I would suggest you read it Clivex and decide for yourself.
It does show that Churchill was an obsessive war monger, hell bent on taking aerial war to the civilian hearts of the enemy. It has never been in any doubt that he did provoke the Germans into bombing British cities but this has long been accepted as a painful necessity in winning the Battle Of Britain.
Alarmingly it does depict Churchill and Roosevelt as worryingly anti-semitic, and presents a very worrying theory that the Holocaust was brought about by the refusal of the UK and USA to deal with the German desire to expel Jews from their territory.
Also, Churchill's insistence on blockading occupied Europe brought about far greater hunger and starvation than was necessary.
As I said read it for yourself before pre-judging.
It's rare enough, but I agree with clivex.
If the examples that you give are representative of the book as a whole, then I also do not wish to read it.
I have never encountered the phrase anywhere, that Churchill provoked the Germans into bombing German cities. Unless of course, the author means that by defending themselves during the bombing of airfields, the British (Churchill) somehow provoked the Germans into switching targets. The initial reasoning behind bombing London being, as intercepted by ULTRA, an instruction from Goering to provoke the British fighters into a mass clash in which they could be destroyed, thus creating a condition under which Operation Sea Lion could proceed.
The second assertion that UK and USA were responsible for provoking the Holocaust is equally errant nonsense. The Final Solution is well documented as being decided upon in early 1942 (as backed up by the testimony of Goering at Nuremberg). At this time both countries were at war with Germany, indeed Germany declared war on the USA (Presumably Roosevelt's anti-semitism forced Hitler to do this as well). The exodus of Jews from Germany had ended on any great scale 2 years previously. No nation state with a modicum of sense would have allowed any mass exodus from a hostile nation to continue under such circumstances.
For those unfamiliar with the prevalence of anti-semitism in this era, I suggest reading the novel The 39 Steps by John Buchan for a small insight.
Lastly, the suggestion that the blockade of occupied Europe caused greater suffering than necessary is laughable. Had no blockade existed, do we really believe that occupied allied countries would have benefitted? Given that direct orders were given that all resources of any kind from occupied territories should be directed towards the Reich with only that which was not required being left, I would contest that any loosening of the blockade would simply have resulted in an extension of the suffering of occupied Europe by making further resources available to the Germans.
As for taking aerial war to the heart of the enemy. Let's not forget that this was a war in which the bombing of civilian populations was declared acceptable behaviour in 1940 in Rotterdam, by the Germans.
I would recommend that before anyone reads this sensationalist tosh by an author who is oh so very clearly trying to present an "alternative" view of history in a bid to shift copies, that they read Nuremberg: Evil On Trial by David Owen. It is a balanced book, consisting of transcripts from the trial, defendants and prosecutors, put together with minimal narrative in a surprisingly readable manner. Despite the horrific content.
. It's like suggesting that Turkey and the rest of the world is responsible for Saddam Hussein's massacres of Kurds because they didn't allow them to set up their own homeland.
). To suggest that they focussed their attacks on industry is quite simply erroneous. The Germans can't see in the dark any better than Britons. (see also Baedeker raids). I would add to that the British extermination of civilians at Dresden was inexcusable and unnecessary.