All posts by Michael Herron

To Build a Better Future

Michael Herron

The world seems to be at war today with crises in three main areas: how the economy works or doesn’t work for people, youth crime and relationships between the sexes.  I do not claim to have all the answers to these questions, and I have not even mentioned the biggest problem of all, global warming.  However, by dealing with the three areas I mentioned above we may then be able to turn our minds to meeting that huge challenge of climate change.

The answers to these questions incorporate three main themes: community, mental health and harmony.  Taking the first of these themes, I believe the answer to the question of how to make the economy work for people lies in reviving communities.   Of course, I am not the first to say this and since 2016 there has been much commentary on how to revive communities throughout the West that feel forgotten.

However, the answers that I have heard so far seem to be that central government knows best and like a lord dishing out crumbs from his high table to beggars below central government will hand out money to struggling communities as and when it sees fit.

I beg to differ.  I believe communities understand their own specific needs better than central government.  The leaders of these communities in local government, small and medium sized business and community groups know better than central government what their communities lack and require.  Central government should take its cue from these local leaders, empower them not dictate to them that it knows best.  Local communities should be empowered by being enabled to raise and keep more of their income within their communities themselves rather than continually having to hand this income over to central government.  In other words, central government and each community should act in partnership with each other.  There are certain things that only central government can do such as organise and fund a Green New Deal but again this should be in partnership with local communities.

The answer to the second question that of youth crime I believe lies in resolving mental health issues of our youth.  I draw upon my experience as a student teacher at Savanna High School in California in 1996 as I outline in my book Revelation: Conspiracy is only the beginning published by Matador to explain how these issues may be resolved.

Firstly, I would like to say that Savanna was a very well organised school.  It had three vice-principals (deputy heads), one took students with surnames A-F, another G-Q and so on.  The school had a multi-racial student body (Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Orientals) and because the school was so well structured whenever a teacher had an issue with a student, they could refer them to the appropriate vice principal.  Consequently, the school had few issues with discipline.

There is an additional point I would like to make about how Savanna was organised that has relevance to dealing with the question of youth crime.  Savanna had a team of counsellors on campus and once a student was referred to them this team of counsellors could talk to the student and find out if there were issues outside of school that were affecting their mental health and consequently, their school work.  This team of counsellors would then devise a plan tailored to the student’s individual needs and might liaise with outside agencies to help the student solve their problems from outside school.  In this way, the school was the first port of call for the student not the police.

I believe that if every school in Britain and the United States followed Savanna’s example and employed a team of counsellors that could coordinate with outside agencies it could stop many students from falling through the cracks and nip in the bud any attraction the student might have to joining a gang.  This could go some way to solving the gang issue in Britain and the US while also helping our youth cope with their mental health issues.

The third question is one where angels fear to tread and that is how to create harmony between the sexes in the wake of #MeToo, but I will take the plunge in any case.  I believe the answer lies with us men.  The problem seems to be that we are not very good at listening to what women really want.  We should realize that if a woman feels safe and gets some satisfaction emotionally and sexually, we can get more satisfaction than if we are only worried about our own needs.  Isn’t the whole point of making love so that the woman is satisfied, otherwise what’s the point?

This stems from the idea that men and women are equal.  In that case we should really listen to what a woman wants and needs.  If we don’t know what she wants, ask. We might be surprised.  When making love it is not the case that if she wins, we lose.  We should look at it like this; if she wins, we both win.  This does not mean that we should give in to women in every detail of our lives.  I don’t believe women would want that in any case since they would still want to respect us.

It does mean that be listening to what she wants before making love and giving it to her as she wants the mutual trust this may inspire may spread into other areas of our lives enriching our relationships in which give and take is the order of the day.  I should also stress being protective does not need to mean being controlling, and we should always be vigilant that it does not become so. Being protective means that she and her children are kept safe for their benefit not ours.

All the answers to these questions may not create heaven on earth.  I’m not even sure that it is desirable to try to create heaven on earth since the road to hell has often been paved by those seeking nirvana.  We may not achieve perfection, but we may be able to create a world that is more liveable than the present one.  And that is something worth striving for.  By coming together as one harmonious and diverse community we can put the past behind us and build a better future.


The Case for Scottish Independence

Doctor Michael Herron

This article draws on a previous article by former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, “Westminster Cannot Block Scottish Independence” on his website

and his citation of British official documents.

These official documents relate to arguments made by the British Government to the International Court of Justice in 2009 to support Kosovo’s case for independence from Yugoslavia and its successor state, Serbia. This British written statement to the ICJ dated 17th April 2009 was entitled “Request for An Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Question “Is the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self Government of Kosovo in Accordance with International Law”.

The British argument comprised two main points.  Firstly, that most states including the United States have become independent in controversial circumstances. The second is that Kosovo’s situation was sui generis i.e. unique since it was potentially a successor state to the failed state of Yugoslavia, and it was also a victim of Serbia’s ethnic cleansing in the Balkan wars that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia.

The author makes the argument that Scotland’s situation is also unique though obviously it has not been a victim of ethnic cleansing.  Scotland as a nation during the EU referendum voted as a majority by 62% to remain in the European Union.  Similarly, Northern Ireland voted as a majority to remain part of the EU.  In the deal struck before Christmas between British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar Northern Ireland was allowed to remain within the single market and customs union.

This deal essentially honours the wish of the people of Northern Ireland to remain within the key structures of the EU.  Conversely, the British Government’s determination to pull the rest of the United Kingdom including Scotland out of the EU flagrantly ignores the will of the Scottish people to remain within the EU.

Since the people of Wales voted as a majority with England to leave the EU, Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom whose wish to remain within the EU has been ignored.  Scotland is therefore a unique case since it is the only nation within the EU that is being forced to leave the EU against its will. Scotland’s situation differs from that of Catalonia since Spain, as a whole, is not determined to leave the EU.

By its own argument in support of Kosovan independence the British Government has condemned itself regarding the Scottish case. If the Kosovan case for independence was unique and legitimate then the similarly unique Scottish claim for independence is also equally legitimate.


Doctor Michael Herron
Brexiteers have made much of Britain’s mythical role in the Second World War of standing alone against a Nazi dominated Europe. The fact that Britain was ultimately successful in that conflict has been used by Brexiteer to support the view that Britain could equally succeed independent of the European Union.
The historical truth of Britain’s Second World War tells a very different story. The fact is Britain never stood alone against a Nazi dominated Europe. The Britain that fought the Second World War was, in reality, the British Empire that included the dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and colonial India as well as various Asian and African colonies.
Despite claims to the contrary none of the three major allies; Britain, the USA and the Soviet Union won the war by themselves. Each ally played a vital role at different times to defeat the Axis Powers of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.
It is true that the Soviet Union with 20 million dead paid the ultimate price in blood for victory over Nazi Germany in which the casualty figures of the other two allies pale in comparison. Although the Soviet Red Army engaged the vast majority of the German army divisions during the war in comparison to the numbers assembled against the Western allies, the Soviets received large numbers of supplies from its allies. Of particular importance were the Arctic convoys of British merchant vessels escorted by Royal Navy ships to Murmansk in the Arctic Circle that supplied the Red Army after much of the Soviet Union was occupied by the Germans since their initial invasion during Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets would later be supplied with vast numbers of American jeeps and trucks to speed their advance into Germany.
However, Russians would argue rightly that during the most intense period of fighting their factories relocated beyond the Ural Mountains supplied most of the munitions to take the fight to the Germans. This does not negate the fact that at significant moments during the war Britain and the US aided the Soviets in their struggle for survival and ultimate victory.

The Battle of Britain
One of the most important moments in the war was the result of a catastrophic disaster. Winston Churchill, who was First Lord of the Admiralty orchestrated the campaign in Norway of British forces primarily around the port of Narvik and was the architect of a blunder to rank with his at Gallipoli during the First World War.
However, the opposition Labour Party believed that he was the most likely war leader amongst the leading Conservative politicians and after a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, Labour supported Churchill in his bid to become Prime Minister. The Labour Party thus helped to install the key British figure of the war at its most critical juncture.
After the evacuation of Dunkirk, which was really a strategic defeat since the British Army left behind most of its material and munitions then Britain faced the possibility of invasion. The Battle of Britain in which the RAF engaged the German Luftwaffe was pivotal. A number of commentators have questioned whether Hitler really intended to invade Britain. From reading the secondary literature on the subject this author has concluded that Hitler and his commanders may have envisaged an invasion of Britain but only if the Luftwaffe had command of the skies over the Channel. This is because the Royal Navy was still one of the most powerful navies in the world and in the absence of German air superiority would have sunk any invasion fleet. Conversely, German air supremacy over the Channel would have nullified Britain’s dominance at the sea since Royal Navy ships would have been vulnerable to attack from the air. The sinking of the Prince of Wales by Japanese fighter bombers in the Indian Ocean later in the war shows this was no idle threat. The fact that Britain maintained command of the air over the Channel by winning the Battle of Britain shows why this victory was so important.
By ending any prospects of invasion Britain then became a stronghold on the edge of Europe before the Soviet Union and United States entered the war. Britain stood as a beacon of freedom and hope for the rest of Occupied Europe and a launchpad first for aid to the Soviet Union when it was attacked and then for the invasion of Northern Europe during D-Day.

The Role of British Sea Power
Britain’s position as a maritime power was significant for the course of the war. The Royal Navy and its imperial subordinate the Canadian Navy were largely responsible for clearing the North Atlantic of U-Boats while the United States concentrated the bulk of its naval forces in the Pacific against the Imperial Japanese Navy. This was doubly important since it enabled the United States to overwhelm a dangerous foe in the Pacific and also to safely ship its army to England in the build-up to D-Day.

The Role of the RAF
There has been a great deal of debate about the effectiveness of the RAF’s bombing campaign over Germany during the Second World War. This bombing campaign did not undermine German morale to the extent that its architect Arthur “Bomber” Harris intended. However, it forced German strategists to maintain a substantial force of fighter planes in Germany to protect German cities that could have been used on the Eastern Front. This helped the Soviets to gain dominance of the air over the Eastern Front much to the Red Army’s advantage.

Churchill’s Mediterranean Strategy and D-Day
The fact that Britain had substantial imperial assets east of the Suez Canal determined Britain’s strategy during the war. After evacuating the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk Britain stationed the bulk of this army in North Africa protecting the approaches to the Suez Canal.
During the first half of the war Britain fought Italian and German forces in North Africa. However, British commanders overestimated the strength of the German Afrika Corps. The size of this force was substantially inferior to the German forces ranged against the Red Army on the Eastern Front. Nevertheless “The Desert Fox” Erwin Rommel continually overcame the British Army in North Africa until his Afrika Corps was massively outnumbered at El Alamein by Bernard Montgomery and soundly defeated.
Although the Americans were frustrated at Churchill’s eagerness to pursue a Mediterranean strategy of invading Sicily then Italy lessons learned from these invasions as well as the defeats at Narvik in 1940 and Dieppe in 1942 paved the way for eventual success on D-Day in 1944.
After D-Day the vast majority of the Allied soldiers fighting in France were Americans, however on D-Day itself the bulk of the invasion forces were from the British Empire. The ships that escorted the invasion force largely came from the Royal Navy while three of the five invasion beaches: Gold, Sword and Juno were assaulted by British Empire forces.
As long as it lasted the fighting in Normandy was as ferocious as anything on the Eastern Front. The British forces around Caen, according to Antony Beevor, fought the strongest German divisions in Normandy. Although the British became bogged down against the dug-in German forces, arguably, by pinning these divisions down they facilitated the breakout by American forces under George Patton through the Falaise Gap into the rest of France.

Britain could not have defeated the Axis of Germany, Japan and Italy by itself. The German army from 1940 onwards was just too strong on many levels for the forces of the British Empire to defeat alone. It required the might of two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States to defeat Germany. As other commentators have argued we have to highlight the reality that the Soviet Union as another totalitarian society was prepared to pay the price in blood that its two allies as liberal democracies could not afford. However, Britain did play a pivotal supporting role to the two superpowers and, arguably, they could not have defeated Germany without Britain’s help.

Antony Beevor Ardennes 1944 Hitler’s Last Gamble (Penguin Random House
London, 2015)
Antony Beevor Stalingrad (Penguin Books: London, 1999)
Antony Beevor D-Day: The Battle for Normandy (Penguin Random House: London,
Max Hastings Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-45 (Macmillan,
Basingstoke, 2004)
John Keegan The Second World War (Pimlico: London, 1989)
Ian Kershaw To Hell and Back Europe 1914-1949 (Allen Lane: London, 2015)
Russell F Weigley The American Way of War: A History of the United States Military
Strategy and Policy (Indiana University Press: Bloomington and
Indianapolis, 1973)