|
13 Jun 08 - 07:20 AM (#2364899) Subject: BS: WW II unjustified? From: beardedbruce Controversial World War II book questions 'just war' Story Highlights Nicholson Baker's "Human Smoke" looks at the origins of World War II He says Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt strengthened Adolf Hitler's power Holocaust scholar says Hitler would not have responded to passivity Baker known for "Vox," phone sex novel given to Bill Clinton SOUTH BERWICK, Maine (AP) -- Even the staunchest opponents of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq are loath to take issue with World War II, the quintessential conflict between good and evil that became the model of a morally just war. So it's no surprise that novelist Nicholson Baker's latest venture into nonfiction, "Human Smoke," has stirred up strong feelings. After all, he questions the popular notion of the just war and indicates that Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt share blame with Adolf Hitler in setting the stage for the deadliest and most destructive war in history. Baker makes his case through hundreds of brief vignettes culled from newspapers, diaries and secondary sources that are presented chronologically and without context or commentary by the author. The book ends on December 31, 1941, as the world plunges into the abyss. In a two-page "afterword," Baker dedicates the book to pacifists who risked public scorn and imprisonment by fighting to stave off the war. Outraged by the invasion of Iraq, Baker said he was familiar with arguments that some wars had to be fought and that World War II is the premier example. "If this is the war that everyone holds up as the benchmark of a morally justified war, let's look very closely at how it began, let's find out what happened, in what order and where the moments were that things could have turned out differently. "Let's ask the question, 'Was it a good war?' " he said in an interview at his 18th-century farmhouse in this New Hampshire border town where he and his family have lived for the past decade. Exploring the origins of World War II may seem something of a reach for an unconventional author known for quirky novels such as "Vox," which details a phone sex conversation and became a footnote to history after it was learned that Monica Lewinsky had given a copy to President Bill Clinton. Another novel, "The Mezzanine," explores the thoughts of an office worker who rides an escalator during his lunch hour. Baker has written articles in The New Yorker, ranging from the history of the fingernail clipper to the workings of a movie projector, but his best-known shift to nonfiction was the 2001 "Double Fold," which lamented the destruction of newspaper archives and their replacement by microfilm. It was while tending the British Library newspaper collection that he rescued from the shredder that Baker began reading about "the horrible period" that led to World War II and prompted him to dig deeper and try "to make some sense" of the situation. Baker said he was surprised and shocked at the way Churchill responded to Hitler's attacks on Poland and other neighboring states by launching a relentless bombing campaign against German cities as well as a blockade that was designed to starve the enemy into submission. "He was acting like a bloodthirsty maniac during that period. That has to go back on the record in all of its unpleasantness. We can't learn from a hero like that. It's a mistake to say that because Hitler was bad, we have to clean up the image of Churchill. Churchill was also bad," Baker said. Baker maintains that Churchill's bellicose actions and Roosevelt's eagerness to supply Britain with ships and planes served only to prop up Hitler's standing with Germans and strengthen his hold on the country. "It was the war -- the long, slow war of bombing and blockade -- that fundamentally helped to keep Hitler in power," he said. "The fact that the country was attacked night after night in this way released a massive antipathy to the British." The people in the book whom Baker looks up to include Mohandas Gandhi, the apostle of nonviolence; Herbert Hoover, who opposed the British blockade; and a handful of lesser-known pacifists who spoke out against the run up to war. Tall and lean, with a full but neatly trimmed white beard, the 51-year-old Baker does not regard himself as "a war-minded person," but neither does he claim to be "an absolute pacifist." He is sympathetic to the Quaker tradition of nonviolence, having had Quaker forebears and having gone to Haverford College, which was founded by Quakers. "Human Smoke," which draws its title from a description of the ashes at Auschwitz, is not meant to be a comprehensive history. Rather, he said, "it's just one journey through the thicket of events," one that captures the anguish of the period and puts human faces on those caught up in it. The book slices and dices the years that led to war into hundreds of little anecdotes rather than a single sweeping narrative. Baker presents the facts in a detached, journalistic manner that belies his underlying passion and leaves it to the reader to sort out contradictions and infer the broader picture. Reviews, Baker noted, have ranged from "extremely positive" to "ferociously negative." In The New York Times, William Grimes vilified "Human Smoke" as a "self-important, hand-wringing, moral mess of a book." But Colm Toibin, in the newspaper's Sunday Book Review, called it "riveting and fascinating" and "a serious and conscientious contribution to the debate about pacifism." Among the skeptics was Holocaust scholar Michael Berenbaum, who helped oversee the creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "If there ever was a war that was worth fighting it was World War II, and there is no evidence that I know of whatsoever that Hitler would have responded to passivity except to regard that as empowering him to expand," Berenbaum said. "Hitler could only be stopped by force." |
|
13 Jun 08 - 08:03 AM (#2364918) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: bobad This book should appeal to those with a penchant for moral equivalency and historical revisionism. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 08:09 AM (#2364923) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: Acorn4 As I understand it the political mistakes made from the signing of the Treaty of Versailles onwards until right through the thirties helped to create the situation which led to the rise of the Third Reich, and this has always been understood; Hitler hoped that Britain would not be involved and miscalculated here- events like the bombing of Dresden have always been controversial so I can't really see that anything new is being put forward here. "Passivity" had been tried with the annexation of the Rhineland, Anscluss and the Sudetenland and Hitler may have been stopped in his tracks if the non fascist powers had been "non passive "a bit sooner. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 08:18 AM (#2364928) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: The Fooles Troupe Just tonight on SBS was a documentary - "The Wehrmacht - The Blitzkreig" - it reveals (indirectly) that Baker's ideas are rubbish. The documentary reveals that captured German Generals were placed in 'luxury' accomodation, where they spoke openly - being recorded on disc unbeknown to them. This top secret info was only released recently, and I doubt that Baker had access to this material. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 08:41 AM (#2364943) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: Little Hawk It should make for interesting reading. I think that just wars are very, very rare indeed...and I think the blame for the destruction of WWII can be laid at the feet of many powers and many politicians, and not only those on the Axis side. This does not alter the fact that the Nazis were a terribly destructive regime (as were the Italian Fascists and the Japanese military government....and Stalin's Soviets as well). A careful reading of Winston Churchill's life and his performance in government reveals that he was an extremely belligerent and ruthless man who carried out very aggressive policies. I think that had he been on the Axis side instead of the Allied side in the war, he would now be seen as a monster, just as Adolf Hitler is seen. It is true that Churchill first set the RAF into systematically bombing German civilian centres, including Berlin, and that Hitler's response to that was to order the terror bombing of London. Hitler had given his Luftwaffe explicit orders NOT to bomb London up until that point, so the British terror bombings on Germany were what drew the response of German terror bombings on the British capital. The RAF continued waging the single most vicious anti-civilian bombing campaign in history from that point until the end of the war, culminating in horrendous events like the firestorms that consumed Hamburg and Dresden. If the Allies had not won the war, those actions would be seen as among the greatest war crimes in history. It's nothing new that the victors of a war sanitize their own actions in the public consciousness and demonize all actions of the losers, so the stories we've been told all our lives have arisen out of that effort. Anything that balances the story a bit would be worth giving some attention to. I might add that my father fought against the Nazis...and he detested them...and I can well understand why. I'm not saying they were "the good guys". I'm not saying they did not deserve to lose the war. They did deserver to lose it. I'm saying, however, that there were ruthless bastards on the Allied side too in positions of leadership, and that major war crimes were committed on both sides in that war, and that very bad prewar policies on both sides led all the nations inevitably into that conflict. Therefore, the blame for it is shared by those on both sides. I also know Germans who lived through the war as young people and they've told me about it. The anger and tremendous resistance raised in the civilian population by the continual Allied terror bombings of that country is exactly what propped up the Nazi government, kept Hitler popular almost to the end, and made of that war a much more bitter conflict that it might have been. Nothing unites a population in solidarity and gets them to support their government more than continual terror attack of the civilian infrastructure by foreign air forces. Imagine it happening to your own towns and cities...on a daily basis. Imagine it being done by some other nation like China or Russia, and imagine how you would feel towards them...and how fervently you would support your own government's retaliation and defense efforts in that circumstance. The Allied bombings were done supposedly to break German morale. They had exactly the opposite effect. They stiffened German morale, and the Germans fought to the bitter end. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 08:52 AM (#2364949) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: Gulliver Yes, as Acorn4 writes it was the mess made at the Treaty of Versailles that ultimately led to the instability of the Weimar Republic and provided the opportunity for Hitler and his allies to come to power. Right-wingers all over Europe supported the move towards Facism, whether in Germany, Spain, or Italy. Many of the ruling class in Britain (Churchill's class) saw Hitler as a bulwark against Stalin and supported him accordingly, though this was hushed up after the start of the war. They didn't protest as long as Hitler oppressed the Communists, Social-Democrats, Jews and others, although it was well known from Mein Kampf and Hitler's broadcasts that he intended taking over the Ukraine to use as Germany's breadbasket and enslave other races as he thought fit. Don |
|
13 Jun 08 - 08:54 AM (#2364951) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: Rapparee The treaty of Versailles was vindictive and intended to punish Germany. It's roots were in the 19th Century: the Franco-Prussian War and others. Spiteful, vengeful, vindictive, rapacious -- it bred near-revolution in Germany, fighting between the various political factions, and eventually brought Hitler to power. A Mennonite friend of mine, who has very thoroughly studied WW2, was completely opposed to it until he visited Dachau. It was then that he felt that "some wars are justified and the only answer." Given that the Allies knew of Germany, Japan, Italy and the Soviet Union's camps and record prior to the War and never acted I cannot fault them when they finally did act. The Rape of Nanking alone.... |
|
13 Jun 08 - 09:06 AM (#2364962) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: MarkS Little Hawk I agree with most of your post but I hesitate to compare Mussolini with Hitler, Stalin, and Japan. Mussolinis' deeds pale in comparison to those others. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 09:06 AM (#2364963) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: Paul Burke If the review quoted by Bruce is faithful to the book, I think the author (who is younger than me but LOOKS OLDER) needs to study chronology a little more closely. By the time war broke out, Austria had been annexed, Poland and Czechoslovakia had been invaded, and German forces had carried out bombing raids against civilians (though not Sevilleans) in Spain. There were also the antisemitic Nuremburg laws in place, and Jews were being imprisoned in concentration camps. Japan had been at war in China since 1937 (having previously been interfering there for years). While the WWII Allies, like any political organisation, were far from squeaky-clean, prior to the War there were very serious attempts made to avoid war, notably the Munich agreement. The British and French people were mostly against war, it being feared that a repeat of the horrors of WWI would ensue. (They were of course wrong, the horrors were mostly of a quite different sort.) So it was with the greatest reluctance that Britain and France delared war in 1939, and it's notable that it over 2 years later that the Americans entered the war- scarcely the action of scheming warmongers. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 11:17 AM (#2365068) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: Teribus "It is true that Churchill first set the RAF into systematically bombing German civilian centres, including Berlin, and that Hitler's response to that was to order the terror bombing of London. Hitler had given his Luftwaffe explicit orders NOT to bomb London up until that point, so the British terror bombings on Germany were what drew the response of German terror bombings on the British capital." - History according to Little Hawk - It is, not surprisingly, totally incorrect: History of the London Blitz: "In late August 1940, before the date normally associated with the start of the Blitz, the Luftwaffe attacked industrial targets in Birmingham and Liverpool. This was part of an increase in night bombing brought about by the high casualty rates inflicted on German bombers in daylight. During a raid on Thames Haven, on 24 August, some German aircraft strayed over London and dropped bombs in the east and northeast parts of the city, Bethnal Green, Hackney, Islington, Tottenham and Finchley. This prompted the British to mount a retaliatory raid on Berlin the next night with bombs falling in Kreuzberg and Wedding, this had caused 10 deaths. Hitler was said to be furious, and on 5 September, at the urging of the Luftwaffe high command, he issued a directive "for disruptive attacks on the population and air defences of major British cities, including London, by day and night". The Luftwaffe began day and night attacks on British cities, concentrating on London." The Luftwaffe had previously bombed civilian centres of population in Spain (Guernica), Poland (Warsaw), Norway (Narvik) and The Netherlands (Rotterdam). Prior to dropping bombs on London on the night of 24th August they had dropped bombs on Birmingham and Liverpool, bombing techniques in 1940 were so inaccurate that attacking their industrial targets surrounded as they were by residential areas would inevitably result in civilian casualties. On taking up his appointment as head of Bomber Command in February 1942, Sir Arthur Harris said this, "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." "Strategic" or "Area" bombing of German cities was the brainchild of one Professor Frederick Lindemann, not Churchill as stated by Little Hawk. Churchill appointed Lindemann as the British government's leading scientific adviser with a seat in the Cabinet. It was in 1942, not 1940, that Lindemann presented a seminal paper to the Cabinet advocating the area bombing of German cities in a strategic bombing campaign. Up until that point in the war the Royal Air Force lacked the types of aircraft needed for such a task. Lindemann's paper was accepted by the Cabinet and Harris was appointed to carry out the task, made feasible by the arrival in service of aircraft such as the Handley Page Halifax and Avro Lancaster. As to the effectiveness of the Bomber Offensive, Albert Speer the industrialist and man in charge of German war production certainly rated its effectiveness and after the war wrote and confirmed that to Harris in person. He also stated that he realised that after the offensive against Hamburg in 1943, he (Speer) knew that Germany had lost the war. He was also of the opinion that had Harris immediately followed up the Hamburg raids with similar attacks on five or six more German cities the war would have ended, unfortunately Harris at the time could not muster the resources to maintain such an attack. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 11:50 AM (#2365105) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: PoppaGator A couple of nights ago, I saw right-wing pundit and erstwhile Presidential candidiate Pat Buchanan on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show." Buchanan was promoting his new book, which advances he same idea/opionion as Baker's: that WWII was not a wholly justified crusade as we all have been taught, and that Churchill was a culprit. I believe the book title is "Unnecessary War" and the subtitle includes Churchill's name and maybe Hitler's as well. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 12:35 PM (#2365147) Subject: RE: BS: WW II unjustified? From: Little Hawk Agreed, Mark. Mussolini was a minor malefactor in comparison to Hitler, Stalin, and the Japanese. He was an unsavory, brutal man in many ways, and an abuser of power, but he was not in that same class of being a major committer of war crimes. There was a strong tendency toward fascism in all the western nations in the 30's...as well as in Japan...and the Soviets had their own form of what I would call extreme socialist fascism too, which was as bad as any of the others, maybe worse. I regard the British, French, and American societies of the late 30's as having had quite strong fascist undercurrents, instincts, and sympathies...but when war broke out between them and the Germans (who were even considerably more fascist) then the Allies took upon themselves the righteous mantle of official anti-fascism, as if they had no such tendencies themselves! ...and they've been wearing that fig leaf over their own naked ambition ever since. That was convenient in a propaganda sense, but it was far from totally honest or true. The present British-American Axis in the world is decidedly fascist in my opinion, and it is behaving quite a bit the way Hitler did in the late 30s with its illegal little wars in small countries and its illegal prison and torture facilities for prisoners that it holds without trial, and its increases in domestic surveillance of its own populations, and its abrogations of civil rights in that regard. All wars are unnecessary (at the inception), but they happen because people abuse power and try to take things that are not rightly theirs. At a certain point in the process...from the point of view of those being attacked...the war then becomes both necessary and absolutely unavoidable. For the Poles, obviously, in September '39, that was the case. They had to fight to protect themselves against German aggression, and the whole rest of the sorry mess proceeded from there like a house of cards falling down. It must have been quite a surprise to Hitler, because I don't think he had any notion that the French and British would fight him on behalf of Poland. Particulary the British! Hitler had always seen them as his natural future allies in a world dominated by an Anglo-German alliance. He figured that the British would help him annihilate the Soviets, and together they would run the world. The period of the "Phony War" that followed the Polish campaign was interesting, in retrospect. The British and French had declared war on Germany after the Polish invasion, but they didn't really do much about prosecuting that war. Leaflets were dropped by their airplanes on German land. No significant land actions were taken against the Germans by the powerful French army which had the Germans very badly outnumbered in the West until the conclusion of the Polish campaign. This must have emboldened Hitler considerably in late '39 and early '40, as he would have felt that the western allies were showing weakness and lack of resolve. Still, he was quite nervous about the chances of his 1940 offensive in the West. When it succeeded beyond his wildest expectations, he must have felt invincible...and such hubris would later lead him to do absolutely irrational things such as the attack on Soviet Russia, and the declaration of war on the USA within days after Pearl Harbour. He sealed his country's fate with those decisions. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 12:37 PM (#2365149) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: GUEST,Volgadon As an antidote, I recommend reading George MacDonald Frazer's "Quartered Safe Out Here". Especially the intro. I'm fairly leftie too. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 12:39 PM (#2365152) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace IMO, someone with the time should write a book proving that WWII never happened at all. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 12:40 PM (#2365156) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Def Shepard Peace said, "IMO, someone with the time should write a book proving that WWII never happened at all" the potential author could probably get a government grant to off-set costs and other expenses. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 12:43 PM (#2365161) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Little Hawk That would be an intriguing project, Peace, but not an easy one. How about a book proving that the American Revolution never happened at all, and another one debunking the invention of the belly button? |
|
13 Jun 08 - 12:49 PM (#2365169) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Joe Offer World War II was the reason I didn't file for Conscientious Objector status in 1970, since I believed that WWII was one circumstance where it was justified for "our side" to go to war. At the time, a Conscientious Objector had to believe that all war was immoral in all circumstances, and I couldn't believe that - although I saw the Vietnam War as immoral. As I grew older, I began to see shades of grey more clearly than the black and the white, and I became stronger in my pacifism. I began to believe that even though good people might go to war in good conscience, I could still hold out for the higher ideal of peace under any circumstances. I'm sure that many of those who condemn Human Smoke believe that pacifism is hopelessly unrealistic. Some "patriots" seem even to view pacifism as immoral. I think it's essential for us to have pacifists to remind us that we must always have the deepest reluctance to go to war; to remind us that "our side" will do many horrible and immoral acts in the course of even the most justifiable warfare; and to remind us that most soldiers of even the most evil enemy are innocent children of loving parents. There may be necessary wars, but there is no such thing as a just war. How can there be justice, when masses of innocent people are killed on both sides? Over the last couple of decades, I've lost my belief in Absolute Truth. I can see truth in the ideal of pacifism, and truth in the patriotism of those who believe they have to fight an evil enemy. I think Human Smoke deserves serious consideration. -Joe Offer- |
|
13 Jun 08 - 12:51 PM (#2365171) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: irishenglish LH, I take your points about the Allies, and you raise a good point. And please, what I'm about to write is absolutely no indictment upon you (just want to be clear that I'm not being accusatory!), but the Allies, never systematically murdered millions of people in concentration camps. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 12:58 PM (#2365177) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Little Hawk That's right, irishenglish, and that's why I consider the Germans (meaning their high command) to have been the absolute worst of the 2nd World War's war criminals by a large margin. And I consider the Japanese (meaning their high command) to be next on that list after the Germans. When you have unscrupulous and brutal commanders at the top of any command system, the poison works its way inevitably down the links of the chain. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 12:58 PM (#2365178) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Joe Offer The Holocaust was an unspeakable evil, and the Allies should have done far more then they did to prevent it. But the Holocaust was not a justification for World War II, just as the evil of Saddam Hussein is not a justification for the war in Iraq. If these evils were justfication for warfare, then why didn't warfare stop the evil? -Joe- |
|
13 Jun 08 - 01:08 PM (#2365193) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: irishenglish Ok, look...sorry Joe and LH...I was trying to tread lightly here. And I took it as a thread about WWII and not Iraq, etc. Joe, your point is a good one, and I don't have a ready answer for that. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 01:12 PM (#2365199) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Little Hawk The warfare happened for the reasons it always does. Several large imperial powers found their interests conflicting in Europe and elsewhere...and they eventually got around to fighting each other over it. None of the great powers got into it to prevent the Holocaust...although there was unquestionably genuine moral outrage over what the Germans were doing, and rightly so! War itself is a great evil and an outrage. War IS a Holocaust. Not sometimes. Every time. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 01:47 PM (#2365226) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Rumncoke Britain had a treaty obligation to keep. When Poland was invaded, Britain was honour bound to declare war on Germany. This might not make sense to some, and the situation might seem to have been engineered to cause a war, and then each acident or incident used as an excuse to escalate the violence. Appeasement of Germany was - in my opinion, an error. Germany was going bad internally long before it started the liebensraum (spelling?) expansion. As has already been pointed out, the German government thought that Britain would not oppose them. We certainly held many of the same attitudes, anti semitism was only one - but Germany was detaining its intellectuals, and running on strong but strange idealistic lines for years. I have often wondered how WWII was put off for so long, why Germany had to push so hard and so long to get the full attention of the rest of Europe. All I can think of is that American isolationism allowed Germany to believe that it could win a European war. Enough Europeans agreed with them, so their governments were putting off the inevetable believing that Germany would dominate Europe from the second half of the 20th century onwards. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 01:49 PM (#2365227) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: John on the Sunset Coast Unjustified? Hell no! Unavoidable? perhaps. Mistake one - The unduly harsh penalties assessed against Germany in 1919. Mistake two - Well not a mistake, really...deep world wide Depression. Mistake three - Inaction of League of Nations while Germany increased its Navy beyond allowed treaty limits; likewise airpower and army. Mistake four - Inaction of League when Germany intervened in Spanish Civil War. Mistake five - Inaction when Germany annexed Austria, the Anschluss. (Well Hitler was Austrian, after all). Mistake six - Acquiescence of the German takeover of the Sudetenland. and Chamberlain's 'Peace in our Time'. Had Hitler been confronted at anytime, and especially at mistake 3, perhaps WWII might not have occurred. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 01:52 PM (#2365231) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T "Imagine it happening to your own towns and cities...on a daily basis. Imagine it being done by some other nation like China or Russia, and imagine how you would feel towards them...and how fervently you would support your own government's retaliation and defense efforts in that circumstance." Some of us don't have to imagine it LH. We were three thousand miles closer to it, and remember it only too well. I was too young for evacuation, and spent the whole of the Blitz period in London, so I have abiding memories of trips down to the nearest Underground Station, the family cowering under the staircase when the raid came too quickly for us to go to the shelters. I remember when I was four years old, and out shopping with my mother, watching in amazement all the shop windows flying into the shops as a doodlebug ( V1 ) landed about a quarter mile away. I remember my mother picking glass out of my hair for ages, after we got home. And you know what? I still don't think it was an unjust war. Just consider this. As Teribus said above, the first bombs WERE dropped by Germans on London. Passive diplomacy had been tried several times, and at each point Hitler owned a little bit more of the world. Where then do you draw the line? Sudetenland?..........Nope! Czechoslovakia?.......Nope! Poland?............... Holland?.............. Belgium?.............. France?............... Dover?................ The guy is taking over the western world. There is no question of stopping him without a fight, the only choice you have is WHEN TO FIGHT! Would you wait until he's standing among your daffodils, bashing your front windows in? NO YOU BLOODY WOULDN'T! Neither did we, and before I feel sympathy for the people of Germany, I want to know what happened to the screaming multitudes raising right arms and chanting "Sieg Heil" at pre-War rallies. They went for thir victory whole heartedly, and lost. Then of a sudden you start to hear "Well, of course we were all against him". Sorry mate, but it won't wash. The bottom line is, we would have had to fight sooner or later, and we were fighting against the author of Blitzkreig, and if the lightning struck back they've no cause to complain. Don T. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 01:53 PM (#2365232) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Riginslinger It's funny that Pat Buchanan's new book is entitled: "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War." I think it just came out as well. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 02:17 PM (#2365246) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: John on the Sunset Coast Joe Offer, minor correction, if I may. The Holocaust was 'never' a justification for World War II. The German anti-Jewish laws and persecutions were largely ignored in Europe and elsewhere. WWII began in 1939 when France and Britain had had enough of Hitler's invasions of neighboring countries. But that had nothing to do with treatment of Jews in Germany and controlled territories. Mass deportations of Jews to work camps such as Auschwitz began in 1940. From 1940 - 1941, about 1 million Jews were killed in various camps; the Final Solution was then implemented in early 1942 and continued until the Nazi defeat in 1945. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 02:21 PM (#2365248) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace The Jewish ambassador from Poland--Free Polish forces--committed suicide to protest the Allied refusal to bomb the extermination camps. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 02:25 PM (#2365250) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace The reason they wouldn't seems to be because the camps tied up troops whom they thought Germany would employ elsewhere. Right. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 02:46 PM (#2365258) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Little Hawk Don, I fully agree that it was unwise to keep appeasing Germany during the 30's. It was a huge error. If the French and British had openly, forcefully opposed the Germans far earlier in the game (such as when the Germans moved troops into the Rheinland) the war would have been prevented, and Hitler's government would have failed to endure very long. If the French and British had stood by Czechoslovakia in '38 and if the Czechs had held their nerve and prepared to fight, there is strong evidence to suggest that Hitler's government would have collapsed in a military coup launched by the German top generals against Hitler and his chief Nazi lieutenants. The reason? The German generals, a traditional and practical bunch, were convinced that their military forces were not ready to fight the Czechs (who were well-armed and well-entrenched), let alone the Czechs with French and British support. That would have saved Germany from Naziism and prevented the Second World War. Never make the mistake that I would be advising appeasement toward the Hitler regime. I would not have advised it whatsoever. They had to be confronted as early as possible, and with absolute resolve on the part of the French and the British. *********** Now, as far as I know according to what I've read, the first bombs dropped by the Germans on London were dropped by a single lost German bomber that had no idea where he was at the time and he was afraid of not getting home, and he jettisoned the bombs through the overcast in hopes of dumping weight and staying in the air longer. Upon arriving back at his home airfield, the crew was in deep trouble with their own high command...because they had unintentionally violated official orders not to bomb London. I believe they were arrested and sent to Berlin for extensive questioning. The accidental bombing of London by one lost airplane does not constitute a deliberate bombing attack by Germany upon London. It does not constitute an act of policy. The British response to it was very deliberate. They bombed Berlin in substantial numbers, and it did constitue an act of policy...a policy which continued to the war's end. The German Blitz on London was in immediate response to that policy. Hitler ordered it for primarily emtional and political reasons (to appease his own public) and in so doing he inadvertently lost the Battle of Britain! (because the vital airfields of Fighter Command got a reprieve, just at the point where they most desperately needed one) My father was there also in the Blitz. He saw the air battles happening directly over London, and he told me a great deal about it. His favorite plane, naturally, was the Spitfire. His interest in the aircraft of the time had much to do with my lifelong interest in modeling those same aircraft. Every human population, Don, goes enthusiastically for a war when their country is winning, they cheer for their leaders, and they hunker down and dig in and fight bitterly when their country is getting the worst of it. This is a universal characteristic of human populations, all of whom dearly love the land they were born on, and the Germans are no different in that respect from anyone else. Patriotism is natural to all populations. They just happened to be under a very bad government at the time. If you can't feel sorry for them, then you have never really known them as your fellow human beings. That's unfortunate, but I don't expect to be able to do anything about it. (By the way, they don't all say now, "Well, of course we were all against him". They say nothing of the kind, at least in private. I've known quite a number of Germans who were in that war, and I never heard one of them say that yet. Most of them freely admit that they fully supported Hitler at the time, and they genuinely thought he was doing the right thing for Germany (in terms of fighting the war, etc....I am not referring in any way to the Holocaust). Many of them now can see plainly that the Nazis were a bad government which misled the country...most did not see it at the time, except very late on in the war...and some of them will never see it that way.) The average Briton, if born in Germany, would have supported Hitler every bit as enthusiastically as the average German did. If you'd been born one of them, you would have to suck up all your pride now and listen to someone like you telling you how evil and unforgivable your people are for what their government did. You wouldn't like that. When the shoe is on the other foot it doesn't feel good at all. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 02:52 PM (#2365262) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Teribus "Human Smoke," by novelist Nicholson Baker indicates that Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt share blame with Adolf Hitler in setting the stage for the deadliest and most destructive war in history. Now I would have a little difficulty in swallowing that line of argument particularly in the case of Churchill. The charge – "share blame with Adolf Hitler in setting the stage for the deadliest and most destructive war in history." The book ends on December 31, 1941, as the world plunges into the abyss. To be responsible for setting the stage for what was to become known as the Second World War I would have imagined that it would be necessary if not essential for an individual to have some sort of political power to be able to influence things. From the 1929 Election until he was recalled to the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1939 Churchill held no appointments at all, yet we are expected to believe that between Hitler, Roosevelt and Churchill the tragedy know as Second World War was cooked up. "Churchill responded to Hitler's attacks on Poland and other neighboring states by launching a relentless bombing campaign against German cities as well as a blockade that was designed to starve the enemy into submission." – Baker was surprised and shocked about this according BB's post. I must admit so am I, because if memory serves me correctly Hitler's attacks on Poland and other neighbouring states were made whilst Winston Churchill was at the Admiralty – Anyone care to explain how the First Lord of the Admiralty could launch, "a relentless bombing campaign against German cities", I can, however, see how he could be very well placed to mount a, "blockade that was designed to starve the enemy into submission". That has after all been the standard operating procedure for the Royal Navy in time of war since the days of the Armada – I believe that during the American Civil War the Naval Forces of the Union blockaded the ports of the Confederacy. In time of war you do not allow your enemies the luxury of resupply if you can possibly avoid it. Counter to what Mr. Baker might think Churchill was not, "acting like a bloodthirsty maniac during that period" – He was applying cool clear commonsense and putting into place the resources at his disposal to the best possible effect. This bit I thought was hilarious: "Baker maintains that Churchill's bellicose actions and Roosevelt's eagerness to supply Britain with ships and planes served only to prop up Hitler's standing with Germans and strengthen his hold on the country. "It was the war -- the long, slow war of bombing and blockade -- that fundamentally helped to keep Hitler in power," he said. "The fact that the country was attacked night after night in this way released a massive antipathy to the British." As if had neither done that Hitler would have quietly relinquished power and all would have been well. That sort of conveniently ignores the fact that by this stage by force of arms the man has rampaged across the whole of Europe and has suceeded in enslaving the populations of those countries unfortunate enough to have fallen under the "protection" of the Third Reich. Now apparently "Human Smoke," draws its title from a description of the ashes at Auschwitz, now that draws me to this: "Among the skeptics was Holocaust scholar Michael Berenbaum, who helped oversee the creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "If there ever was a war that was worth fighting it was World War II, and there is no evidence that I know of whatsoever that Hitler would have responded to passivity except to regard that as empowering him to expand," Berenbaum said. "Hitler could only be stopped by force." The ashes that Mr. Baker drew his book's title from were people who showed exactly how Hitler responded to passivity. I can remember a long time ago on a Junior Staff Course being part of a group given the task of proving that the United States of America was responsible for starting the Second World War – We did quite a good job of it, although the culprit was not Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it was Woodrow Wilson, his Fourteen Points and the Treaty of Versailles. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 02:59 PM (#2365269) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Teribus "the first bombs dropped by the Germans on London were dropped by a single lost German bomber that had no idea where he was at the time and he was afraid of not getting home.......Upon arriving back at his home airfield, the crew was in deep trouble with their own high command.......I believe they were arrested and sent to Berlin for extensive questioning." - Little Hawk I know where you got that from the screenplay from the film "Battle of Britain" Here on the other hand is what actually happened according to the official history of the period: "During a raid on Thames Haven, on 24 August, some German aircraft strayed over London and dropped bombs in the east and northeast parts of the city, Bethnal Green, Hackney, Islington, Tottenham and Finchley." Hells-teeth LH, that one lone aircraft must have been carrying one hell of a bomb load to bomb all those areas of London. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 03:04 PM (#2365274) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: GUEST,Volgadon I really don't buy that. Germany's actions leading up-to nd during the war were more than just 'what their government did.' There was something seriously wrong with that generation. "If you'd been born one of them, you would have to suck up all your pride now and listen to someone like you telling you how evil and unforgivable your people are for what their government did. You wouldn't like that. When the shoe is on the other foot it doesn't feel good at all." A few years after Napoleon passed away, someone wrote a book claiming that he never existed!! "IMO, someone with the time should write a book proving that WWII never happened at all." |
|
13 Jun 08 - 03:11 PM (#2365277) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Joe Offer Hi irishenglish - I don't think Little Hawk or I see anything offensive in your post. I certainly agree that the Allies had the "Moral High Ground" in World War II. Still, I think there's good reason to explore pacifism as an alternative. Even if the Allies were right, was war justified, and did it do better than the alternatives? The cost of World War II was amazingly high. John of the Sunset Coast, I would agree that the Holocaust not an a priori justification for World War II. However, it has been used countless times as an ex post facto justification. Bill D will no doubt come in and correct me on my misuse of philosophical terms, buy I'm sure you catch my drift... (two debate points awarded to Joe Offer). -Joe, of the Sunset Foothills- |
|
13 Jun 08 - 03:14 PM (#2365283) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: John on the Sunset Coast I love it. It's Britain's fault that London was bombed! Whether the initial bombing of London was an accident, on purpose, or accidentally on purpose, the fact is Germany and England were in a hot war. Germany was bombing British towns and cities. As I've said on other threads, the perpetrator does not get to choose the victim's form of response. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 03:32 PM (#2365295) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Joe Offer If you'll forgive my use of another philosophical term, it seems to be argumentum ad absurdum to accuse the author of blaming Britain for the bombing of London. (another two debate points awarded to Joe Offer).
|
|
13 Jun 08 - 03:34 PM (#2365296) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: John on the Sunset Coast Joe, does this mean we all need to use italicized Latin to score points? Since I don't do HTML nor foreign language, I'll never score. Nonetheless, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right! Just ask me if it isn't so. ;=) |
|
13 Jun 08 - 03:38 PM (#2365299) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Joe Offer C'mon, John. It's an old political trick, also used by religious groups and by nations that want to justify warfare by proving an opponent evil:
-Joe- You, too, can do amazing things like blue clickies - just see the Mudcat HTML Guide. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 03:42 PM (#2365303) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace "argumentum ad absurdum" I think I contracted that in the 1960s. If I recall, penicillin cured it in about ten days. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 03:46 PM (#2365307) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Joe Offer SIX debate points awarded to Bruce Murdoch ;) -Joe- |
|
13 Jun 08 - 03:46 PM (#2365308) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: John on the Sunset Coast Joe, my post at 3:34 refers to yours at 3:11. Re: Yours at 3:32, I agree no one is 'really blaming' Britain, but it comes awfully close, IMO, to removing some of the onus from Hitler in starting the Blitz. Too, I believe, by analogy with his other actions, that Hitler would have blitzed London in the not distant future whether or not Britain retaliated for that 'accidental' raid. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 03:47 PM (#2365310) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace "the potential author could probably get a government grant to off-set costs and other expenses." OK, I'm on it. "The War That Never Was" by Fred Krum. I awoke earlr that ill-fated September morn from a deep sleep. Trouble by persistent dreams of the war that wasn't about to happen I lept from the bed only to catch my balls on the brass bedpost. Screaming like Stukas from the war that wasn't about to happen I-- How is it so far? |
|
13 Jun 08 - 04:06 PM (#2365324) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: John on the Sunset Coast Joe, I, too took a course in logic. It was one of the short stories compiled in Max Shulman's, "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis," the book not the TV show, or "Barefoot Boy with Cheek." I forget which. Dicto Simpliciter, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc...see, I are educated. (actually they did adapt the story for the series, but it wasn't as funny) |
|
13 Jun 08 - 04:12 PM (#2365331) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" THAT is caused by smoking too much. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 04:17 PM (#2365338) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: CarolC I would like to see a list of all of the people and corporations that financed Hitler's rise to power, and his military machine during the war. I suspect that, while the war was necessary once Hitler was entrenched, it may have been one of those situations in which (like Saddam), his rise to power was assisted by people with secondary agendas, and not all of them Germans. I would also like to know why, not only the death camps, but also the railroad lines leading to the death camps were not bombed into oblivion early on. That's a question that has been bothering me for a long time. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 04:24 PM (#2365345) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: John on the Sunset Coast Lord! It is a miracle! The heavens have opened up and the angels sing! CarolC and I agree on something, at least in general, even if not the actual analogy she makes. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 04:33 PM (#2365360) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Stringsinger Joe, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is "non-violent resistance" not shown in WWII. It would have never been given credence. You could postulate though that it might well have worked were it planned and organized against Hitler. Those who consider this idea naive have not done research on the application of non-violent resistance. It is assumed that somehow pacifism is passive but it is anything but. Frank |
|
13 Jun 08 - 04:40 PM (#2365365) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: CarolC My position shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I am quite consistent in my stance on human rights. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 05:03 PM (#2365385) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Joe Offer It's well-known that Hilter was very cozy with the major German industrialists - the relationship between Hitler and I.G. Farben chemical was particularly disturbing. He didn't have such a good relationship with the military - a large number of high-ranking officers were involved in the 1944 assassination attempt. I gather that in general, railroad lines are not good targets for bombing. Bridges are, trains are, but not the tracks themselves. When tracks are damaged here at Donner Pass on the Transcontinental Railroad, they can be fixed within hours. And Hitler had slave labor to do the repairs. Frank mentions the Resistance. I suppose it wasn't pacifist, but its most effective targets were facilities instead of people - and certainly not civilian targets. The Resistance was certainly effictive against railroads, apparantly much more effective than aerial bombing. -Joe- |
|
13 Jun 08 - 05:13 PM (#2365390) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: PoppaGator I wonder about the similarities and/or differences between Baker's book and Buchanan's. I'm not likely to buy either one, and it'll be a while before the library gets copies. I'm sure they agree on some points and differ on others, and I'd imagine that the points of agreement may be more-or-less persuasive, or at least worthy of consideration. ********************** You can be a pacifist without having to claim that everyone has to be a pacifist, and especially without having to prove that past events would have turned out better if everyone on one side of a conflict were pacifists while those on the other side remained belligerent. (If everyone on both sides of a conflict should embrace pacifism, of course, there would be no problem at all. I'm reminded of my mother's angry objection to my refusal to be drafted for Vietnam: "What if everybody thought like you do ~ then what? We'd all be killed!" Such a reaction, of course, is based on the assumption that only "we," the human beings on our side, are included among "everybody.") Pacifism may be "about" the very public and communal experience of warfare, but it's really and most basically a personal spiritual stance. Insofar as pacifism can play a role in the public arena, nonviolent resistance to evil is the key element, and it ain't easy. Stringsinger is right: pacifism is decidedly not "passive-ism." |
|
13 Jun 08 - 05:15 PM (#2365392) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace Wiki article that basically agrees with other histories I've read. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 05:43 PM (#2365399) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Now, as far as I know according to what I've read, the first bombs dropped by the Germans on London were dropped by a single lost German bomber that had no idea where he was at the time and he was afraid of not getting home, and he jettisoned the bombs through the overcast in hopes of dumping weight and staying in the air longer."" Yes, LH, I believe it was a single bomber, a fact which became apparent, AFTER the war, when German records were captured (great record keepers, the Germans). However, Churchill and Co were no better at mind reading than anyone else, and it was, AT THE TIME, taken for the first direct attack on London civilians. Would that hindsight came berore the event, but alas, it doesn't. Logic, Joe, suggests that the alternatives to war that were tried, resulted in German control of the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. How then can you extrapolate from that, a logical sequence of events in which this land hungry aggressor suddenly decides he has enough territory, and stops annexing sovereign states. No, my friend, the only logical prediction is that at some point he will have to be stopped by force. This is not justification by proving him evil. It is recognition of his predatory intentions, and frustration of said intentions by the ONLY logical means available. Justification per se is immaterial. All that is needed is to recognise that only force CAN work in this scenario, and it is a scenario entirely of Hitler's making, whatever past events may have led to it. After all, the crushing of German military might after 1918 (to which Hitler so violently objected) was in response to that country having plunged Europe into a four year war of attrition which killed more human beings than WW II. Does anyone see a pattern here, and an indication of a national characteristic? Don T. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 05:51 PM (#2365405) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Big Al Whittle why is it we can all see this blokes talking a load of crap and the publisher and the media whores who publicise this crap can't see it? Have you considered the possiblity that you have as awful a class system in the USA as we have over in England? If this was some thick arsehole in a pub with fifteen pints inside him talking this bollocks - you'd move out of his way. Because he has the all the tags of intellectual respectability - he sneaks in below the bullshit radar, drops his pants, unloads the incendiary crap and produces a media firestorm. I blame Guy Gibson. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 06:55 PM (#2365460) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Teribus Well of course it could just be phenomenon that WLD so aptly described in another thread about a book identifying Jack The Ripper: "Its a bit like a book purporting to prove the earth is flat. Experience informs us this book was probably:- 1) written by an utter twat 2) written for the money" Apologies Al just couldn't resist it - seemed to fit the circumstances so well. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 06:56 PM (#2365461) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Little Hawk All I'm saying, Don, is that the Luftwaffe had been given very specific instructions in 1940 NOT to bomb London. They were to avoid doing so at any cost. This could have been for a number of different reasons...I don't think it was because Hitler was a notable humanitarian! ;-) I think it was mainly because Hitler was still hopeful of reaching some kind of negotiated settlement with the British to end the fighting, and then getting them perhaps to join him in attacking Russia at some point which was what he had always hoped to do, and he didn't want to alienate them beyond a certain point by bombing their capital. (this could also be why he held back the Panzers at Dunkirk the same year and allowed most of the B.E.F. to escape.) It was probably also because he didn't want to cause them to retaliate by bombing Berlin and other major centres in Germany...which they obviously could do if they decided to. I am not saying the British are to blame for the German Blitz. I am saying that the German Blitz on London did not begin as a policy until after the British had deliberately bombed Berlin...and Hitler then went berserk, made a big speech about how he was going to bomb the hell out of London (just like Bush would do if someone were to bomb Washington or any other big American city)...and WHAMMO! Pandora's box was then well and truly opened. I'm sure it would have happened at some point anyway. These things always do in wartime. The unthinkable rapidly becomes thinkable in the heat of action. And the fact is, both sides always feel 100% justified in what they are doing, because they are both under the rock solid impression that THEY and they alone are the "good guys" and the defenders of civilization! That's how the human mind functions. It is forever justifying its own actions to itself (and to anyone else who can stand listening...). If the Germans had won that war, we'd all still be reading about their "heroic" deeds on behalf of humanity till the more cynical or skeptical among us were heartily sick of it, I assure you. And we would never hear a peep about the concentration camps either...unless it was Soviet ones perhaps. And the less skeptical among us? Oh, they'd be repeating the official line as gospel, and Churchill and Stalin would be their standins for "Hitler". Nothing conforms like conformity. Nothing succeeds like success. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 07:03 PM (#2365464) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T If Hitler had invaded Britain we'd not be reading anything. We would have been the next after the Jews for a "Final Solution". He as good as predicted such an end in Mein Kampf. Don T. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 07:09 PM (#2365471) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Little Hawk I don't think so. But you're welcome to your opinion. The tremendous capacity of the human race to adapt and endure tends to overcome the grandiose notions of extreme idealogues like Adolf Hitler. They run headfirst into reality, and it defeats them. I expect that to happen to the current crop of fascists as well...in time. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 07:13 PM (#2365474) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Big Al Whittle In my home own Boston in Lincolnshire, they captured a German paratrooper. The guy knew all the pubs in Boston - he had been sent over here reconnnoitering the place before the war. They knew exactly what they had in mind. I don't buy this tripe about, 'sorry guv we must have turned left at Basingstoke at that roundabout and hit london by mistake....'. I mean seriously how could you miss tell tale signs like the River Thames...... If Hitler was only impersonating a complete bastard, he wasn't a real one....he had me fooled. it was a bloody good act. Germany's got talent. They wouldn't need to rely on dancing dogs. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 07:14 PM (#2365476) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: CarolC We know that there were non-Germans who were instrumental in the financing of Hitler. Several of them at least, were Americans, including Prescott Bush... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brown_Brothers_and_Company Prescott Bush also appears to have profited from slave labor from the concentration camps through his involvement with the Silesian Steel Company. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 07:37 PM (#2365488) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Ed T I suspect most wars are accopmanied by alot of PR. Always interesting to see another perspective to an old story, for reflection purposes, even if not for a learning experience. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 07:39 PM (#2365489) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace To add on to Carol's post, the linked article makes some seriously good observations about both then (Nazi germany) and today (Canada, US, Mexico). THIS IS worth reading. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 07:48 PM (#2365494) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: McGrath of Harlow Whatever the arguments about the justification for the war, and whether it could have been avoided, and what alternative paths history might have taken, it is worth reflecting that the Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but one of its consequences. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 08:06 PM (#2365506) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Greg B There's a fellow over at the National Catholic Reporter (who enlist all kinds) named Coleman McCarthy who tries on occasion to convince us all that if everyone had just 'passively resisted' the Nazis, they would have capitulated in the end. Of course he doesn't ever calculate how many years and dead Catholics, Jews, homosexuals, and anyone who wasn't blonde with blue eyes that would have taken... |
|
13 Jun 08 - 08:13 PM (#2365509) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Little Hawk "They knew exactly what they had in mind." - Weelittledrummer Who is "they"? If you mean that every German soldier, worker, housewife, and civilian knew and approved of the Nazi policies of exterminating people which were ordered by sickos like Heinrich Himmler, you are deeply mistaken. The average German soldier, sailor, and airman were in the exact same position as their counterparts in any other armed forces in that war. Their concerns were to do their duty as best they could, as any soldier does, to watch out for the lives of the other guys in their unit, and to stay alive for another 24 hours, and to somehow to get through the damned war in one piece. Your dehumanizing of them is just as inhuman as the WWII Nazi propagandists' dehumanizing of other people was. Their flyers were just as courageous, dedicated, and often chivalrous as your own in England. Their great aces and airmen fully respected yours. When Douglas Bader was shot down over German territory he was shortly picked up by Adolf Galland and several other pilots from Galland's squadron and taken to dinner and honored and treated like a friend at their airfield. There was great respect among those men, because they had faced the same dangers in the same way. Your damnation of all Germans in that war on account of what their stupid, irresponsible leaders in government sent them out to do is utterly uncomprehending of what they were actually dealing with on the human level...and if you'd been German and you'd there at the same time, chances are a thousand to one that you'd have done the very same as they did. I do not buy guilt by association. If I did, I would consider every single American soldier who is presently stationed in Iraq to be a war criminal...and I don't consider them so. I see them as innocent victims of the situation foisted upon them by their bad and irresponsible leaders. And how do you miss the river Thames when you're lost in a WWII bomber, you ask? I'll tell you how. You miss it (and everything else that's below you) when the whole damn area is totally socked in by cloud, fog, and ground mist to virtually zero visibility...as happened quite a bit over England in bad weather conditions, specially after dark...and still does nowadays, I believe. In a case like that you jettison your bomb load to increase your range and hope to hell you will find your way back across the channel and get back to your airfield. They had orders NOT to bomb London, and they did their very best to obey those orders as long as those orders stood. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 08:37 PM (#2365520) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: John on the Sunset Coast Henry Ford - Grand Cross of the Germany Eagle (highest civilian Nazi medal)and Ford Motor Company. HF financed American printing of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Walter Teagle, Pres. Standard Oil provided high octane fuel for Nazi war machine. Largest stockholder, Rockefeller trust. Tom Watson - IBM met w/ Hitler in 1937 to beef up business w/ the Nazi regime. Alcoa - part of Aluminum cartel w/ IG Farben (Germany) investigated (1941) for withholding aluminum from US aircraft industry, while Nazi Germany had lots of the stuff. Joseph Kennedy - disparaged Britain and British Democracy in 1940 while Ambassador to that country. The Communist term 'useful idiot' would seem to describe his actions. [This is an analogy, folks, not saying the elder Kennedy was a Communist or a Fellow Traveler.] These are some other important Americans who and which had close ties with Nazi Germany. And there are many more who have dirty hands from dealing with Hitler even after his intentions were known. And I'm sure there were probably British folks doing much the same. Perhaps not so much the French. So is there any reason that Prescott Bush was the only important person mentioned on this thread? Could someone's agenda sort of want to taint a certain President with the "sins" of his grandfather? |
|
13 Jun 08 - 08:45 PM (#2365526) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: John on the Sunset Coast "They had orders NOT to bomb London, and they did their very best to obey those orders as long as those orders stood." But they DID bomb London!!!!! What the hell isn't there to get about that? And they WERE bombing other British towns! And they WERE at war! This was not a video game (not that those existed then). |
|
13 Jun 08 - 09:12 PM (#2365549) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: CarolC The only reason I mentioned Prescott Bush and not the others is because his is the name most people are familiar with and I didn't have time to type in all of the others mentioned in the article. But as I said before, I would like to see a list of all of those who were instrumental in assisting Hitler. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 10:24 PM (#2365570) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: The Fooles Troupe "this could also be why he held back the Panzers at Dunkirk the same year and allowed most of the B.E.F. to escape" The documentary I mentioned before says that this theory is utter BS. The real reason is that certain generals deliberately disobeyed orders and out ran the original Blitzkreig (Mannstein!) plan, and Hitler was more interested in consolidating his own power by back stabbing and undermining competent generals (I worked in the public service!!!) than in the british troops. So he insisted that the tanks stop and he intimidated the generals into obeying him. No other generals were brave enough to defy Hitler later, so he became totally surrounded by yes men. There are lots of other BS theories that do not take into account the serious (private) power plays and backstabbing in the Nazi party. The British used this with the 'Man that never was' and the 'turned super spy' who fed false information - and the fake FUSAG group, etc - my dad was stationed in Scotland with the fake Northern group. The Allies knew that all they had to do was fool Hitler and he was their best agent for defeating the German military - look at the stupidity at Stalingrad. Not to be forgotten is that Hitler's own Chief of Military Staff carried a pistol in his pocket during the days of 1939/40, making a private fuss that he intended to shoot Hitler, but he never did. He also later fell out of favour with Hitler too. We Aussies have a good name for people like Mr Baker - starts with "W" and rhymes with 'banker'... |
|
13 Jun 08 - 10:28 PM (#2365572) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Ron Davies As far as pacifism being a reasonable alternative in WW II, consider what two prominent figures in the 1930's said: Gandhi to Britons during the Blitz: "Let them take possession of your beautiful island with its many beautiful buildings. You will give them all this, but neither your minds nor your souls." His advice to German Jews: make "a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men and women possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah". And Hitler's advice to Lord Halifax in 1938 on how to rule the Subcontinent: "shoot Gandhi, and if that does not suffice to reduce them to submission, shoot a dozen leading members of Congress, and if that does not suffice, shoot 200, and so on until order is established." It seems evident that for pacifism to work, you'd best be pretty careful in picking your opposition--and WW II was not the best circumstances for pacifism. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 10:37 PM (#2365579) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: The Fooles Troupe Forgot to state - the german military started planning the rebuild in 1923 - long before Hitler got anywhere. After 1933, Hitler became the main one to deal with, so he got the backing. WWII would have eventually started without Hitler, or even the Nazi party - remember that Hitler pushed things forward beacuse of his age. Hitler had pushed plans to invade USA, there were even long range plans to use submarines, and that is why the long range rockets were worked on, as well the A-bombs. The Allies seriously outnumbered the Germans in things like tanks in 1939 - even the calibre of the weapons was lesser due to the treaty restrictions, but the concentration of tanks in the Ardennes blew away the allies who had them strung out in small numbers all along a long border. Also the whole German population had been brainwashed since even before WWI that they WERE wonderful and that everything evil nasty and dirty was Polish and French... I don't often agree with Teribus, but he is closer to what I have investigated than some other in this thread. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 11:39 PM (#2365603) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: GUEST "the german military started planning the rebuild in 1923" No kidding! Gosh! Well, and so would have the military of virtually any other nation in this world that had been forced to disarm itself after it lost a major war. If the USA or Britain or France had lost a major war in 1918, and had been forced by terms of the treaty to disarm themselves, do you not think they would have clandestinely started rebuilding their military forces within a few years???? I don't see any reason why the nation of Germany should have been forced to gut itself economically and disarm itself after WWI, because they were no more to blame for that war than anyone else was...they just happened to fight a bit better, that's all, and then they lost it in the end...but they got blamed for the entire thing! Either no one was to blame for that war...or everyone was...but there was no reason to pin it all on the Germans. The Treaty of Versailles was a travesty, and it is simply incredible for anyone to imagine that the Germans would NOT have soon violated it and started re-arming themselves. The USA would have done exactly the same thing if they've been put in the spot that Germany was put in. So spare me all this righteous indignation, because it's like the protestations of one murderous mobster over the dishonesty and brutality of another. It's like Al Capone complaining about Meyer Lansky being a "thief". LOL! Why on Earth would you expect the Germans to adhere to a situation that no other major power comparable to them would ever have put up with for long? "Also the whole German population had been brainwashed since even before WWI that they WERE wonderful and that everything evil nasty and dirty was Polish and French..." True. But the French thought that way too, didn't they? And so did the British. They were all equally pompous and grandiose and imperially minded about their special favored place in the world's affairs. And the American population has been similarly brainwashed during my entire lifetime and long, long before it to think that they and their system are wonderful and that everything evil, nasty, and dirty exists somewhere else...in Great Britain, in Russia, or China, or Iraq, or France, or Germany, or Japan, or Vietnam, or Chile, or Iran, or Cuba....evil is always "somewhere else", never on the home turf. Give me a break. You can see the hypocrisy of it easily when the Germans do it, or when the Japanese or Russians do it, but you can't see it when it's plainly happening in your own front yard and it's your own children who are being brainwashed, generation after generation, and who are being taught to see themselves as being better than anyone else in the world, and as having the inherent right to go forth into the world and make others do it "the American way" (whether they wish to or not). Nor can the British see it in themselves, apparently. You are both nations living in denial of your own darkness, just like the Germans were. You have much the same kind of grand illusions about yourselves that they did. Fascism is not attached to specific nationalities or nations...it moves around freely like a disease to wherever it finds a host, and that host is powerful, ruthless, ethnocentric people who are blind and deluded enough to feed the disease with their unbridled hubris and their militarism and their aggressive nationalism. The Nazis serve now as your most handy symbolic excuse that you can trot out again and again to keep pointing to a past that is long gone and saying "There was the ultimate evil!" They serve as a good distraction for you to focus attention on. They keep you from facing up to what you yourselves are becoming in the present day. You're going down a very similar road to what they did, but you don't see it. |
|
13 Jun 08 - 11:42 PM (#2365606) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Little Hawk That last post was me. I was logged out, and didn't realize it before I hit "submit". If a clone sees this, maybe you can change that post back to my name from "Guest". That's the post at 13 Jun 08 - 11:39 PM |
|
14 Jun 08 - 05:56 AM (#2365704) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Teribus "Who is "they"? If you mean that every German soldier, worker, housewife, and civilian knew and approved of the Nazi policies of exterminating people which were ordered by sickos like Heinrich Himmler, you are deeply mistaken. The average German soldier, sailor, and airman were in the exact same position as their counterparts in any other armed forces in that war." As to being in exactly the same as their counterparts in any other armed forces in that war I would say that could be refuted, as who were the allied equivalents/counterparts of the Waffen SS, possibly the Soviet Army NKVD battalions, but as opposed to combat troops they were more of a political police force. The allies also did not have the hordes of ruthlessly loyal "second echelon" troops who used to sweep into conquered land on the heels of the Wermacht. Under orders not to bomb London, in poor weather and cloud cover, the pilots of those bombers had the same option that the allied bomber pilots had and used often - some say it was responsible for the death of Glenn Miller - return to base and jettison your bombs in the sea. The raid on Thames Haven, on 24 August, 1940 by German aircraft was commanded by one Rudolf Hallensleben who went on to win the Knights Cross for other actions. Not one single aircraft Little Hawk, and as stated above they did have other options open to them. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 01:00 PM (#2365872) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Les from Hull On the subject of air attacks against civilians in the UK in WW2, there were five civilians killed in Bridlington on 11 July 1940 when a lone Ju88 of KG30 dropped bombs near the railway station. On 18 July the little seaside village of Skipsea was attacked by a single aircraft that dropped two bombs that did no damage and then turned round to machine gun the village, although on this occasion there were no casualties. There were attacks by individual bombers against coastal towns throughout early August. But what is more significant, the same night that the 'lone German bomber got lost over London', Ju88s of KG4 flying from Schipol in the Netherlands attacked 11 different targets in East Yorkshire, killing six civilians in my home town. Although these were supposed to be directed at searchlight units, the attacks were indiscriminate. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 01:25 PM (#2365886) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace Pacifism I used to get beat up in grade school by a fellow I will call Bob. Bob tormented me for over a year about once every two weeks. He did mean nasty things because I was pacifistic. Never fought back, just took the lumps. I went home one day with a particularly vivid black eye and lip that had been cut a bit. Anyway, my grandfather saw me and wanted to know in no uncertain terms wtf was going on. I told him. He taught me how to box. I was uncomfortable with the knowledge but began to see that things had not been right. My pacificism had resulted in no change in Bob. Learning to box resulted in a change in me. Bob eventually received his due, and I gave it to him. He never after that day came near me again. I have since learned different styles of fighting/self-defense but I tend to avoid trouble. There's a line bullies shouldn't cross with me. Three (or four?) have ever found out the hard way just where that line is--and that ain't bad for a guy who's 60 now. I admire pacifists very much. One of the bullies mentioned in the previous paragraph receive enlightenment because he was pushing a pacifist around. My friend disagreed with what I'd done before, during and after that brief but violent episode. I admire him for that. But sometimes I don't listen too good. Don't know why I said this here, but I will say one more thing before I leave for the day: I don't think Hitler would have been stopped by pacifists. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 01:29 PM (#2365890) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: pdq Neither would Saddam Hussein. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 01:34 PM (#2365893) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Donuel Patrick Buchannon couldn't agree with you more. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 01:47 PM (#2365907) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace Re. Pat Buchanan: Even broken clocks are right twice a day. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 02:10 PM (#2365928) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Liz the Squeak English philosopher Edmund Burke said, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.' For some people, pacifism = doing nothing. There are other ways to fight. LTS |
|
14 Jun 08 - 03:04 PM (#2365959) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Jack Campin "Mussolini was a minor malefactor in comparison to Hitler, Stalin, and the Japanese. He was an unsavory, brutal man in many ways, and an abuser of power, but he was not in that same class of being a major committer of war crimes." Killing a third of the population of Libya didn't count, before he even got onto his major campaign against Ethiopia? |
|
14 Jun 08 - 03:16 PM (#2365963) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: CarolC Neither Hitler nor Saddam would have been a threat to anyone had multinational corporatists not financed and enabled them in what they were doing. And in my opinion, therein lies the bigger lesson. If people who do that sort of thing were really held accountable (in an Internatinal Criminal Court), maybe there wouldn't be a need to resort to war at all, because people would know they couldn't do that sort of thing with impunity and wouldn't bother to try. Personally, I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 03:35 PM (#2365970) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: gnu Rudolf Hess? |
|
14 Jun 08 - 03:40 PM (#2365973) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: gnu CC... "...had multinational corporatists not financed and enabled them in what they were doing." Ahh, there it is. As I have said a few times before, the rich subjugate the poor. That is what all wars are about. WWII included. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 04:32 PM (#2366007) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: CarolC I'd be interested to know why they imprisoned Hess rather than negotiating for peace with him. I wonder how many lives would have been saved had they been willing to negotiate. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 04:44 PM (#2366013) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: meself Negotiate for peace with their prisoner Rudolf Hess? I suppose they could have ... but I don't see how it could have saved any lives. They would still have to negotiate for peace with Hitler, Goerring, et al. Those gents don't seem to have been quite as keen on the idea as Hess was. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 05:18 PM (#2366030) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The average German soldier, sailor, and airman were in the exact same position as their counterparts in any other armed forces in that war. Their concerns were to do their duty as best they could, as any soldier does, to watch out for the lives of the other guys in their unit, and to stay alive for another 24 hours, and to somehow to get through the damned war in one piece. Your dehumanizing of them is just as inhuman as the WWII Nazi propagandists' dehumanizing of other people was."" I'm sorry McG, but I really feel that you would have trouble selling that idea to the very few Russian peasants who remained alive after operation "Barbarossa" passed through, and the number who didn't remain alive suggests that it was more than a few "diehard Nazis" who carried out THOSE CRIMES. At that point in the war, your ordinary German soldiers were pretty much inured to the sight of atrocities being perpetrated, and many simply joined in without too much compunction. ""They had orders NOT to bomb London, and they did their very best to obey those orders as long as those orders stood."" That is really immaterial, LH, and I suspect you know it. It's a Straw Man argument, for HOW were those who gave the order to retaliate supposed to know that it was an ERROR? It was an attack for all that they knew to the contrary. If it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, few of us would ask "Is it perhaps a drunken dog with laryngitis?". Don T. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 05:21 PM (#2366033) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Little Hawk Hold that thought, okay? ;-) I'm havin' way too much fun today to spend much of it arguin' with y'all about things no one can change, but I'll probably get back to it later. Maybe tonight or tomorrow. Talk amongst yerselves in the meantime. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 05:38 PM (#2366042) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: gnu CC... "Those gents don't seem to have been quite as keen on the idea as Hess was." Time to take my leave. You all conjecture about the conflict(s)... that was and is and shall be... until we are all united... until the meek inherit the earth. Good luck with that. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 06:15 PM (#2366061) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: robomatic Heine: "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen." As for the Baker book "Human Smoke" I find it remarkable that he thinks he's proving the war unnecessary and titling the book with the unique image of the product of that war that broke new ground in horror and inhumanity, thus justifying it in terms I have heard not only in the United States, not only in Great Britain, but also in Germany. Three weekends ago a CBC writer's forum discussed the book, and I'm going to have a go at it. One must read disagreeable things sometimes. As for the tedious "who bombed who" back and forth, with all the Anglos on this site and in this forum, can't believe you're leaving out the obvious: 14 November 1940: Coventry |
|
14 Jun 08 - 06:22 PM (#2366064) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace From memory, I think Coventry was allowed to be bombed because England did not want Germany to know it had broken their codes. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 06:24 PM (#2366067) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: McGrath of Harlow I'm sorry McG That wasn't my quote, Don. ................................ The thing is, we can speculate about alternative histories, but it is speculation. You can't put the outxcomes in a balance and weigh them against each other. All you can hope to know for sure is what actually did happen. In many circumstances all options are pretty disastrous, and all you can do is try to guess which look as if they may be less disastrous. But we do need to recognise that the road that was followed led to some very terrible things. The Holocaust as it transpired was one of those. History doesn't allow reruns, but we can try to learn from it, and that means taking care to look at all the consequences that flowed from previous decisions, not just the ones that make us feel good. Maybe if our decision-makers had done that they wouldn't have been able to fool themselves that the war on Iraq was going to be, on balance, worth the suffering it would cause. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 06:26 PM (#2366068) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace OK. My memory is good but the facts may have been wrong. I was basing that on a reading years ago of "The Ultra Secret". But, I just found this: See here. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 06:43 PM (#2366074) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: GUEST,wld I'm not dehumanising the German people. Some of my best friends are German.....and my only commercially succesful record was in Germany. However it would be silly to pretend that Hitler's forces weren't well motivated and dying to get at us back then in early 1940. Up to the Battle of Britain, they must have thought the conqust of England was going to be a bit of a pushover. I suspect without FDR's help, we might well have been. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 06:45 PM (#2366075) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: GUEST,number 6 Carol c said .... "Personally, I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time." I agree 100 % . biLL |
|
14 Jun 08 - 06:46 PM (#2366077) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: robomatic History doesn't allow reruns, but we can try to learn from it, and that means taking care to look at all the consequences that flowed from previous decisions, not just the ones that make us feel good. Maybe if our decision-makers had done that they wouldn't have been able to fool themselves that the war on Iraq was going to be, on balance, worth the suffering it would cause. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes." |
|
14 Jun 08 - 07:22 PM (#2366093) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: meself The lessons of history aren't always simple, though. Talking with my mother about the Iraq invasion once - she pointed out that World War II had taught those of her generation to take warnings about the diabolical plans of evil dictators very seriously, while for my generation, the Vietnam War had taught us to be skeptical when the authorites say we need to invade small countries for the greater good ... |
|
14 Jun 08 - 07:34 PM (#2366097) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace "The lessons of history aren't always simple, though. Talking with my mother about the Iraq invasion once - she pointed out that World War II had taught those of her generation to take warnings about the diabolical plans of evil dictators very seriously, while for my generation, the Vietnam War had taught us to be skeptical when the authorites say we need to invade small countries for the greater good ..." THAT is worth a second reading. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 08:04 PM (#2366101) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T I think the operative word here is "small". In 1939, Germany, a country, in area and population, much larger than England, was invading smaller, weaker, neighbouring states. When we, backing the USA, decided to invade Iraq, we were the invaders of a smaller weaker state. Inevitably the perspective changes, and the two are viewed as almost mirror images. I'm not sure how Vietnam fits into this scenario though, since I understood that the USA were invited in by the South Vietnamese government, to help fight off invasion from the North, backed by Communist China. Perhaps someone with more intimate knowledge could enlighten me. Don T. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 08:28 PM (#2366111) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace The US was bankrolling the French war there and after the French left following their defat at Dien Bien Phu, the US started to put money into Ngo Dinh Diem. He wasn't really all that popular with the people of the south, but the billions he received (as part of the US promulgation of the Truman Doctrine (help the free peoples of the world) allowed him to build an army to fight the 'troops' of Ho Chi Minh--and they needed those troops, because when the US prevented free elections (they knew the Communists would win) then the war really started. Operation Phoenix (?) led to the entrenchment of American 'advisors'--CIA, military. The north was impossible to stop. The US then got morassed in a ground war because despite dropping more explosives on that tiny little country than was dropped by them in WWII, there was no way to prevent infiltration by NVA regulars or VC irregulars. So from the tunnels of Cu Chi to the HCM Trail, American kids went to help a people who really din't want that type of help. IMO, the capitalists did, but not the average guy on the street. (I had intended to do a Masters on that war, but life intervened.) IMO, the best book about it all is Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History". Karnow received a Pulitzer for his work as a btw. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 08:36 PM (#2366115) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Peace Although I'm not sure it was for that particular book--before the pedants have at me. |
|
14 Jun 08 - 10:38 PM (#2366160) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: meself "I'm not sure how Vietnam fits into this scenario though" Don - I'm not sure you got my point - my mother's point, actually - no doubt my wording was a little misleading. What I was trying to get across was the notion that lessons two generations take from history are quite different because of the differing nature of the conflicts that to some degree 'defined' those two generations. My parents came of age when warnings of the danger of Hitler's Germany were being ignored or dismissed, with the horror of WWII being the result. Therefore, when Bush & co. were warning of Saddam and his WMD, my parents' experience inclined them to listen and support a pre-emptive strike against him. For me, on the other hand, having grown up in the Vietnam War era, I was of a mind to be quite skeptical of what the US president had to say, and quite leery of the idea of the Americans charging into some other country with guns blazing. I foresaw them getting trapped in the same kind of horrible mess they got into in Vietnam. (I admit to eating some crow when the whole thing seemed to reach a successful conclusion in a couple of weeks - not that I minded. I wish I had been wrong in my predictions ... ) Of course, I'm talking in vast generalizations about millions of members of two generations ... |
|
15 Jun 08 - 01:42 PM (#2366402) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: CarolC I still don't know why the British would imprison Hess instead of negotiating with him and then seeing whether or not it would do any good. Hess wanted to negotiate, so I don't see the value in imprisoning him. Isn't there some kind of code or law or something that you can't imprison someone who is in your territory trying to negotiate peace? The British could only speculate about whether or not such negotiations would bear fruit, but what would have been the harm in allowing Hess to return home and try to make it work? It makes no sense to me. |
|
15 Jun 08 - 02:05 PM (#2366408) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Thanks for the clarification, Meself. I understand now, and I have to say it makes a deal of sense. Don T. And thanks also to you Bruce. I think a trip to the library.......Yep! DT |
|
15 Jun 08 - 04:14 PM (#2366451) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: John on the Sunset Coast Some reasons the British might not negotiated with Rudolph Hess: *Hess flew into England unannounced. *He was not in some neutral country, say Spain or Portugal to conduct such business. *When he was captured he gave mixed signals about why he was there, and whom he wanted to see. *While he was a Deputy Fuhrer, it was known he increasingly was becoming out of favor with A.H. Could this have been a ruse? *If he was what he said he was, and they sent him back, he likely would have been killed by Hitler. *If he was not there for what he said he was, they would send him back to continue planning & participation in the war against the allies. *What he seemed to be offering was peace with Britain only, primarily so that Germany could send resources to the Eastern Front against the USSR. So the war would, in any case, continue. *By imprisoning him, the allies might get valuable information from one so high in the German Wehrmacht. |
|
15 Jun 08 - 06:02 PM (#2366513) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Gulliver LTS said: English philosopher Edmund Burke said... Burke was Irish, born in Dublin; his parents came from County Cork. |
|
16 Jun 08 - 05:51 PM (#2367351) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: PoppaGator To expand on meself's mother's eloquent observation: I believe that my American generation's war, in Vietnam, developed the way it did because of the previous generation's experience. Those folks, as adults, had only experienced warefare as a tremendous shared sacrifice, one that everyone agreed was unavoidable and for the greatest of good causes. It was difficult, if not impossible, for members of the "greatest generation" to imagine that any military action proposed by their government could possible be wrong. Now, there were exceptions. General-turned-President Eisenhower, for one, seemed to have a pretty good idea of the situation that was developing at the end of 1950s when he coined the term "military-industrial complex" in his farewell speech. I'm sure that his unique position during WWII gave him an ultra-realistic perspective, and the ability to be more skeptical than most about the motivation of corporations in the armament business. |
|
17 Jun 08 - 04:26 AM (#2367605) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Paul Burke I still don't know why the British would imprison Hess instead of negotiating with him ... Hess wanted to negotiate Hess was clearly deranged*, and had no credibility as a negotiator. The terms apparently offered were laughable, and later, after America entered the war, the only acceptable terms were unconditional surrender, so there was nothing to negotiate. On the other hand, his arrest was a propaganda coup for Britain at a time when they were thin on the ground. His post- war detention was the result of power play between Russia and the west. * Even more deranged than the rest of the Nazis. |
|
17 Jun 08 - 11:41 AM (#2367874) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Teribus I think it was Joseph Stalin who insisted upon "unconditional surrender" with no prospect of seperate peace treay negotiations. |
|
17 Jun 08 - 02:40 PM (#2368032) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: robomatic Considering Hess, Goebbels, Goering, and of course Hitler, there was a very definite WEIRDO component to the top Nazis. |
|
17 Jun 08 - 03:23 PM (#2368063) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Donuel ""Personally, I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time." I agree 100 % . biLL +++++++++++++++++++++ YIKES ! Thats harsh. If we did that then the entire Bush family would never have ascended to such heights in America. |
|
17 Jun 08 - 05:51 PM (#2368221) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Teribus This I thought was tastily selective - so I offered an alternative: Donuel - PM Date: 17 Jun 08 - 03:23 PM ""Personally, I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time." I agree 100 % . biLL +++++++++++++++++++++ YIKES ! Thats harsh. If we did that then the entire Bush family would never have ascended to such heights in America. Alternatively: +++++++++++++++++++++ YIKES ! Thats harsh. If we did that then ABBA would never have ascended to such heights in the entertainment world. Just think of it we'd have been spared "Mamma Mia!" |
|
17 Jun 08 - 06:01 PM (#2368239) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: PoppaGator I seriously doubt that any of the members of ABBA were Nazi collaborators during WWII. I'm pretty sure none of them had been born yet. Was someone among their parents a notable Scandinavian quisling? Or is it just that you can't stand "Mama Mia"? |
|
18 Jun 08 - 01:45 AM (#2368463) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Teribus "I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time." CarolC then offers up Prescot Bush ommitting to provide any more candidates Now, "instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way", now that would include Sweden would it not PoppaGator (Iron ore, ball-bearings, etc, without which the German war machine would have ground to a halt) But it would be rather uneasonable wouldn't it after all Sweden was a neutral country that traded with sovereign governments throughout the war. Much like the USA did for 80% of the First World War (Made a fortune out of it) and very much like she did for the first three years of the war in Europe (1939 to 1941 inclusive). As far as Bush being instrumental in assisting the Nazi's - another "leftist" myth, half-truth and misrepresentation. |
|
18 Jun 08 - 07:53 AM (#2368655) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Grab The funny thing to me is that Baker thinks he's making a new point. He's clearly never watched "The World at War" (made in the early 80s IIRC) which spelled out in great detail how all sides suffered in the war. He's also plainly unaware that the morally dubious strategy of bombing German cities is why Bomber Command never received the public recognition of campaign medals, unlike every other aerial, naval and ground action. He's also starting from a premise which is provably incorrect. The question "is this a morally justified war?" is asking whether the reasons for going to war were morally valid. But Baker starts from this question and then answers a completely different question: "were the methods used to fight this war morally justified?" The answer to this second question is clearly "no" in the case of firebombing cities, because even though the military targets of factories and railways were destroyed there was also a dreadful toll of civilian casualties. But the answer to the first question is equally clearly "yes" - attempts at appeasement throughout the 30s had only led to further annexing of central Europe, despite German assurances each time that they wouldn't go any further, and it was clear then and now that without intervention the Germans would only stop when they controlled the whole of Europe. This is a classic politician's trick - when asked one question, answer a different one. Most people dislike politicians who won't give a straight answer to a question. I see no reason to think otherwise about authors who do the same. Graham. |
|
18 Jun 08 - 03:05 PM (#2369146) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Les from Hull About Churchill. I've no brief for him at all - I hate everything he stood for, but it's wrong to think of him as some kind of evil dictator. He didn't declare war on Germany - he wasn't Prime Minister until 1940 - war was declared by the Conservative Government lead by Neville 'Appeasement' Chamberlain. Winston Churchill wasn't the great war leader and intellect that many people think he was. General Sir Alan Brooke, Churchill's chief of staff, wrote that "Winston had 10 ideas every day, only one of which was good, and he did not know which it was". Civilian bombing was one of the bad ideas. It was seen as the only way that Britain could really strike back at Germany, and it was promoted unnecessarily by Arthur 'Bomber' Harris, although it was known at the time that it was having little effect on German war production and none at all on German civilian morale. The American 'oil plan' of reducing German oil production was far more effective. We should have been putting much more effort into Coastal Command, converting heavy bombers into very long range patrol aircraft like the VLR Liberator we had to beg from the Americans to defeat the U boats. |
|
18 Jun 08 - 05:55 PM (#2369315) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: PoppaGator I really do not thnk that "everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way" should be interpreted to include all citizens of a nation where a few highly-placed industrialists profited by doing business with Nazi Germany, or for that matter with both sides of the conflict. I'm quite sure that the wartime population of Sweden included many more Resistance fighters, rescuers of Jews, etc., than war profiteers. Of course, the vast majority of the people were undoubtedly neither heroes nor collaborators, just humble individuals keeping their heads down and trying to survive. |
|
19 Jun 08 - 08:56 AM (#2369746) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Gulliver A review of Pat Buchanan's and Nicholson Baker's books by the conservative journalist Peter Hitchens, with a large number of interesting comments, can be found on the Sunday Mail site here . He is a Euro-sceptic and ex-member of the Conservative Party (and before that the Labour Party and before that the International Socialists). |
|
19 Jun 08 - 11:00 AM (#2369839) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Teribus "I'm quite sure that the wartime population of Sweden included many more Resistance fighters, rescuers of Jews, etc., than war profiteers." - PoppaGator Come out with that to a Norwegian and he'd probably deck you. Swedish resistance fighter? They weren't even occupied, although to easy Hitler's logistics problems they (The Swedes) did allow right of transit to German troops invading Norway. |
|
19 Jun 08 - 06:37 PM (#2370276) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Ron Davies Thanks, Don, for that link to the Sunday Mail. Those are fascinating perspectives. |
|
20 Jun 08 - 10:53 PM (#2371192) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Ron Davies Not exactly on the topic, but certainly related--and also linked to the Sunday Mail postings, some of which bring up the same argument. Book just out: The Last Thousand Days of the British Empire, by Peter Clarke. Reviewed in today's Wall St Journal. Thesis is: " Britain's postwar problems were rooted in precisely those wartime commitments that had brought victory." Not a new idea, but sounds very well supported in this book. I didn't know, for instance, that the war "left India a creditor on a vast scale, with Britain owing it huge sums in the form of the sterling balances. London actually owed New Delhi some 1.3 billion pounds sterling (or $5.2 billion in 1945 dollars.)" Nor just how FDR exploited the situation: "In 1940, when Britain balked at surrendering nearly everything, Roosevelt summarily dispatched an American warship to Cape Town, South Africa to collect Britain's remaining gold reserves there." Whether Churchill had a choice to do anything else but mortgage the UK to the hilt is not the question: it seems evident he had no choice. But the "partners" drove a hard bargain--it was by no means just the English-speaking peoples sticking together against the forces of darkness--as has been the general impression in some other presentations of the era. If I can find the book for a good price, I will definitely buy it. |
|
21 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM (#2371484) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: GUEST,Notatroll Context: "To coax isolationist elements in Congress into accepting [Lend-Lease], President Roosevelt stipulated that the British should hand over gold reserves held in South Africa and sell assets held in the United States."--Britain and the Americas...An Encyclopedia (2005), p. 997. |
|
22 Jun 08 - 08:32 PM (#2372206) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Ron Davies I suspected there was something to do with isolationists behind this. Some people berate the US for coming late to the war--and World War I. But they don't seem to realize the strength of isolationists in the US. And the government has to pay attention to the views of the electorate. In 1916 Wilson won--narrowly--on the strength of "He kept us out of war". And in 1940 FDR's Republican opponent did not try to run on a similar platform--but there was strong sentiment in favor of keeping out. Even after Pearl Harbor it was not a given that the US would come in strongly against Nazi Germany--until Hitler solved the problem by declaring war on the US. |
|
23 Jun 08 - 06:24 PM (#2372812) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: GUEST,Notatroll Isolationism was so strong here in 1941 that when Hitler declared war on the United States, a Congressional committee was busy investigating the movie industry for turning out anti-German films that might offend the Nazis. Among the movies that aroused suspicion was Sergeant York, which was entirely about a real World War I hero. The committee quietly gave up before the end of the year. |
|
24 Jun 08 - 01:50 AM (#2373017) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Teribus Britain had opportunity to take the easy way out in both the First and the Second World War. In both cases what was superficially the "best" and financially the most beneficial course of action for the country was overriddden by what was unquestionably the right course of action to pursue. Both were moral judgements, both were totally correct. |
|
24 Jun 08 - 10:45 AM (#2373243) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: GUEST,Notatroll The best resolution of World War 1 would probably have been a cease-fire and negotiated peace in 1915, but neither side had much interest in negotiating one. |
|
24 Jun 08 - 11:33 AM (#2373289) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Teribus The First World War should never have been fought at all. |
|
24 Jun 08 - 10:11 PM (#2373705) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: Ron Davies But the moral judgment which led to World War I seems to have been easier to take for the country at large--witness the initial enthusiastic response of the men who actually would fight it--and their families. Seems to have been very like the start of the US Civil War--each side convinced it would be an easy victory for their side. |
|
25 Jun 08 - 12:51 AM (#2373775) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: CarolC I said this... "I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time." After mentioning Bush, not before. |
|
25 Jun 08 - 01:02 AM (#2373781) Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified? From: CarolC My goodness. If all of the members of every country in which people collaborated with the Nazis were shot for treason or imprisoned for life, that would mean that everyone in the US would have been shot or imprisoned for life. An imagination that can come up with that kind of interpretation of my words is a spongy one indeed. As has been speculated, I was referring only to the specific individuals who did the collaborating. So in the case of Sweden, that would be the Swedish industrialists who provided materials to the Nazis that I would have been talking about had I been talking about any country other than the US. As it happens, however, I was only thinking about people in the US when I said what I did. |