22 AUGUST 1941, Page 12


sm,--If I tame up one point in your review of my book Total Vim-, it is not the grumble of the author who is complaining of criticism. In view of the fact that your reviewer disagrees with the theoriea I put forward, I thought he was very gentle and courteous with iha book. I write to point out that your reviewer does my argument grave injustice when he alleges that I say that to tell the Germans that Germany could not win would be decisive. I have said .many time: in my book that it is necessary to prove to the Germans by deed, by military operations offensive and defensive that they cannot win. Simultaneously we should wage political warfare along the lint, indicated in the book. I felt so sure that many people would accuse me of saying the war could be won without fighting that I went out of my way to rebut this change in advance in a special section heaE in block letters " PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY."

Your reviewer asks what effects on us are produced by Dr. Goebbels's assurance that we shall be beaten? The answer is, none at all, because Hitler has been unable to give us any evidence that he is going to beat us. But we already have given the Germans a good deal of evidence that they can not beat us. The differences between the two cases are as follows: To win this war Hitler must invade and conquer Britain. It is not essential (fortunately) to occupy Germany in order to destroy the Nazi regime.

In conclusion, I must thank your reviewer for correcting my errs as to the Boer War. It is, of course, true—as he points out—that it was the Boers who declared war on us. Similarly, we formally declared war on Germany in 1939, but for all practical purpose Hitler imposed war on us.—Yours truly, STEPHEN KING-HALL ' House of Commons.