What do you think?
Rate this book
Hitler’s Girl: The British Aristocracy and the Third Reich on the Eve of WWII
A timely, riveting book that presents for the first time an alternative history of 1930s Britain, revealing how prominent fascist sympathizers nearly succeeded in overturning British democracy--using the past as a road map to navigate the complexities of today's turn toward authoritarianism.
Hitler's Girl is a groundbreaking history that reveals how, in the 1930s, authoritarianism nearly took hold in Great Britain as it did in Italy and Germany. Drawing on recently declassified intelligence files, Lauren Young details the pervasiveness of Nazi sympathies among the British aristocracy, as significant factions of the upper class methodically pursued an actively pro-German agenda. She reveals how these aristocrats formed a murky Fifth Column to Nazi Germany, which depended on the complacence and complicity of the English to topple its proud and long-standing democratic tradition--and very nearly succeeded.
As she highlights the parallels to our similarly treacherous time, Young exposes the involvement of secret organizations like the Right Club, which counted the Duke of Wellington among its influential members; the Cliveden Set, which ran a shadow foreign policy in support of Hitler; and the shocking four-year affair between socialite Unity Mitford and Adolf Hitler.
Eye-opening and instructive, Hitler's Girl re-evaluates 1930s England to help us understand our own vulnerabilities and poses urgent questions we must face to protect our freedom. At what point does complacency become complicity, posing real risk to the democratic norms that we take for granted? Will democracy again succeed--and will it require a similarly cataclysmic event like World War II to ensure its survival? Will we, in our own defining moment, stand up for democratic values--or will we succumb to political extremism?
Hitler's Girl is a groundbreaking history that reveals how, in the 1930s, authoritarianism nearly took hold in Great Britain as it did in Italy and Germany. Drawing on recently declassified intelligence files, Lauren Young details the pervasiveness of Nazi sympathies among the British aristocracy, as significant factions of the upper class methodically pursued an actively pro-German agenda. She reveals how these aristocrats formed a murky Fifth Column to Nazi Germany, which depended on the complacence and complicity of the English to topple its proud and long-standing democratic tradition--and very nearly succeeded.
As she highlights the parallels to our similarly treacherous time, Young exposes the involvement of secret organizations like the Right Club, which counted the Duke of Wellington among its influential members; the Cliveden Set, which ran a shadow foreign policy in support of Hitler; and the shocking four-year affair between socialite Unity Mitford and Adolf Hitler.
Eye-opening and instructive, Hitler's Girl re-evaluates 1930s England to help us understand our own vulnerabilities and poses urgent questions we must face to protect our freedom. At what point does complacency become complicity, posing real risk to the democratic norms that we take for granted? Will democracy again succeed--and will it require a similarly cataclysmic event like World War II to ensure its survival? Will we, in our own defining moment, stand up for democratic values--or will we succumb to political extremism?
229 pages, Hardcover
First published August 23, 2022
65 people are currently reading
4381 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
August 31, 2022
Without a doubt, this is the worst book I've read in decades. It is so awful, in fact, that I stopped reading it after chapter 4 (so, slightly after the halfway mark).
First, there is a factual error on virtually every other page, a few examples of which include:
(1) On p. 7, the author states that the British Royal Family changed its name from "Battenberg" to Windsor, in 1914. In 1917, King George V changed the name of the dynasty from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.
(2) On p. 17, she refers to the then Prince of Wales as the Duke of Windsor, a title he did not acquire until after he abdicated in 1936. It would seem obvious that chronology is of paramount importance to someone writing a history book, but it is a problem that haunts Ms. Young over and over.
(3) On p. 26, she states that the German ambassador accredited to England in 1936, Joachim von Ribbentrop, was unmarried. In fact, it was only because of his 1920 marriage to the very wealthy sparkling wine heiress, Annelies Henkell, that anyone began to take notice of Ribbentrop. President von Hindenburg dismissed him as "the little champagne salesman."
(4) On p. 28, she refers to Hitler's mountaintop retreat as "Obersalzburg." In fact, it is Obersalzberg (perhaps Ms. Young does not speak German, but surely, if the book had had a decent editor, this error would have been caught).
(5) On p. 32, she introduces us to the father of Unity Mitford, "Hitler's Girl" of the book's title. While she gets his noble title right, i.e., Lord Redesdale, she then adds that he was "a member of the House of Lords." Surely, anyone writing a book on the British aristocracy in the 1930s would be aware that, prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, every hereditary peer had a seat in the House of Lords, by right. She's not done, however, as on p. 40, she refers to him as "Lord David Redesdale," implying that his was a courtesy title. It was not; on the death of his father, he became the second Baron Redesdale.
(6) On p. 43, in an astounding "howler," she tells us that one of Neville Chamberlain's "first acts" after becoming Prime Minister in May 1937 "was to conclude the Munich Agreement." Of course, as any moderately well-informed student of this period knows, the Munich Agreement wasn't signed until September 1938, six months after Hitler's incorporation of Austria into the Reich (the Anschluss prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles), which rendered the Czech fortresses in the Sudentenland subject to being turned from the south.
(7) On p. 45, Ms. Young begins a long, seemingly pointless discussion of the "Cliveden Set," so called because of their association with Cliveden's owner, Nancy, Viscountess Astor, the Virginia-born wife of the newspaper magnate, William Waldorf Astor, and the first woman elected to the British House of Commons. As Ms. Young will go on about her for several pages, one would think that she'd take the trouble to learn something about Lady Astor's past, say, perhaps her maiden name. However, one would be very wrong; Ms. Young states that she was "Nancy Lancaster," when in fact she was Nancy Langhorne. To make matters worse, Nancy Perkins Field Tree Lancaster was a niece of Lady Astor, who, as chatelaine of Ditchley Park, often hosted Prime Minister Churchill during the Blitz.
(8) On pp. 46-7, Young implies that Lady Astor and the "Cliveden Set" were instrumental in forcing the resignation of Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, apparently sometime between October and November 1937. In fact, Eden did not resign until February 1938, and then only as a protest against Britain seeking closer ties with Mussolini's Italy.
As if the factual errors weren't enough, the author repeats herself again and again and again, sometimes on the very next page. So, for example, on page 58 we read that [t]he Gateshead Bensham Synagogue was desecrated twice during a three-week period in 1935," and on page 59 we read that "[t]he Gateshead synagogue was desecrated two or three times per week in 1935." Another example concerns the British pro-Nazi WWII radio propagandist, "Lord Haw-Haw," actual name William Joyce. She reintroduces him in virtually the same fashion at least three times.
In short, this book is so flawed that I am amazed a reputable publisher like Harper would have anything to do with it. Moreover, no one familiar with the period can fail to be aware that there were, indeed, pro-Fascist members of the British aristocracy, like Unity Mitford, the Duke of Bedford, the Duke of Buccleuch and the Duke of Wellington. But for all her vaunted research in the archives at Kew, Ms. Young introduces precious little new information. And prior to the outbreak of war, similar sympathies were evident in many working class young men; Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists drew a large part of its membership from London's East End, after all. And it is worth remembering that it was the grandson of a Duke of Marlborough, Winston Churchill, who most resolutely resisted any deal with Hitler (unlike his middle class predecessor, Chamberlain).
Do not waste one cent or one minute of your time on this drivel.
First, there is a factual error on virtually every other page, a few examples of which include:
(1) On p. 7, the author states that the British Royal Family changed its name from "Battenberg" to Windsor, in 1914. In 1917, King George V changed the name of the dynasty from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.
(2) On p. 17, she refers to the then Prince of Wales as the Duke of Windsor, a title he did not acquire until after he abdicated in 1936. It would seem obvious that chronology is of paramount importance to someone writing a history book, but it is a problem that haunts Ms. Young over and over.
(3) On p. 26, she states that the German ambassador accredited to England in 1936, Joachim von Ribbentrop, was unmarried. In fact, it was only because of his 1920 marriage to the very wealthy sparkling wine heiress, Annelies Henkell, that anyone began to take notice of Ribbentrop. President von Hindenburg dismissed him as "the little champagne salesman."
(4) On p. 28, she refers to Hitler's mountaintop retreat as "Obersalzburg." In fact, it is Obersalzberg (perhaps Ms. Young does not speak German, but surely, if the book had had a decent editor, this error would have been caught).
(5) On p. 32, she introduces us to the father of Unity Mitford, "Hitler's Girl" of the book's title. While she gets his noble title right, i.e., Lord Redesdale, she then adds that he was "a member of the House of Lords." Surely, anyone writing a book on the British aristocracy in the 1930s would be aware that, prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, every hereditary peer had a seat in the House of Lords, by right. She's not done, however, as on p. 40, she refers to him as "Lord David Redesdale," implying that his was a courtesy title. It was not; on the death of his father, he became the second Baron Redesdale.
(6) On p. 43, in an astounding "howler," she tells us that one of Neville Chamberlain's "first acts" after becoming Prime Minister in May 1937 "was to conclude the Munich Agreement." Of course, as any moderately well-informed student of this period knows, the Munich Agreement wasn't signed until September 1938, six months after Hitler's incorporation of Austria into the Reich (the Anschluss prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles), which rendered the Czech fortresses in the Sudentenland subject to being turned from the south.
(7) On p. 45, Ms. Young begins a long, seemingly pointless discussion of the "Cliveden Set," so called because of their association with Cliveden's owner, Nancy, Viscountess Astor, the Virginia-born wife of the newspaper magnate, William Waldorf Astor, and the first woman elected to the British House of Commons. As Ms. Young will go on about her for several pages, one would think that she'd take the trouble to learn something about Lady Astor's past, say, perhaps her maiden name. However, one would be very wrong; Ms. Young states that she was "Nancy Lancaster," when in fact she was Nancy Langhorne. To make matters worse, Nancy Perkins Field Tree Lancaster was a niece of Lady Astor, who, as chatelaine of Ditchley Park, often hosted Prime Minister Churchill during the Blitz.
(8) On pp. 46-7, Young implies that Lady Astor and the "Cliveden Set" were instrumental in forcing the resignation of Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, apparently sometime between October and November 1937. In fact, Eden did not resign until February 1938, and then only as a protest against Britain seeking closer ties with Mussolini's Italy.
As if the factual errors weren't enough, the author repeats herself again and again and again, sometimes on the very next page. So, for example, on page 58 we read that [t]he Gateshead Bensham Synagogue was desecrated twice during a three-week period in 1935," and on page 59 we read that "[t]he Gateshead synagogue was desecrated two or three times per week in 1935." Another example concerns the British pro-Nazi WWII radio propagandist, "Lord Haw-Haw," actual name William Joyce. She reintroduces him in virtually the same fashion at least three times.
In short, this book is so flawed that I am amazed a reputable publisher like Harper would have anything to do with it. Moreover, no one familiar with the period can fail to be aware that there were, indeed, pro-Fascist members of the British aristocracy, like Unity Mitford, the Duke of Bedford, the Duke of Buccleuch and the Duke of Wellington. But for all her vaunted research in the archives at Kew, Ms. Young introduces precious little new information. And prior to the outbreak of war, similar sympathies were evident in many working class young men; Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists drew a large part of its membership from London's East End, after all. And it is worth remembering that it was the grandson of a Duke of Marlborough, Winston Churchill, who most resolutely resisted any deal with Hitler (unlike his middle class predecessor, Chamberlain).
Do not waste one cent or one minute of your time on this drivel.
August 12, 2022
Hitler's Girl: The British Aristocracy and the third reich on the eve of WWII explores the personalities that offered support to Hitler, their names lending legitimacy to his campaign, and the reasons and justifications for such. It is an absolutely fascinating read that moves along at the pace of a well-written novel. Even for those who don't usually try non-fiction!
Given today's political climate leaning toward extremism in either direction, Hitler's Girl is a timely read. While the books lacks any political motives, one can't help but notice that the mind-sets that set Hitler on his path to world domination are the very same rhetoric we are hearing over and over today.
Given today's political climate leaning toward extremism in either direction, Hitler's Girl is a timely read. While the books lacks any political motives, one can't help but notice that the mind-sets that set Hitler on his path to world domination are the very same rhetoric we are hearing over and over today.
October 16, 2022
This book is a catastrophe. Essentially a political rant about how the upper class is a threat to democracy, it is a case study in lazy research, cherry-picking methodology, and poor editing. Those who follow me on goodreads know that I will read almost anything to the end, once I’ve started, but this just wasn’t even worth it. You only live so long, and this book isn’t worth another hour of my life.
Although it claims to draw extensively from archives, checking the back verifies that almost every chapter is drawn from a limited supply of popular secondary sources, with an average of one or two archival citations per chapter. It looks to me like she sent an intern to look at some MI5 and Home Office records for a day or two, and then used a handful of whatever they looked at, whether or not it was really relevant.
It will be painfully obvious to any German speaker that no one involved with this project had any familiarity with the language. I only saw one German source cited, and that may have been a printing of an English-language essay, since the author was British. But it’s the use of German in this text that really gives it away. “Der Stürmer” is consistently referred to in the text as “Die Stürmer" (though it’s right in the citations). Umlauts are frequently dispensed with. Nouns are not capitalized. Amusingly, “Führer” is NEVER correct, but there are two versions: when the word appears in the main text it is “führer” (yes umlaut, no capitalization), and when it is in a quote it is “Fuhrer” (no umlaut, yes capitalization). The most egregious error is a misreading that renders “Parteitag” (meaning “Party Day”) as “Parteig,” a non-word that has never been in any other text. This word is sprinkled over dozens of pages without ever being caught by a proofreader.
Fact-checking is equally weak. She repeats Anne De Courcy’s error about Julius Streicher being NSDAP party member #2 (but without citing her source), for example. The point where I stopped reading was on page 101, where she says (again, sans citation) that the 1936 Berlin Olympics “began with a screening of the two-part, four-hour propaganda film Olympia by Leni Riefenstahl.”
For those playing at home, “Olympia” was a documentary about the 1936 Berlin Olympics that was released on April 20, 1938. According to Young, the Nazis had developed time travel and were able to screen a movie at an event that hadn’t even been filmed yet (remarkable that they still managed to lose the war, with technology like that). That’s the kind of lazy writing I just don’t bother with.
Although it claims to draw extensively from archives, checking the back verifies that almost every chapter is drawn from a limited supply of popular secondary sources, with an average of one or two archival citations per chapter. It looks to me like she sent an intern to look at some MI5 and Home Office records for a day or two, and then used a handful of whatever they looked at, whether or not it was really relevant.
It will be painfully obvious to any German speaker that no one involved with this project had any familiarity with the language. I only saw one German source cited, and that may have been a printing of an English-language essay, since the author was British. But it’s the use of German in this text that really gives it away. “Der Stürmer” is consistently referred to in the text as “Die Stürmer" (though it’s right in the citations). Umlauts are frequently dispensed with. Nouns are not capitalized. Amusingly, “Führer” is NEVER correct, but there are two versions: when the word appears in the main text it is “führer” (yes umlaut, no capitalization), and when it is in a quote it is “Fuhrer” (no umlaut, yes capitalization). The most egregious error is a misreading that renders “Parteitag” (meaning “Party Day”) as “Parteig,” a non-word that has never been in any other text. This word is sprinkled over dozens of pages without ever being caught by a proofreader.
Fact-checking is equally weak. She repeats Anne De Courcy’s error about Julius Streicher being NSDAP party member #2 (but without citing her source), for example. The point where I stopped reading was on page 101, where she says (again, sans citation) that the 1936 Berlin Olympics “began with a screening of the two-part, four-hour propaganda film Olympia by Leni Riefenstahl.”
For those playing at home, “Olympia” was a documentary about the 1936 Berlin Olympics that was released on April 20, 1938. According to Young, the Nazis had developed time travel and were able to screen a movie at an event that hadn’t even been filmed yet (remarkable that they still managed to lose the war, with technology like that). That’s the kind of lazy writing I just don’t bother with.
July 5, 2022
This is an interesting account of the complicated relationship of the English aristocracy and their sympathies to the Nazi regime. It especially focuses on a young woman, Unity Mitford, and her intimacy with Hitler. This is an easy to read book that raises hard questions about the loyalties of the English elite during the war. It also brings up the issues of complacency and complicity in our complex world today.
I won a copy of this book in a Goodreads giveaway for this honest review.
I won a copy of this book in a Goodreads giveaway for this honest review.
September 21, 2022
The number of factual errors in this slim volume is astonishing. The most cursory review of a book of 20th century English history and one of the zillion books about the Mitford family could have at least made this readable.
December 30, 2022
I kept reading just to see where the train wreck would go. Factual errors. Sensational. Secondary sources. Disjointed writing.
November 6, 2022
I made it too page 4 of the prologue and immediately thought WTF did I buy? One good thing is it led me back onto good reads to make sure I vet my impulse purchases from now on.
Now I skimmed thru the book after I realized this was not what I thought it was but I did not read it. Based off the book cover I was expecting a historically factual, non-political account of the British aristocracy and their relationship with Hitler as I find that era fascinating. But by page 4 you get the point immediately that this author is extremely politically one sided and at best the story will be told thru her political opinions and views. (Not horrible per say however I like my history factual not lensed)
Now I skimmed thru the book after I realized this was not what I thought it was but I did not read it. Based off the book cover I was expecting a historically factual, non-political account of the British aristocracy and their relationship with Hitler as I find that era fascinating. But by page 4 you get the point immediately that this author is extremely politically one sided and at best the story will be told thru her political opinions and views. (Not horrible per say however I like my history factual not lensed)
January 31, 2023
This book looked interesting when I saw it on the shelf at Barnes & Noble. Unfortunately, I did not follow my usual bookstore routine of either looking up online reviews right away, or taking a cover photo as a reminder to check it out in deeper detail from home for later purchase.
I’m not going to waste my time writing more of a review; instead I’m going to suggest just going to the 1 & 2 star reviews at Amazon. They have it right 😕😢
I set the book aside at page 134 after finally taking a glance at the online reviews.
I’m not going to waste my time writing more of a review; instead I’m going to suggest just going to the 1 & 2 star reviews at Amazon. They have it right 😕😢
I set the book aside at page 134 after finally taking a glance at the online reviews.
December 19, 2022
This is not a good book. It is less about Unity Mitford than an attempt by the author to allege two theories: 1) the British aristocracy in the thirties was pro Hitler and 2) a similar pro Fascist leaning is around today. Particularly in the US.
Her proof is zero for two. She cites events like cultural exchanges as showing sympathy. Her anecdotes are often very stretched. And the book is poorly researched and written.
Useful only to those looking for cherry picked stories.
Her proof is zero for two. She cites events like cultural exchanges as showing sympathy. Her anecdotes are often very stretched. And the book is poorly researched and written.
Useful only to those looking for cherry picked stories.
Read
October 25, 2022An enlightened look at how the British aristocracy was intimately involved with the Nazis and right wing extremists prior to and during WW 2. A provacative (and unproven) suggestion that Hitler had a child with Unity Mitford of the British aristocracy.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 6, 2025
This book examines the connections between upper-class Brits and Hitler's Third Reich in the years leading up to WWII. Unity Mitford and others like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor get plenty of attention in this book and the statements plenty of British people made in support and partial support of fascism and Nazism are chilling to read even today. This book could have been much longer - I've yet to find a satisfying explanation for Unity Mitford's obsession with Adolf Hitler or a full examination of von Ribbentrop's antics in Britain. Although, to be fair, the author does point out that some documents regarding these incidents remain classified even today.
March 31, 2023
Informative and very interesting but it does leave you with a feeling of discomfort.
August 22, 2022
I won an uncorrected proof through a Goodreads giveaway. The book is presented as if it’s shocking that many in the British aristocracy were virulently racist (anti-Semitic) and aligned themselves with Fascism & Nazi ideology, as well as the lengths the British government went to cover this up. I find this appalling but not surprising and a lot of the book drags. The author doesn’t have a very incisive analysis of white supremacy or other power structures, and doesn’t seem to be a great storyteller.
The most interesting thing I learned from the book was that Hitler was inspired by American racism. “As Hitler formulated his racial policies, he often looked to what he believed was an American model. He was fascinated that slavery was written into the American constitution, along with calls to “exterminate” Native Americans.” The Nazi regime called out the US’ hypocrisy in criticizing Germany’s treatment of Jews, while the US used the immigration acts of the 1920s to prevent Jewish refugees from entering the country.
Hitler was also inspired by American eugenics, specially California sterilization laws which enabled over 20,000 sterilizations to be done on people with mental illness, primarily BIPOC. These abhorrent practices went on well into the 1960s.
Other American precedents linked to Hitler included Jim Crow laws and Zyklon B, the gas used in Nazi death camp gas chambers—used to execute inmates in America from 1924-1999.
I think it’s important for Americans to learn more about this. I’ve noticed a lot of creative history repeated online lately—this idea that Americans need to get back to a time when “we” fought Nazis. The author points out how the Nazis had many supporters in America at that time. Time magazine, an American publication, named Hitler the Man of Year around that time, which would say something about the prevalence and acceptability of blatant anti-Semitism. America got into the war to protect national security interests, not out of some noble ideal.
I’m glad I learned more about the topic, although I wouldn’t recommend this specific book and doubt I would read another book by Lauren Young.
The most interesting thing I learned from the book was that Hitler was inspired by American racism. “As Hitler formulated his racial policies, he often looked to what he believed was an American model. He was fascinated that slavery was written into the American constitution, along with calls to “exterminate” Native Americans.” The Nazi regime called out the US’ hypocrisy in criticizing Germany’s treatment of Jews, while the US used the immigration acts of the 1920s to prevent Jewish refugees from entering the country.
Hitler was also inspired by American eugenics, specially California sterilization laws which enabled over 20,000 sterilizations to be done on people with mental illness, primarily BIPOC. These abhorrent practices went on well into the 1960s.
Other American precedents linked to Hitler included Jim Crow laws and Zyklon B, the gas used in Nazi death camp gas chambers—used to execute inmates in America from 1924-1999.
I think it’s important for Americans to learn more about this. I’ve noticed a lot of creative history repeated online lately—this idea that Americans need to get back to a time when “we” fought Nazis. The author points out how the Nazis had many supporters in America at that time. Time magazine, an American publication, named Hitler the Man of Year around that time, which would say something about the prevalence and acceptability of blatant anti-Semitism. America got into the war to protect national security interests, not out of some noble ideal.
I’m glad I learned more about the topic, although I wouldn’t recommend this specific book and doubt I would read another book by Lauren Young.
January 24, 2024
Though there are historical inaccuracies, it is another illustration of how close to the surface anti-Semitism lies. Many people who feel they understand a great deal are drawn into emotional reactions and hatred. We certainly see this again now.
September 9, 2023
This author starts off screaming at her readers. BORING. No wonder it is rated as low as it is. I would give it a zero if I could.
January 31, 2024
OMG! Easily the worst book I have ever read! The chronology is utterly confusing. For example, the author uses the titles Duke of Windsor and Queen Mother in the year 1933. No such persons existed then. She seems to imply that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor traveled to Germany in 1936 when Edward was still king and that they were already married in 1936. Young also seems to have no idea how British aristocratic titles work. But the factual errors take the cake. It's Chips Channon, not Cannon. Hesse didn't fly to Britain in 1941 in order to prevent war; Britain had already been at war for two years. Der Stürmer, not Die Stürmer. It's the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, not Prince. On one page the Duke is Edward's first cousin, on another, rightly, George V's. And the title is completely misleading as Unity Mitford seems to be a bit player in Young's rambling, often unintelligible portrait of the pre-war connections between Britain and Nazi Germany. Read other reviews here to understand why this book is to be avoided!!
November 28, 2023
Although titled "Hitler's Girl" - Lauren Young discusses the fascination of some of the English Upper Class with Hitler and Hitler's policy toward the Jews just prior to the outbreak of hostilities before WWII - pre 1939. More than fascinated with Hitler and Hitler's policies some of the British aristocracy attempted to influence their (U.K.) Government to pursue pro-German agenda.
Young wonders how large segments of British society came to 'support' Hitler and Hitler's policies - with no apparent "cost" in social status or condemnation even after the U.K. and Germany were at War 09/03/1939. Young wonders if 'the same thing is happening today' with the seeming demise of democracy - and those espousing autocracy face no "cost" in criticism, lack of social standing - as these individuals don't seem to be called to account for their models that autocracy/autocratic models are now needed in 'The West' without any adequate explanation of how this autocratic model would 'make life better for the average person' in the long run.
The book has four main historical threads:
Unity Mitford - relationship with Hitler - an English aristocrat - daughter of an important English Lord - was a favorite of Hitler's -(met Hitler many times) and lived in Germany even after the start of the war. Was evacuated in 1940 through Switzerland to England. Was treated differently by the U.K. Government - never interrogated; never medically evaluated; left 'on her own' - even though others faced prison sentences for their association with Germans.
Duke and Duchess of Wales - speculation that the model was that the Duke and Duchess of Wales - after Dunkirk - would approach the U.K. Government with the model that if the U.K. were to be 'neutral' - they would avoid a war that the U.K. couldn't win. Being 'neutral' meant that the U.K. could keep its Empire. For this effort the Duke would be elevated to King of England and Wallace to Queen.
Right Club - 'shadow' foreign policy supporting Hitler - a club with important people within it - whose members mixed freely with German representatives before and during the war. Members attempted to influence the U.K. to adopt Pro-German foreign policy models.
Joseph P Kennedy - democracy is dead in England; possibly in America. Kennedy was reacting to what he saw as large portions of the U.K. aristocracy supporting Hitler/Hitler's policies. Kennedy didn't want war with Hitler - a war he did not think the U.S. could win; a war that would eventually take the life of his oldest son. Additionally there were several security leaks at the U.S. embassy - where sensitive cables between Churchill and Roosevelt were intercepted.
Acceptable 'telling' of this series of events - not much discussion of 'why' the U.K. Aristocrats favored Hitler/Hitler's policies - was it because they thought that there would be war and that they thought Hitler would win - and they wanted to be recognized as being on 'the correct (winning) side? Is it because these individuals thought that they couldn't have both a war and keep and Empire - which supported them? It would have been appropriate to provide the context and perspective.
A rough paraphrasing of the front piece of Winston Churchill's Second Volume of the Second World War - something like..." To England who stood alone; until those who had hitherto been half blind - we're half ready...." From Young's adequate book - it appears England itself wasn't 'ready' - having portions of its aristocratic class support Hitler/Hitler's policies and treating aristocrats differently than others - some of whom went to prison for their involvement with Germans after the outbreak of WW II.
Provides some interesting insights - pre-World War II - U.K. German relationships/culture/who was ready for war; who was not. 'Wny questions' not really much addressed.
Carl Gallozzi
Cgallozzi@comcast.net
Young wonders how large segments of British society came to 'support' Hitler and Hitler's policies - with no apparent "cost" in social status or condemnation even after the U.K. and Germany were at War 09/03/1939. Young wonders if 'the same thing is happening today' with the seeming demise of democracy - and those espousing autocracy face no "cost" in criticism, lack of social standing - as these individuals don't seem to be called to account for their models that autocracy/autocratic models are now needed in 'The West' without any adequate explanation of how this autocratic model would 'make life better for the average person' in the long run.
The book has four main historical threads:
Unity Mitford - relationship with Hitler - an English aristocrat - daughter of an important English Lord - was a favorite of Hitler's -(met Hitler many times) and lived in Germany even after the start of the war. Was evacuated in 1940 through Switzerland to England. Was treated differently by the U.K. Government - never interrogated; never medically evaluated; left 'on her own' - even though others faced prison sentences for their association with Germans.
Duke and Duchess of Wales - speculation that the model was that the Duke and Duchess of Wales - after Dunkirk - would approach the U.K. Government with the model that if the U.K. were to be 'neutral' - they would avoid a war that the U.K. couldn't win. Being 'neutral' meant that the U.K. could keep its Empire. For this effort the Duke would be elevated to King of England and Wallace to Queen.
Right Club - 'shadow' foreign policy supporting Hitler - a club with important people within it - whose members mixed freely with German representatives before and during the war. Members attempted to influence the U.K. to adopt Pro-German foreign policy models.
Joseph P Kennedy - democracy is dead in England; possibly in America. Kennedy was reacting to what he saw as large portions of the U.K. aristocracy supporting Hitler/Hitler's policies. Kennedy didn't want war with Hitler - a war he did not think the U.S. could win; a war that would eventually take the life of his oldest son. Additionally there were several security leaks at the U.S. embassy - where sensitive cables between Churchill and Roosevelt were intercepted.
Acceptable 'telling' of this series of events - not much discussion of 'why' the U.K. Aristocrats favored Hitler/Hitler's policies - was it because they thought that there would be war and that they thought Hitler would win - and they wanted to be recognized as being on 'the correct (winning) side? Is it because these individuals thought that they couldn't have both a war and keep and Empire - which supported them? It would have been appropriate to provide the context and perspective.
A rough paraphrasing of the front piece of Winston Churchill's Second Volume of the Second World War - something like..." To England who stood alone; until those who had hitherto been half blind - we're half ready...." From Young's adequate book - it appears England itself wasn't 'ready' - having portions of its aristocratic class support Hitler/Hitler's policies and treating aristocrats differently than others - some of whom went to prison for their involvement with Germans after the outbreak of WW II.
Provides some interesting insights - pre-World War II - U.K. German relationships/culture/who was ready for war; who was not. 'Wny questions' not really much addressed.
Carl Gallozzi
Cgallozzi@comcast.net
March 15, 2024
Awful book. Where do I begin?
I saw this at Barnes and Noble and thought i’d pick it up. I always liked learning about British Aristocracy and Mosley and the Mitfords were obscure figures I was always interested in so I figured why not?
Lauren Young, the author, begins it by ranting about contemporary american politics and how it’s evil abortion is illegal but people should be forced to vaccinated. Alright that’s a worrying start but maybe after that she’d focus on the topic at hand. But then a big red flag went up for me. On Page 7 she stated the House of Windsor changed their name in 1914 from the old name of Battenberg. After that this book lost all credibility from me. It’s such a ridiculous mistake to make when it is easily googled and found on wikipedia the old name was Saxe Coburg and Gotha and they changed it in 1917. She even gets it right by referencing the Duke of Saxe Coburg and Gotha but somehow missed out on that. She has also errors like calling Edward VIII the Duke of Windsor in 1935 when he was still the Prince of Wales and misspelling german words.
But the bigger problem despite the spelling and factual timeline errors is just the overall thesis of the book. She basically makes a point that fascism and nazism (yes they’re different thing) was a tool of the elites and aristocracy to maintain conservative power. She points to various aristocrats like Mosley, Unity Mitford, her father Baron Redesdale and the glorious cable car battle of a group of socialists and jewish antifascist against the black shirts. The thing is, this is incredibly ignorant and dishonest. Mosley had support of the aristocracy but also the support of East End’s working class. Similarly many former members of the Labour Party like John Beckett joined BUF. Even Mosley himself was a former Labour Party member and was apart of Ramsay MacDonald’s cabinet. But as per usual, Young essentially all but says Fascism is capitalism in crisis and ignores the blatantly socialist roots of fascism including Mosley’s. She also ignores the aristocrats like Winston Churchill who greatly opposed Mosley and BUF and also thinks Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement was being pro nazi when in reality it was always meant to stall for war to rebuild the army.
Of course the conclusion is democracy and free speech must be protected… by passing laws suspending elections and banning and arresting the opposition. Despite Young portraying herself at the start as someone bringing new light of newly accessed archived research, the handful of footnotes are secondary sources. By and large this book dials on every front that might interest me. It doesn’t give a good depiction of 20th century aristocracy, it doesn’t explain Mosley or BUF, it barely focuses on Unity Mitford, the title character, and it doesn’t get basic facts right. All in all a huge disappointment, though just reading the title I figured there’d be anti capitalist and elitist rhetoric and slant but i didn’t expect it to have so many obvious and factual errors. The only plus is that it is very short.
I saw this at Barnes and Noble and thought i’d pick it up. I always liked learning about British Aristocracy and Mosley and the Mitfords were obscure figures I was always interested in so I figured why not?
Lauren Young, the author, begins it by ranting about contemporary american politics and how it’s evil abortion is illegal but people should be forced to vaccinated. Alright that’s a worrying start but maybe after that she’d focus on the topic at hand. But then a big red flag went up for me. On Page 7 she stated the House of Windsor changed their name in 1914 from the old name of Battenberg. After that this book lost all credibility from me. It’s such a ridiculous mistake to make when it is easily googled and found on wikipedia the old name was Saxe Coburg and Gotha and they changed it in 1917. She even gets it right by referencing the Duke of Saxe Coburg and Gotha but somehow missed out on that. She has also errors like calling Edward VIII the Duke of Windsor in 1935 when he was still the Prince of Wales and misspelling german words.
But the bigger problem despite the spelling and factual timeline errors is just the overall thesis of the book. She basically makes a point that fascism and nazism (yes they’re different thing) was a tool of the elites and aristocracy to maintain conservative power. She points to various aristocrats like Mosley, Unity Mitford, her father Baron Redesdale and the glorious cable car battle of a group of socialists and jewish antifascist against the black shirts. The thing is, this is incredibly ignorant and dishonest. Mosley had support of the aristocracy but also the support of East End’s working class. Similarly many former members of the Labour Party like John Beckett joined BUF. Even Mosley himself was a former Labour Party member and was apart of Ramsay MacDonald’s cabinet. But as per usual, Young essentially all but says Fascism is capitalism in crisis and ignores the blatantly socialist roots of fascism including Mosley’s. She also ignores the aristocrats like Winston Churchill who greatly opposed Mosley and BUF and also thinks Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement was being pro nazi when in reality it was always meant to stall for war to rebuild the army.
Of course the conclusion is democracy and free speech must be protected… by passing laws suspending elections and banning and arresting the opposition. Despite Young portraying herself at the start as someone bringing new light of newly accessed archived research, the handful of footnotes are secondary sources. By and large this book dials on every front that might interest me. It doesn’t give a good depiction of 20th century aristocracy, it doesn’t explain Mosley or BUF, it barely focuses on Unity Mitford, the title character, and it doesn’t get basic facts right. All in all a huge disappointment, though just reading the title I figured there’d be anti capitalist and elitist rhetoric and slant but i didn’t expect it to have so many obvious and factual errors. The only plus is that it is very short.
January 30, 2023
Historically, the book is a botch job. Unknown to Ms. Young or her editor, the war between Britain and Nazi Germany didn't start after Hess flew to Britain on a peace mission. It was into its second year by then. There seems to be a bit of wobbliness on the distinction between 'war' and 'battle.' For example. She mentions Hitler being attracted to the slavery in the US Constitution, but somehow, no-one pointed out to her that Ulrich documented how Hitler's racism was set aflame by American pamphlets he read while convalescing in Berlin during WWI, but that would knock the legs out from her overall feelings of American exceptionalism. A real editor would have caught all of that. A real historian would have made a lot of this story, perhaps as Enzensberger did with equally flawed sources in Hammerstein. I gave the book 2 stars instead of 1 only because the idea of a book of society gossip posing as history, and the insights that could have have delivered, is fascinating as a form and might just be a new literary form rising among us, which would be worth keeping an eye on. It's neither a polemic nor history, though. When I put the book down, I thought, "Hey, when she's describing Unity, she's doing so by describing herself." I'm a little tired of aristocrat-bashing, too. With the amount in this book, perhaps I should have filed it on a 'propaganda' shelf. Read this baby with care, as the curious social object that it is, but not as history. It isn't the latter. Too bad. I'd say her editor failed her, but I bet that story is far more interesting than that. I hope she writes about it, actually, whatever on earth happened in that relationship. This new form of hers might be perfect for that.
February 25, 2023
The ONLY two reasons I can think of this extended-pamphlet screed being published by a reputable publisher are to cash in on:
A. The notorious cover photo of The Sun showing Edward teaching the future Elizabeth II the Nazi salute and
B. The warmongering related to the Russia-Ukraine War (and a sidebar on Brexit, in the UK).
This book is crap, and yes, at its small page count plus large font and even larger leading, it's an overblown pamphlet.
Here's my list of the most obvious errors. Some of these, and many others, are also at MShelton's excellent review.
Calls Edward the "Duke of Windsor" before his abdication, when he was of course Prince of Wales before becoming king.
Calls the pre-1917 House of Windsor "the House of Battenberg" rather than actual Saxe-Coburg-Gotha," EVEN THOUGH mentioning Edward's cousin, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha!
Beyond errors of fact? As MShelton notes, Young will make second or third references to a person and write as though she had never mentioned them before. Also, she misframes what appeasement was about under Chamberlain. (That's in addition to getting dates wrong.) So do many warmonger liberals in the US and UK in the past 12 months. By speaking at Munich, Zelensky played these people like putty. (Apologies, of a sort, to non-leftist liberal friends on this list, but I'm calling this one as I see it.)
The idea of the suicide attempt as a fake? Definitely refuted, per Unity's Wiki page and the aftereffects of the shooting. While not positively falsified, the idea of "Hitler's baby mama" is also undercut.
This is one of those reviews where I conclude by saying: "Don't read this author again."
A. The notorious cover photo of The Sun showing Edward teaching the future Elizabeth II the Nazi salute and
B. The warmongering related to the Russia-Ukraine War (and a sidebar on Brexit, in the UK).
This book is crap, and yes, at its small page count plus large font and even larger leading, it's an overblown pamphlet.
Here's my list of the most obvious errors. Some of these, and many others, are also at MShelton's excellent review.
Calls Edward the "Duke of Windsor" before his abdication, when he was of course Prince of Wales before becoming king.
Calls the pre-1917 House of Windsor "the House of Battenberg" rather than actual Saxe-Coburg-Gotha," EVEN THOUGH mentioning Edward's cousin, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha!
Beyond errors of fact? As MShelton notes, Young will make second or third references to a person and write as though she had never mentioned them before. Also, she misframes what appeasement was about under Chamberlain. (That's in addition to getting dates wrong.) So do many warmonger liberals in the US and UK in the past 12 months. By speaking at Munich, Zelensky played these people like putty. (Apologies, of a sort, to non-leftist liberal friends on this list, but I'm calling this one as I see it.)
The idea of the suicide attempt as a fake? Definitely refuted, per Unity's Wiki page and the aftereffects of the shooting. While not positively falsified, the idea of "Hitler's baby mama" is also undercut.
This is one of those reviews where I conclude by saying: "Don't read this author again."
July 9, 2024
Woof. Picked this up from the library as I haven't read much about the Mitford sisters and was hoping this would be a bit of an introduction but wow this book was bad.
I read the first two chapters (which is about a quarter of the book) and wasn't terribly impressed. It was meandering and seemed to re-introduce the same characters over and over. There were some fun anecdotes and as someone not particularly well versed in this era of history, I learned some new things.
But then I went to see the source on a quotation that seemed interesting and realized that the author had sourced basically three pages of a chapter from one secondary source, to which I wondered, why am I reading this book and not that one? Flipping through the sourcing and it's clear that very little primary sources have been consulted and there's an over-reliance on a few secondary sources.
The final straw for me though was when the author references Churchill when the proper person to reference was clearly Chamberlain. Even as someone who's not super well versed on politics in Britain in the 1930s, I was able to catch that, and I started to wonder what other errors there may be.
I opened up goodreads and lo and behold, the very first review is someone going through all of the errors in the first few chapters. So I think that my learning from this book was probably a net negative.
This read like a first draft dissertation before any reviewers had a chance to get a hold of it. The publisher clearly didn't employ any editors who could review the substance or fact checkers.
Anyway, hit me up if you have a better recommendation for a book on the Mitford sisters.
I read the first two chapters (which is about a quarter of the book) and wasn't terribly impressed. It was meandering and seemed to re-introduce the same characters over and over. There were some fun anecdotes and as someone not particularly well versed in this era of history, I learned some new things.
But then I went to see the source on a quotation that seemed interesting and realized that the author had sourced basically three pages of a chapter from one secondary source, to which I wondered, why am I reading this book and not that one? Flipping through the sourcing and it's clear that very little primary sources have been consulted and there's an over-reliance on a few secondary sources.
The final straw for me though was when the author references Churchill when the proper person to reference was clearly Chamberlain. Even as someone who's not super well versed on politics in Britain in the 1930s, I was able to catch that, and I started to wonder what other errors there may be.
I opened up goodreads and lo and behold, the very first review is someone going through all of the errors in the first few chapters. So I think that my learning from this book was probably a net negative.
This read like a first draft dissertation before any reviewers had a chance to get a hold of it. The publisher clearly didn't employ any editors who could review the substance or fact checkers.
Anyway, hit me up if you have a better recommendation for a book on the Mitford sisters.
September 9, 2022
I was intrigued by this because it deals with an issue I care deeply about-the threats against democracy here and around the world. I'm usually not a fan of prologues but this one may have been the best part of the book although it's only about 9 pages. But the reader can't help but be scared by the comparison's of the rise of fascism in Germany and other parts of Europe in the post WW1 era and what is happening here in the US and Europe today. The similarities of German veterans forming para-military groups marching through the streets of Berlin and Munich attacking Jews and other "non-desirables" is too damn close to the rise of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and other right-wing terrorists to be ignored.
Then there was the Cliveden Set who fashioned themselves almost as a "government in exile" trying to foist their prejudices, fears onto a public they believe is inferior to them but whom they can scare into supporting their goals. Is Mar a Lago the reincarnation of Cliveden House? Read this and see.
Then there's Unity Mitford-the apple of Hitler's eye-and the girl of the title of the book. What a strange trip that was.
I wish that the body of the book had followed the leads set out in the prologue but while the focus remained on the fascist sympathizers that threatened England from the inside, I felt it didn't live up to its early promise.
Deeply researched, this is an important subject. I just wanted it to be a little better.
Then there was the Cliveden Set who fashioned themselves almost as a "government in exile" trying to foist their prejudices, fears onto a public they believe is inferior to them but whom they can scare into supporting their goals. Is Mar a Lago the reincarnation of Cliveden House? Read this and see.
Then there's Unity Mitford-the apple of Hitler's eye-and the girl of the title of the book. What a strange trip that was.
I wish that the body of the book had followed the leads set out in the prologue but while the focus remained on the fascist sympathizers that threatened England from the inside, I felt it didn't live up to its early promise.
Deeply researched, this is an important subject. I just wanted it to be a little better.
August 5, 2023
I read this book because I have recently begun to read books about parts of history that I have a deficit of learning in. It would be easy to say that my school didn't cover these areas of my personal unknown.
However, I am remiss in my understanding if I blame it all on my education. Maybe I was just not an alert history learner. Here is a new thought though. Real history is so complicated and complex that the most any educational system can garner from it is just to gloss over of the main events.
I do wish that history teachers would stop with the questions that begin with a number. For example, "What are the five actions that led up to WWII?" is a question that seems typical of an education in America. A better question that would lead to greater understanding would be more along the lines of, "What were the cultural misconceptions of Jewish heritage in Great Britain during the 1930's?" And a follow up, "Discuss how the British aristocracy viewed these misconceptions and why there was a desire to side with Germany."
That last question is largely what this book is about.
This method of testing would get at the synthesis concept which English teachers have been dealing with for decades.
However, I am remiss in my understanding if I blame it all on my education. Maybe I was just not an alert history learner. Here is a new thought though. Real history is so complicated and complex that the most any educational system can garner from it is just to gloss over of the main events.
I do wish that history teachers would stop with the questions that begin with a number. For example, "What are the five actions that led up to WWII?" is a question that seems typical of an education in America. A better question that would lead to greater understanding would be more along the lines of, "What were the cultural misconceptions of Jewish heritage in Great Britain during the 1930's?" And a follow up, "Discuss how the British aristocracy viewed these misconceptions and why there was a desire to side with Germany."
That last question is largely what this book is about.
This method of testing would get at the synthesis concept which English teachers have been dealing with for decades.
January 7, 2025
I was very excited about the release of this book, the author chose a topic that has been overlooked and covered up for decades. As a WWII and Monarchist enthusiast this title seemed to be right up my alley. However, the prologue was a rant of left wing propaganda essentially accusing the American Conservatives of being modern day Nazis. The author uses her platform to compare the restriction of abortion to the Nazi regime. In addition to this she made several historical inaccuracies on page 7, she states that in 1914 the Royal Family changes its name from Battenberg to Windsor. This is incorrect on several levels. In 1917 the Royal Family changed their name from Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. The Battenberg's changed their name in 1947 to Mountbatten, while the later may not be as common knowledge as the former, most people that are interested in the Royal Family or WWI would consider the name change in 1917 common knowledge. This mistake being made in the first 9 pages makes it hard to trust the author reading further. My suggestion is that not everything needs to be so political. Both sides are valid and someone is not a "Nazi" for having a different opinion than you.
October 17, 2022
The ARC I received did not include any photos or illustrations, so I do not know if any may be included in the published book.
The content was very interesting. I have heard of Unity Mitford and had a passing knowledge of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's pro-Nazi leanings. However, I did not know about either in detail. This book provided the story in a concise, readable format. For those who have read extensively on the subject, there may be nothing new here, but for those who haven't, this is a great place to start. I learned enough about the topic to be able to discuss it intelligently. I found a lot of the information to be juicy and exciting, considering it happened in the 1930s, but it made for a fascinating nonfiction read.
This is well-researched and every item stated as fact is referenced.
Thanks to the publisher and NetGalley for an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
The content was very interesting. I have heard of Unity Mitford and had a passing knowledge of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's pro-Nazi leanings. However, I did not know about either in detail. This book provided the story in a concise, readable format. For those who have read extensively on the subject, there may be nothing new here, but for those who haven't, this is a great place to start. I learned enough about the topic to be able to discuss it intelligently. I found a lot of the information to be juicy and exciting, considering it happened in the 1930s, but it made for a fascinating nonfiction read.
This is well-researched and every item stated as fact is referenced.
Thanks to the publisher and NetGalley for an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
July 3, 2023
A very, very, strange and unfocused book. The theme of "Hitler's Girl" is fascism and Antisemitism (and pro-Germany feelings) amongst the upper class in England before and during World War II. In particular, it tells the story of a young woman named Unity Mitford, who was a fervent admirer (and perhaps lover?) of Hitler during this time period. But, my god, this woman needed an editor, or better still, a co-author, because this book reads like a pile of barely organized research materials. Page after page throws names and titles of the British upper class around, with no or barely any context to the events that are reported.
There's no doubt that the thrust of this book - how Nazi sympathizers in England could really have hamstrung the Allies war effort - is important, and it's a theme that should perhaps be revisited by someone who knows how to write, because this is a mess. Were this book not pretty short there's no way I could've finished it.
There's no doubt that the thrust of this book - how Nazi sympathizers in England could really have hamstrung the Allies war effort - is important, and it's a theme that should perhaps be revisited by someone who knows how to write, because this is a mess. Were this book not pretty short there's no way I could've finished it.
September 25, 2022
Disappointing. It seemed to me like the author wanted to write a book about Unity Mitford and her fascination with Hitler and the Nazis, but didn't have enough information to justify one, so added these other chapters at random points, and they just seemed to be isolated completely from her "main story." Apart from the factual errors (evidently there were a lot more than I caught), while there was some interesting information, I did not find it to be well integrated at all.
October 10, 2022
Interesting and at times horribly amusing, regarding Unity Mitford's head over heels infatuation with Adolf Hitler (!). However I found this volume ultimately disappointing. There have been bios penned about Unity, Diana, and there is the excellent memoir by sister Debo, The Duchess of Devonshire. With the available secondary material and-as the author admits-classified or locked away government documents and diaries, I still expected more. With others on this review site I found the book choppily written, not well integrated and poorly edited. The title misleads as this is a surface synthesis of the upper crust British appeasers and Hitler sycophants populating the estates and drawing rooms of pre-WWII England. Yes Unity and sister Diana, and her hubby Oswald Mosley and of course the Duke of Windsor and his Wally. Much has already been covered elsewhere and in more detail.
September 11, 2022
Not a particularly revolutionary read, but pretty interesting nonetheless. I mean, are there still people out there who don't know about Edward VIII and his wife's love of Nazis?..
What really amazed me are the questions about whether the same cataclysmic event as WWII is needed for the world to wake up and shake off the wave of populism and right-wing extremism. The war in Ukraine has been raging on for half a year and they still think the world can go back to normal (whatever that "normal" is)?
Fave quote, that made me laugh hysterically:
What really amazed me are the questions about whether the same cataclysmic event as WWII is needed for the world to wake up and shake off the wave of populism and right-wing extremism. The war in Ukraine has been raging on for half a year and they still think the world can go back to normal (whatever that "normal" is)?
Fave quote, that made me laugh hysterically:
Halifax declared that he had “reached the conclusion that perhaps the best course was to do nothing as any positive action on our part would only make the position of the German Jews still worse.”
November 23, 2022
An exploration of the close ties between the British aristocracy and Nazi Germany, documenting the inordinately close relationships between aristocratic families on the one hand, and the home-grown black shirts and officials of the Third Reich on the other. Most startling of all is the intimate, possibly romantic relationship that formed between Unity Mitford and Adolf Hitler himself, a bond that remained in place until Mitford returned home with the outbreak of war. A short but eye-opening account of a flirtation with fascism that the British government long sought to suppress through classified documents.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews