Inconvenient Facts about World War II
Rather than write a standard historical narrative, Nicholson Baker presents on each page a separate fact, often taken from contemporary newspaper accounts. A number of these facts show Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in less than a favorable light, and this has proved too much not only for Pryce-Jones but for John Lukacs as well. For Lukacs and his ilk, Churchill is the Schwannritter of the 20th century, and inconvenient truths must not be permitted to jar unwary readers from the veneration properly his due. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (22)
The causes of WWII cannot be understood unless one first understands the causes of WWI.
Special interest groups on either side of every confrontation will push an agenda that favors themselves, initially not knowing where it will eventually lead.
Just as the US Civil War was initially thought to be over in a jiffy but dragged on for years with hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, not to mention the civilian agonies and property destruction, there were no winners only losers.
Did Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt or Bush fight just wars?
It depends on the Special Interests' agenda and they are generally in the background shaping public opinion and when wars end the winners write the history. It is only after many years have passed that little bits of truth are unearthed and the real causes become known.
The road leading to a peaceful earth is a long one, unfortunately we are not at the end yet.
Published: May 26, 2008 10:58 AM
You must always look at the facts, but the way you edit them can be misleading, and this case it seems that Baker has as objective to put Churchill in a bad light. You can't just exonerate yourself by just making a profession of faith you're not for Hitler, the context can't be ignored, nor the choices faced by Churchill and Roosevelt. The real question was that of the domination by Hitler and it's (un)acceptability, and the means available to prevent it.
I read Veale's book, often quoted here and by Rothbard, and found it troubling. But also troubling is the fact that he was a British Union facist. Not being an historien I can't judge but can't rule out he wrote with an agenda.
And the british historian AJP Taylor, though famous and often quoted by authorities, is a awowed communist.
Published: May 26, 2008 12:13 PM
"Direct attacks on noncombatants are strictly forbidden."
Says who? If instead of such facile pronouncements you are interested to examine the principles by which a nation ought to wage self-interested war against an attacker who has harnessed his whole economy for the purpose of that nation's surrender and submission, check this out:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp
Published: May 26, 2008 4:43 PM
says me (!!) Not only was the Bombing offensive targeting civilians a horror story in itself, even from a military standpoint, it was a misapplication of force. Given that the Nazi economy (if you could genorously describe it as such) was on the brink of falling off the cliff from 1933, it should have been quite easy to dispose of it.
Published: May 26, 2008 6:41 PM
You are guilty of disturbing the peace! (of my mind!)
Whilst it's perfectly true that Churchill preferred to think in terms of Grand Gestures and not count the cost (ANZAC Day in Australia and New Zealand commemorates the failed campaign to tale Gallipoli, one of Churchill's ideas in WW1), I don't think you can blame Churchill for the Communists in Moscow, and the Nazies used the Red Menace to polarise German voters and gather support.
As for the Nazi economy being weak, well so was the British Economy! Have you heard of the Great Depression? Did you think it only affected America? The whole world was depressed, or barely recovering! Let's try to keep the total context in mind.
Published: May 26, 2008 8:12 PM
Interesting link Eric. Here's another link that may stem the undertone of this article that war should be pretty:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Stupid9-11-01.htm
This article has the 'what about the women and children' about it. How is a factory full of women and children making ammo for their men on the frontline NOT be a legitimate target? Or just because the technology isn't available to bomb the factory with pinpoint accuracy and no collateral damage should the military abstain until they get that technology?
Similarly the article in the link provided by Eric makes an telling point:
The Civil War provides another stark example of what can be required to win a war. In 1864, as the war was dragging on in endless, bloody battle, the Northern general William Tecumseh Sherman helped end it with a devastating campaign against Georgia's civilian population. After burning the city of Atlanta, Sherman's army ravaged much of the rest of Georgia by burning estates; taking food and livestock; and destroying warehouses, crops, and railway lines. These actions had the effect not only of disrupting the supply of provisions to Lee's army in Virginia, but also (and more importantly) of making the war real to the civilian population that was supporting the war from the rear. This, in turn, broke the spirit of the men on the front lines, who were now worried and demoralized by what was happening to their homes and families.
How was this not a military action? The civilian population was part of the enemy and was supplying the enemy - how were they not going to be a military target? It's akin to saying the driver of a getaway car in a bank robbery can never be charged with a crime because he just drives a car and that's hardly illegal in itself or someone who hires an assassin is free from blame as he only engaged in a business transaction. Perhaps what this article does is to exposes the dangerous notion of collective behaviour in people. If people operate as a collective society then in war everyone who adhere to the collective are fair game. But in a Libertarian populace where there are no collectives instead many unrelated people living close to each other then there's a proper example of wrongful killing in wartime - the killing of those who have no affiliation with either side.
Published: May 26, 2008 10:20 PM
The lesson on learns from studying history is that it constantly changes!
In the 1930's, political correctness did not exist. The notion of "International Law" did not exist. There were treaties, such as the Geneva Convention and the Haig Convention, but these were seen as "gentlemen's agrements". It was not until the Nurnburg Trials that the notion of "war crimes" came into existence.
The notion that Britain started the bombing of civilians is not true, simply because, during the Battle of Britain, Britain did not even have the planes with the range to reach into Germany and then fly back. This ability did not come until after the development of the lancaster bomber. Bombing of civilian targets actually started on 2/13/1945 with the bombing of Dresden, aimed at seeing whether a firestorm would be created. This was the "Trinity" experiment for the fire-bombing of Tokyo on the 24th and 25th February, 1945. The morality of the day was "tit-for-tat" - if the enemy bombs your cities, you bomb theirs.
Both Churchill and Roosevelt refused safe passage to Jewish refugees. Only Canada seems to have acted honorably in this respect.
Even the dropping of the atom bomb must have been an easy decision for Harry Truman. As commander-in-chief, why would he sacrifice American troops to save the lives of Japanese? The loss of 150,000 lives bombing a city was small by what had been seen earlier in the war - 750,000 at Stalingrad.
Wars are nasty and brutal - people die. They also have disastrous economic effects. That's why they should be avoided.
Published: May 27, 2008 12:58 AM
"Wars are nasty and brutal - people die. They also have disastrous economic effects. That's why they should be avoided." - Walt D
It was said the carnage of WW1 was enough for those to say there shouldn't be any more wars as technology is way too efficient in killing people yet 21 years later saw WW2 and it was even worse. If certain unpleasantries between certain nations lead to WW3, God only knows what carnage will result. Though in the aftermath I'm sure no one would complain of 'overpopulation'.
Published: May 27, 2008 1:54 AM
I see nothing wrong in showing even dark facts about acclaimed leaders, though black paint may have beed overused.
Civilians casualties should deffinately be minimized. Killing people that aren't abetting your enemy is simply evil.
However making universal rules in war is impossible. All rules are at stake while phisical, direct force was put into motion.
So in some situations like:
Mentioned by Sam factory. Clearly a military target. Unfortunately there are workers inside. Should you let it run and exchange lives of enemies civilians for your soldiers/civilians? Obviously you bomb it to the ground - and it would moral to strike at night or in time of some brake, but not bombing at all would have bad consequnces.
Another one - you've captured 3 guys. 2 are civilians one is enemy secret agend with lot's of intel on your defences. He won't play by the rules and say his rank and number after capture. You may hold them risking enemy will capture prison, agent will escape, or somehow get the intel out. You may also torture / kill 2 innocent civilians and one enemy agent that won't obey Geneva convention. It's awful either way. I'd blame agent here for most of the moral fallout. He's the one who concealed between these 2 civilians. He can say "liutenant Baker 3rd division" and let them off the hook. Ofcourse he's sacrificing these 2 poor passerbays to help his side and probably save some of his friends...
It's very good that objectives of wars shifted recently. Beating people up into submission is to slow for current standards. You're better of swaping powers in control with minimum damage and not making enemy hate you. Also 3000 dead soldiers in 5 years make for "quagmire". If this keeps up, we'll see less and less fighting in the future.
BTW What If for 2mln less German civilian casualties we( =capitalists)'d have to pay with Nazi Japan, Nazi Germany from France to half of Poland, "lost cold war" with southern Europe in Reich influence and almost all of Asia and South America under communism?
Bargaining with other ppl's lives for political ideas is terrible thing. But It's pretty much what it is and in situation where billions would be affected even really bad things are actually lesser of two evils.
Published: May 27, 2008 6:48 AM
I see nothing wrong in showing even dark facts about acclaimed leaders, though black paint may have beed overused.
Civilians casualties should deffinately be minimized. Killing people that aren't abetting your enemy is simply evil.
However making universal rules in war is impossible. All rules are at stake while phisical, direct force was put into motion.
So in some situations like:
Mentioned by Sam factory. Clearly a military target. Unfortunately there are workers inside. Should you let it run and exchange lives of enemies civilians for your soldiers/civilians? Obviously you bomb it to the ground - and it would moral to strike at night or in time of some brake, but not bombing at all would have bad consequnces.
Another one - you've captured 3 guys. 2 are civilians one is enemy secret agend with lot's of intel on your defences. He won't play by the rules and say his rank and number after capture. You may hold them risking enemy will capture prison, agent will escape, or somehow get the intel out. You may also torture / kill 2 innocent civilians and one enemy agent that won't obey Geneva convention. It's awful either way. I'd blame agent here for most of the moral fallout. He's the one who concealed between these 2 civilians. He can say "liutenant Baker 3rd division" and let them off the hook. Ofcourse he's sacrificing these 2 poor passerbays to help his side and probably save some of his friends...
It's very good that objectives of wars shifted recently. Beating people up into submission is to slow for current standards. You're better of swaping powers in control with minimum damage and not making enemy hate you. Also 3000 dead soldiers in 5 years make for "quagmire". If this keeps up, we'll see less and less fighting in the future.
BTW What If for 2mln less German civilian casualties we( =capitalists)'d have to pay with Nazi Japan, Nazi Germany from France to half of Poland, "lost cold war" with southern Europe in Reich influence and almost all of Asia and South America under communism?
Bargaining with other ppl's lives for political ideas is terrible thing. But It's pretty much what it is and in situation where billions would be affected even really bad things are actually lesser of two evils.
Published: May 27, 2008 6:48 AM
"In the previous war, bombers had not been used in a terror campaign against civilians".
Well, that's false for a start. There were regular Zeppelin bombing raids on Britain in the First World War, doing precisely that. I've seen a commemorative plaque near Farringdon underground station. Or do air raids only count when aeroplanes are used? The Italians used those even earlier, while taking Libya from Turkey in about 1912.
Published: May 27, 2008 7:37 AM
'It was not until the Nurnburg Trials that the notion of "war crimes" came into existence'.
That is incorrect. However, earlier versions rested on the concept of "perfidy", e.g. attacking under cover of a flag of truce.
Published: May 27, 2008 7:42 AM
P.M.Lawrence
You are correct. There were gentlemen's code of conduct rules in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and WWI. The extent to which these "rules" were ignored by the Japanese and Germans in WWII was often put forward as an excuse for execrable conduct by the allies. As I said before, bombing Dresden was not done for the purpose of breaking china and porcelain.
Also, most charges of misconduct were leveled by the victors against the defeated. This was a key part of the defense strategy at Nurnberg. Incidentally, in occupied France during WWII, German soldiers were charged by German Authorities in instances of crimes against civilians, notably rape.
Published: May 27, 2008 1:54 PM
A problem with the use of the atomic bomb and tactics such as fire bombing of cities is that the deaths/casualties are overwhelmingly woman, children, and men that are too old or sick to fight. Yes, the lives of our soldiers are likely saved, but at the expense of the largely defenseless.
I find the deliberate targeting of unarmed civilians cowardly and immoral.
Published: May 27, 2008 2:46 PM
Dennis
I think Israel has a policy that in times of war, everybody is a soldier. This is supposed to deter hostage taking.
Islamic fundamentalists hold everyone responsible for the actions of their government. Everyone is a legitimate military target.
The notion of innocent women and children dates back to a time when there was such a thing as "a gentleman's war".
Published: May 27, 2008 6:22 PM
"There were gentlemen's code of conduct rules in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and WWI" - no, they weren't like that. It was vitally important that they were observed, or otherwise no quarter could ever have been sought or given, and so on. That was why armies court martialled, convicted and sentenced their own men for these things. Honour was more than a word, just as the goodwill assets of a business are. Montaigne records that in the 16th century the Sultan of Turkey even gave back his only foothold in Italy (in the heel) because it had been captured improperly. If he hadn't, it would have been that much harder for him to keep the rest of his possessions. And in that era, nobody could make the Sultan do anything he didn't want to; being honourable really was in his best interests, not something forced on him - carrot, not stick.
Published: May 27, 2008 10:04 PM
aside from pm lawrence's zeppelin observations, the luftwaffe got quite a bit of civilian carpet bombing practice in the spanish civil war. think picasso's guernica.
Published: May 28, 2008 11:08 AM
And, of course, after Zeppelins became less realistic in about 1917, the Germans switched to bomber aeroplanes. From Gotha raids, they killed schoolchildren in Poplar (in the East End of London).
Published: May 28, 2008 8:49 PM
walt d says:
"As I said before, bombing Dresden was not done for the purpose of breaking china and porcelain."
i believe that the dresden question was also complicated by the fact that numerous vital industrial plants (ie ball-bearing factories) were spread through residential quarters.
Published: May 28, 2008 11:00 PM
Also, back in 1945, the allies did not have laser guided weapons. Bombing from 15,000 ft with a Norton bomb sight was not that accurate. That is why the criticism that the Allies did not bomb the gas chambers at Auschwitz is unfair - there was no way they could have done it without accidentally hitting the residential units.
Now we have smart bombs. Too bad we have dumb leaders!
Published: May 29, 2008 5:29 PM
Walt- just put the bombs in command of the government! Smart bombs = smart government! Who needs a president now?
Published: June 2, 2008 1:52 AM
"We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland."
WW2 in Europe begun by German bombing of a Polish city of Wielun. Warsaw was effectively bombed into submission on Sept. 26th, 1939. Now, I hardly see how Brits are guilty of starting the terror air war.
Published: June 4, 2008 2:30 AM