logo
How the world stopped Hitler

How the world stopped Hitler

Photo by Alexander Nemenov / AFP via Getty Images
On 5 November 1930, just over two years before he was appointed head of the German government, the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler told a closed meeting of his followers that Germany had an inborn right to rule the world. In the 1880s, he said, the European great powers had divided the world between them in the 'Scramble for Africa', bringing large parts of the globe into their colonial empires. Germany had largely missed out. Next time, however, in the coming war, he would ensure that Germany came out on top, exercising what he called Weltherrschaft, 'rule over the world'.
After he came to power, he cloaked this ambition in the rhetoric of moderation, frequently claiming that all he wanted to do was to revise the Treaty of Versailles, which had treated Germany unfairly by denying German speakers the self-determination promised to other national groups. The scales fell from the eyes of those statesmen and politicians in Europe who had tried to 'appease' him by granting his territorial demands, when he marched into Prague in the spring of 1939, conquering a large population of non-German speakers. When he attacked Poland in September 1939, Britain and France declared war.
During the following years, a shifting and evolving collection of major world powers combined their forces in order to defeat the Third Reich and its fellow dictatorships, which included fascist Italy (from June 1940 to September 1943), and military-ruled Japan (from December 1941), as well as a number of smaller European states such as Hungary and Romania. The 'Big Three' powers – the British empire, the Russian-led Soviet Union (from June 1941) and the US (from December 1941) – all recognised the threat posed to them by Hitler's global ambitions and buried their existing differences to defeat the Nazi menace. In his new book Allies at War: The Politics of Defeating Hitler, Tim Bouverie, a former political journalist at Channel 4 News and the author of the bestselling and widely praised Appeasing Hitler: Chamberlain, Churchill and the Road to War, published in 2019, has set himself the task of charting their relationships with one another from the start of the war to its finish.
This would be a formidable challenge for any historian, let alone one still in his thirties. But Bouverie rises to it with aplomb. He has trawled through more than a hundred archives and researched great masses of diaries, memoirs, biographies and monographs. He writes gracefully and engagingly, and brings his subject to life with innumerable anecdotes and quotations. His judgement is level-headed, and he knows how to tell a good story. He has produced a major work of original history that is a pleasure to read.
Bouverie begins with the French, whose alliance with the UK fell apart when German armies invaded their country and forced them to concede defeat in June 1940. From this point onwards, the independent French state, now confined to the unoccupied part of the country administered from the spa town of Vichy, was effectively in alliance with Nazi Germany, a state of affairs that led the British to destroy France's battle fleet, anchored in the North African naval base of Mers-el-Kébir, in order to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Germans. Ordered by Winston Churchill, who had become prime minister in May 1940, the action demonstrated to the world the determination of the British to resist Hitler, the scale of whose global ambitions Churchill had been one of the few politicians to realise before the war.
Bouverie recounts with a wealth of colourful detail the emergence of General Charles de Gaulle, who had escaped into British exile and led the 'Free French' against the anti-Semitic, quasi-fascist Vichy regime. Prickly, difficult and endowed with what many thought was an exaggerated conception of his own importance, De Gaulle was taken seriously enough in the end for the Free French to be included in the alliance. It was not least De Gaulle who Churchill was thinking of when he remarked: 'There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies and that is fighting without them.' As one exasperated British official commented, the French general 'gave the impression of having studied diplomacy at the court of Cesare Borgia'.
Overall, however, it was the Big Three who dominated, unsurprisingly in view of the huge superiority of their resources over those of others, including Nazi Germany. Despite their in some respects radical divergences in 'ideology, ethics, personality, political systems and postwar aims, as well as disagreements over strategy, diplomacy, finance, imperialism, the allocation of resources and the future peace', they stuck together and triumphed in the end, pooling their economic and strategic power and cooperating on a more or less continual basis. 'Only Hitler could have brought them together,' as Bouverie notes, and it is important to remember just how radical the Nazi dictator's war aims were, virtually without limit of time or space. Germany was never going to stop until it had achieved the 'world domination' he had promised his followers in 1930.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Churchill was aware from the outset that the British empire, vast and far-flung though it was, would need an alliance with the United States if it was to defeat the Nazis. As he said in his 'We shall fight on the beaches' speech on 4 June 1940, it would carry on fighting until 'the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old'. Bouverie charts in engrossing detail the slow conversion of the Americans to the realisation that Hitler posed a threat to them, too – not helped by the defeatism of the US ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy (a 'bumptious, ignorant Irish-Bostonian') – but boosted by the British ambassador in Washington, Philip Kerr (or Lord Lothian, dubbed 'Lord Loathsome' by hostile Foreign Office mandarins), until his death at the end of 1940, and by radio broadcasts from the Blitz by the American newsman Edward R Murrow. Churchill's personal relationship with the US president, Franklin D Roosevelt, warmed into genuine admiration on the president's side. But this could not conceal the fact that the balance of power was tilting towards the Americans, whose hostility to British colonialism Churchill was unable to mitigate.
The ruthless and paranoid Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin emerges from this book as a skilled and cunning negotiator, who could use charm and even humour to forge good personal relationships with Churchill and Roosevelt. By contrast, the Chinese nationalist leader received widespread contempt at the time, fuelled by barely concealed racism. Still, it is good to see the Second World War treated as a genuinely global conflict for once. Indeed, it is one of the many virtues of this book that it covers so many seemingly marginal aspects of the war, from Spain to Ireland, Greece to Iraq.
The apparently neutral country of Francisco Franco's Spain is the source of many entertaining details. Bouverie recounts how the nervous British ambassador to Spain placed a ladder against the embassy garden wall every night before going to bed in case he was arrested and handed over to the Germans. He need not have worried: the British government spent an astonishing £3.5m in the first year of the war alone bribing Spanish politicians not to intervene in the conflict. Bouverie perhaps puts it too strongly when he says that the Spanish dictator Franco was firmly in the German camp; in fact he was led by his low cunning to temporise and vacillate since he was unclear whether the Germans would win the war or not. After meeting with Franco to negotiate an alliance in October 1940, Hitler told his staff he would rather have several teeth pulled than go through the frustrating ordeal again.
Despite its many virtues, the broad sweep of Tim Bouverie's splendid book is compromised by the virtual absence of the Germans. Time and again one wants to be told what were the actions of Hitler and the Nazis to which the Allies were reacting. Bouverie didn't need to write a comprehensive history of the war, but he did need to provide more information about the military and political context provided by the Germans and, for that matter, the Italians and the Japanese. Bouverie champions the 'unfashionable' subdiscipline of diplomatic history, but his conception of it is a very narrow one, involving mostly a handful of national leaders and their staffs, and one would have liked to have seen a broader conception of international relations here, such as one finds in the late historian Zara Steiner's classic volumes on the interwar period.
A strange and wholly unnecessary distraction from the smooth flow of the narrative is provided by the frequent footnotes – some 126 of them, one every four pages or so, which provide additional comments and snippets of extra information, entirely separately from the endnotes, which provide the references. If it's not worth saying in the text, as I was taught as a graduate student, it's not worth saying at all.
Such problems aside, however, this is a compelling and highly readable book that provides a mass of new and fascinating detail about the Allies in the Second World War. Tim Bouverie has produced a masterpiece. I recommend it to anyone with a serious interest in its subject.
Allies at War: The Politics of Defeating Hitler
Tom Bouverie
Bodley Head, 688pp, £25
Purchasing a book may earn the NS a commission from Bookshop.org, who support independent bookshops
Richard J Evans's 'Hitler's People: The Faces of the Third Reich' is published by Allen Lane
Related
This article appears in the 30 Apr 2025 issue of the New Statesman, The War on Whitehall

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Laughing at the populist right is not a political strategy
Laughing at the populist right is not a political strategy

New Statesman​

time2 hours ago

  • New Statesman​

Laughing at the populist right is not a political strategy

Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images Across north London, in the citadels of the liberal elite, it has been hard to hear yourself think. The roars, whoops and whistles of merry laughter; the stamping of feet on floorboards; the wheezing, the rasping coughs and the slapping of thighs… yes, Donald and Elon, not to mention Nigel and Zia, have brought a lot of innocent cheer. This is not simply about great egos falling out: a voyeuristic thrill as the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man traded insults. It also poses a more important question about whether the revolutionary surge by the populist right, which began in America, is starting to collapse, weighed down by contradictions. After all, in taking aim at President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' in the cause of fiscal sanity, Musk put his finger on the glaring ideological fissure inside today's new right – the gap between traditional fiscal conservatives who believe growth comes from low taxes balanced by tightly controlled government spending; and the performative hucksters, happy to offer whatever the voter base wants, affordable or not. I'm well aware that this flatters Elon Musk, who has been happy to have his company suck greedily at the teat of federal spending, and who only seems to have seen the light when he realised how much the withdrawal of electric vehicle subsidies in the bill would have hit Tesla. Further, Musk's threats to cancel the Dragon rocket programme on which the International Space Station depends – threats he then reversed – and his accusation about Trump's involvement with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – an accusation he then deleted – suggests a man on the edge. Some have pointed to Musk's disclosures about his ketamine use. Trump simply taunted him by saying he is 'losing his mind'. Either way, Musk doesn't look or sound much like a traditional Republican. The tech-titan lobby he speaks for is desperate for lavish US government support and subsidy – and, indeed, in its fight with Chinese rivals, has a strong case for long-term federal backing. If Musk is genuinely gone for good from Trumpland, and it's hard to see a way back, Jeff Bezos and Sam Altman will have their thumbs competing for the West Wing doorbell soon. Meanwhile, Musk's Doge, strongly backed in Silicon Valley, so far seems like a damp squib – the tree has defeated the chainsaw. But let's try to put all that to one side. There is still a fundamental difference between the pork-barrel, 'spend big, promise bigger' instincts of Trump himself, using borrowed money to fling tax cuts to his hugely rich friends, and the genuine anxiety of Elon Musk about a swollen federal budget and debt. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Does this divide expose the very nature of the Maga movement? It's powered by poorer, excluded Americans who may have deep hatred of 'woke' culture, but who are interested in their own economic position – blue-collar Americans who want factories brought back home, but also want to keep their benefits, and have a deep suspicion of the political elite. The Trump bill, slashing taxes for the richest while cutting Medicare and other programmes for the poorest, shows whose side he is on; if Musk's campaign to stop the bill by encouraging a platoon of rebel Republicans to block it in the Senate were to succeed, he would be doing a favour not just to the increasingly worried bond markets but also to the Maga base. Let's turn nearer to home, where the gone, gone-back-again Zia Yusuf, the pinging Reform UK chairman who had floated a British version of Doge, offers a parallel. Reform faces two substantial policy challenges. One is 'respectability' – how far to go in an anti-migrant, race-inflected direction in order to energise its coalition? The second is economic. Like Maga, Reform has a blue-collar, working-class base and is offering not just huge tax cuts of nearly £90bn a year but also spending increases of £50bn a year on things those voters want more of, such as the NHS. It says it can pay for this with cuts of £150bn a year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the numbers don't add up: 'Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year.' This suggests, as with the Trump bill, that poorer Farage supporters would find their benefits under threat, while middle-class ones wouldn't get the tax cuts they wanted. Unsurprisingly, and after seeing off Reform in the Hamilton Scottish parliamentary by-election, Keir Starmer has jumped on this, comparing the Farage package to Liz Truss and accusing him of making the same bet – 'that you can spend tens of billions on tax cuts without a proper way of paying for it'. And so we come to this week and the Spending Review. Fundamentally, the fight ahead is about credibility and timing. Populists insist there are quick, almost painless short-term fixes to the long problem of low productivity and growth. They suggest you can slash taxes and simultaneously improve working-class living standards. Reeves' version of social democracy has an answer to this – the big investments announced this week in everything from nuclear power to transport connections. Invest, long-term and patiently, and the growth will return. It's not a quick fix. Voters must wait. Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's former chief economist, urges Labour to have an understandable 'people strategy' and more power for the regions and nations to give voters hope while the investment arrives. Because we are not a patient lot, and that is what Reform preys on. Haldane told the Guardian: 'Nigel Farage is as close to what the country has to a tribune for the working classes. I don't think there's any politician that comes even remotely close to speaking to, and for, blue-collar, working-class Britain. I think that is just a statement of fact…' Well, if so, isn't it an extraordinary one? Farage, an ex-City trader from the suburban south, is more of a tribune than Rayner, Phillipson, Streeting or Reed, who grew up in council housing and on benefits? Able to speak to working people in a way that the government, 92 per cent of whose ministers attended comprehensive schools, can't? This points to a familiar but catastrophic problem – the strange inability of this Labour government to communicate its cause vividly. By investing wisely, it can bring growth and therefore better times, but meanwhile it needs the fire of a Kinnock, the moral weight of a Brown, the birds-from-trees persuasiveness of a Blair. Yet too often, all we hear are wooden tongues. The lessons of the past fortnight are twofold. First, the right-wing populist insurgency, both in America and here, is fragile, not omnipotent. As the Musk episode reminds us, there is a difference between radical protest and traditional conservative thinking, particularly on the role of the state. Any coalition big enough to overwhelm social democracy can come apart quickly when personalities go to war. Although they sometimes run in parallel, American politics and British politics, Brobdingnag and Lilliput, remain different in structure, electoral make-up and rhythm. One must be cautious about those equal signs: the quick peace deal between Yusuf and Farage showed a sense lacking in Washington. Still, the mocking liberal laughter wasn't all ridiculous. But the second lesson is that, even with a plausible growth strategy, social democracy needs brilliant storytellers to keep a tired and sceptical electorate onside. This is a long fight. Starmer and Reeves are in it for years to come. But they have to become far better communicators. Nigel Farage, after all, is a man used to having the last, loud laugh. [See more: Reform needs Zia Yusuf] Related

Guantanamo Bay: Brits among 9,000 undocumented migrants 'to be sent to notorious camp'
Guantanamo Bay: Brits among 9,000 undocumented migrants 'to be sent to notorious camp'

Daily Record

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Record

Guantanamo Bay: Brits among 9,000 undocumented migrants 'to be sent to notorious camp'

At least 9,000 undocumented migrants, including British citizens, are set to be transferred to Guantanamo Bay in the coming days, according to reports in the United States Thousands of undocumented migrants, including Brits, are reportedly on the brink of being detained at Guantanamo Bay as part of Donald Trump's renewed immigration crackdown, according to The Telegraph. Reports from the United States suggest that at least 9,000 migrants, some hailing from Europe, will be transferred to the infamous detention camp within days. This move marks the first large-scale use of the facility for this purpose since Trump's announcement in January that it could hold up to 30,000 people. ‌ Guantanamo Bay, situated in Cuba, was previously utilised to incarcerate combatants captured during George W. Bush's "war on terror" following the 9/11 attacks. ‌ Now, it seems the contentious site is being reactivated to temporarily house undocumented migrants before they are deported back to their home countries. Documents viewed by Politico indicate that those transferred are intended to be held for a brief period. At present, Guantanamo houses around 500 individuals, reports the Express. The White House claims this move is designed to alleviate overcrowding in U.S. detention centres as the administration aims for a daily target of 3,000 immigration-related arrests. However, critics argue the real motive is to deter potential migrants. "The message is to shock and horrify people, to upset people," one State Department official told Politico. Reports claim around 800 Europeans are due to be transferred, including British and French nationals, in a move that has sparked concern among European diplomats who typically collaborate closely with the US on migrant repatriations. ‌ The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is contesting the policy in court, stating that detainees face "dire conditions" within the camp, including rodent infestations, inadequate food, and no regular change of clothes. In its writ, the ACLU accuses the administration of utilising Guantanamo "to frighten immigrants, deter future migration, induce self-deportation, and coerce people in detention to give up claims against removal and accept deportation elsewhere". The US Justice Department has denied the allegations, maintaining that the camp is merely being used as a temporary staging post. The State Department has confirmed that "illegal aliens" are being sent to Guantanamo "as a temporary measure", but declined to comment on whether specific governments, including the UK's, had been consulted about the move. This is not the first instance of Britons being detained at Guantanamo Bay, as nine UK citizens were held there in the early 2000s, with five returning home in March 2004, while another nine UK residents without citizenship were also detained at the facility. The unexpected decision to use Guantanamo as part of the immigration crackdown is already causing diplomatic tensions and legal challenges, with increasing pressure on the White House to justify this move as more details come to light.

Brits among 9,000 undocumented migrants Trump orders to Guantanamo Bay
Brits among 9,000 undocumented migrants Trump orders to Guantanamo Bay

Daily Mirror

time3 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

Brits among 9,000 undocumented migrants Trump orders to Guantanamo Bay

The US Government plans to transfer at least 9,000 migrants to the detention camp, some of whom are believed to be from the UK, as part of Donald Trump's renewed immigration clampdown Thousands of undocumented migrants, including Brits, are reportedly on the brink of being detained at Guantanamo Bay as part of President Trump's intensified immigration crackdown, The Telegraph has disclosed. A staggering 9,000 migrants, with some hailing from Europe, are poised to be shipped off to the infamous detention camp imminently, US sources claim. This move signals the first significant utilisation of Guantanamo since Trump's declaration in January that it could accommodate 30,000 individuals. ‌ The Cuban-based Guantanamo Bay, notorious for incarcerating "war on terror" combatants during George W. Bush's tenure post-9/11, is now seemingly set to temporarily host undocumented migrants before their expulsion. ‌ Politico has laid eyes on documents suggesting a brief detainment period at Guantanamo, which currently houses approximately 500 detainees. The White House insists this strategy is designed to alleviate the strain on packed U.S. detention facilities, as it chases an ambitious goal of 3,000 daily immigration arrests. However, detractors argue the true intent is to deter potential migrants through fear, reports the Express. "The message is to shock and horrify people, to upset people," a State Department official confided to Politico. Reports suggest nearly 800 Europeans, including Brits and French nationals, are set to be transferred in a contentious move that has set alarm bells ringing among European diplomats who are used to working with the US on the issue of migrant returns. The ACLU has launched a legal challenge against the policy, claiming those detained will face "dire conditions", such as vermin infestations, inadequate food supplies, and a lack of clothing changes at the camp. ‌ The ACLU's legal brief slams the current use of Guantanamo, alleging that it aims "to frighten immigrants, deter future migration, induce self-deportation, and coerce people in detention to give up claims against removal and accept deportation elsewhere". On the other hand, the US Justice Department has dismissed these allegations, asserting that Guantanamo is merely being employed as an interim holding facility. Whilst the State Department acknowledges transferring "illegal aliens" to Guantanamo on a temporary basis, it has remained tight-lipped on whether specific talks were held with Britain regarding the policy. This affair isn't a first for Britons at Guantanamo: back in the early 2000s, nine British citizens found themselves detained there. March 2004 saw five returned to their homeland, whilst another nine UK residents, non-citizens, were also incarcerated at the infamous base. The unexpected decision to use Guantanamo as part of the immigration crackdown is already causing diplomatic tensions and legal challenges, with increasing pressure on the White House to justify this move as more details come to light.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store