penicillin, the jet engine, radar and the huge intelligence-gathering effort, all required technically proficient, skilled and educated men and women to maintain, operate and control these technological advances. Many soldiers, sailors and airmen who had being trained to perform highly skilled tasks during the war were unwilling to return to unskilled jobs of drudgery in civilian life. In many cases, because of the education and training they received in the military they were able to move up the social ladder into the middle classes.

British soldiers were also becoming increasingly radicalised. Britain always had a small professional army, not a large conscript force like the rest of Europe and the great increase in numbers during the war had made a conservative military culture difficult to maintain. Officers could no longer be selected from only the upper classes. Owing to a shortage of recruits from the ‘right’ background, the RAF had to allow more non-officers to become pilots, called pilot sergeants. (This was quickly reversed after the war and pilots were limited to officers.) During the campaign in North Africa a debating society was set up to "educate" British soldiers. This educational initiative was known as the Cairo Parliament provided an opportunity for British soldiers of all ranks to debate and argue about the current questions of the day. However this was swiftly closed down using armed military police when senior officers found that British soldiers had overwhelmingly supported a motion in a debate that "The Soviet system was the best system for winning the war".

British soldiers rubbed shoulders with Americans, Canadians, Indians, and ANZACs and the ‘colonials' lack of deference to their officers began to rub off. Meeting soldiers from other Allied countries made UK soldiers realise that 'British was not always best.' American equipment was often technologically superior, better made and more reliable than much of the ‘British kit.'

British troops stationed in Africa and India made it plain that they had not signed up to maintain Britain's colonial Empire but to rid the world of fascism. After the defeat of the Japanese in Burma, British soldiers in Rangoon threw their officers overboard when they learnt the ship they had boarded was not taking them home. instead it was taking them to India to help maintain British rule. In India and the Middle East there was a wave of strikes and mutinies. The Air Ministry reported ‘incidents that occurred at 22 RAF stations’, however later accounts put the figure at more than 60 units with more than 50,000 men involved. It was the biggest single act of mass defiance in the history of the British armed forces. It was clear that the conscript army that had been dogged in its opposition to the Germans, was not happy about fighting to preserve an exotic Empire overseas. This revolt of British soldiers in India is credited with inspiring the Royal Indian Navy mutiny of 1946.

When the votes were cast, it became clear that Labour had won a landslide, winning almost twice as many seats as Churchill's Conservatives who only held on to 197 seats. Interestingly the huge swing to Labour only became apparent when votes from soldiers serving overseas were counted. Churchill had completely failed to understand and comprehend the huge social changes that had taken place in Britain and politically paid the price.