Was It ‘The Good War’?

Defensor · 04-05-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

“Yes, it was a good war,” writes Richard Cohen in his column challenging the thesis of pacifist Nicholson Baker in his new book, “Human Smoke,” that World War II produced more evil than good.

Baker’s compelling work, which uses press clips and quotes of Axis and Allied leaders as they plunged into the great cataclysm, is a virtual diary of the days leading up to World War II.

Riveting to this writer was that Baker uses some of the same episodes, sources and quotes as this author in my own book out in May, “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War.’”

On some points, Cohen is on sold ground. There are things worth fighting for: God and country, family and freedom. Martyrs have ever inspired men. And to some evils pacifism is no answer. Resistance, even unto death, may be required of a man.

But when one declares a war that produced Hiroshima and the Holocaust a “Good War,” it raises a question: good for whom?

Britain declared war on Sept. 3, 1939, to preserve Poland. For six years, Poland was occupied by Nazi and Soviet armies and SS and NKVD killers. At war’s end, the Polish dead were estimated at 6 million. A third of Poland had been torn away by Stalin, and Nazis had used the country for the infamous camps of Treblinka and Auschwitz.

Fifteen thousand Polish officers had been massacred at places like Katyn. The Home Army that rose in Warsaw at the urging of the Red Army in 1944 had been annihilated, as the Red Army watched from the other side of the Vistula. When the British celebrated V-E day in May 1945, Poland began 44 years of tyranny under the satraps of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

Was World War II “a good war” for the Poles?

Was it a good war for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, overrun by Stalin’s army in June 1940, whose people saw their leaders murdered or deported to the Gulag never to return? Was it a good war for the Finns who lost Karelia and thousands of brave men dead in the Winter War?

Was it a good war for Hungarians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Rumanians and Albanians who ended up behind the Iron Curtain? In Hungary, it was hard to find a women or girl over 10 who had not been raped by the “liberators” of the Red Army. Was it a good war for the 13 million German civilians ethnically cleansed from Central Europe and the 2 million who died in the exodus?

Was it a good war for the French, who surrendered after six weeks of fighting in 1940 and had to be liberated by the Americans and British after four years of Vichy collaboration?

And how good a war was it for the British?

They went to war for Poland, but Winston Churchill abandoned Poland to Stalin. Defeated in Norway, France, Greece, Crete and the western desert, they endured until America came in and joined in the liberation of Western Europe.

Yet, at war’s end in 1945, Britain was bled and bankrupt, and the great cause of Churchill’s life, preserving his beloved empire, was lost. Because of the “Good War” Britain would never be great again.

And were the means used by the Allies, the terror bombing of Japanese and German cities, killing hundreds of thousands of women and children, perhaps millions, the marks of a “good war”?

Cohen contends that the evil of the Holocaust makes it a “good war.” But the destruction of the Jews of Europe was a consequence of this war, not a cause. As for the Japanese atrocities like the Rape of Nanking, they were indeed horrific.

But America’s smashing of Japan led not to freedom for China, but four years of civil war followed by 30 years of Maoist madness in which 30 million Chinese perished.

For America, the war was Pearl Harbor and Midway, Anzio and Iwo Jima, Normandy and Bastogne, days of glory leading to triumph and the American Century.

But for Joseph Stalin, it was also a good war. From his pact with Adolf Hitler he annexed parts of Finland and Rumania, and three Baltic republics. His armies stood in Berlin, Prague and Vienna; his agents were vying for power in Rome and Paris; his ally was installed in North Korea; his protege, Mao, was about to bring China into his empire. But it was not so good a war for the inmates of Kolyma or the Russian POWs returned to Stalin in Truman’s Operation Keelhaul.

Is a war that replaces Hitler’s domination of Europe with Stalin’s and Japan’s rule in China with Mao’s a “good war”? We had to stop the killers, says Cohen. But who were the greater killers: Hitler or Stalin, Tojo or Mao Zedong?

Can a war in which 50 million perished and the Christian continent was destroyed, half of it enslaved, a war that has advanced the death of Western civilization, be truly celebrated as a “good war”?

Finally people are starting to get out and question the nonsensical myth that World War II was "The Good War" fought by "the Greatest Generation." In reality nothing but senseless death and destruction resulted from a totally unnecessary war. Especially in the United States, the much-maligned "isolationists" were right from the beginning. I look forward to Pat's book on this issue coming out next month.

Guyker · 04-05-2008, 09:41 PM

Pat Who's book? "Totally unnecessary war" means what given that we were attacked and thousands of Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor? Nothing we pursued in our foreign policy warranted or justified that attack.

Defensor · 04-05-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guyker

Pat Who's book?

The author of that piece.

Quote:

"Totally unnecessary war" means what given that we were attacked and thousands of Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor? Nothing we pursued in our foreign policy warranted or justified that attack.

Everything about FDR's foreign policy was designed to make Japanese attack all but certain. Blowback is a concept which seems to elude many people.

But besides that, I'm taking about there being no need for war in Europe in 1939, never mind Pearl Harbor and the entry of the United States in '41.

Guyker · 04-05-2008, 09:58 PM

I couldn't find the author's name on the piece you had posted, and you referred to him only as Pat. Thanks for clearing that up.
What everything in FDR's foreign policy compelled Japan to attack?

Ausinus · 04-05-2008, 10:04 PM

The war was indeed unecessary. If any one of the following nations had gotten off their asses in '39 it would have been over; France, Britain, Russia or the United States.

But as it was, US entry into the war became necessary. If Britain had been taken by Germany that would have been it - Axis Victory. And I can assure you Hitler would not have hesitated to invade the Western Hemisphere.

Defensor · 04-05-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guyker

I couldn't find the author's name on the piece you had posted, and you referred to him only as Pat. Thanks for clearing that up.
What everything in FDR's foreign policy compelled Japan to attack?

Have you read the McCollum Memo submitted by the Office of Naval Intelligence in October 1940? It's suggestions are pretty much what ended up happening in the events leading up to Pearl Harbor. Reads eerily like the PNAC filth written leading up to 9/11.

9. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.
10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.
- H. McCollum

Defensor · 04-05-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ausinus

The war was indeed unecessary. If any one of the following nations had gotten off their asses in '39 it would have been over; France, Britain, Russia or the United States.

"Gotten off their asses" and did what exactly?

Quote:

But as it was, US entry into the war became necessary. If Britain had been taken by Germany that would have been it - Axis Victory. And I can assure you Hitler would not have hesitated to invade the Western Hemisphere.

If Britain has been taken by Germany, there would most likely have been peace. Hitler would have been very happy if the British would have just agreed to put down their weapons and co-exist in peace at any time from the beginning of the war.

There's nothing to indicate any earnest desire to invade the Western Hemisphere. Hitler wanted to take out Russia; everything else was a distraction from this goal.

Ausinus · 04-05-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defensor

"Gotten off their asses" and did what exactly?

Invaded le Allemagne as the frogs would say.

Quote:

If Britain has been taken by Germany, there would most likely have been peace. Hitler would have been very happy if the British would have just agreed to put down their weapons and co-exist in peace at any time from the beginning of the war.

There's nothing to indicate any earnest desire to invade the Western Hemisphere. Hitler wanted to take out Russia; everything else was a distraction from this goal.

The reason there is no indication is because the Germans were tied up with Britain and the USSR. Had both been neutralised, as would have happened if Germany had taken Britain, then I'm sure plans to invade the western hemisphere would start to circulate.

Additionally consider US hegemony over the seas bye bye if Britain was taken.

Defensor · 04-05-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Invaded le Allemagne as the frogs would say.

So by starting the war, you prevent the war from happening? Is that like burning the village to save it?

Quote:

The reason there is no indication is because the Germans were tied up with Britain and the USSR. Had both been neutralised, as would have happened if Germany had taken Britain, then I'm sure plans to invade the western hemisphere would start to circulate.

You're sure that "plans to invade the western hemisphere would start to circulate?" What basis is there for this speculation?

Quote:

Additionally consider US hegemony over the seas bye bye if Britain was taken.

What "US hegemony over the seas" was there to be concerned about? At that point we were not an imperialist power yet and the majority of the country still wanted "peace, trade, and honest friendship" with other nations.

Ausinus · 04-05-2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defensor

So by starting the war, you prevent the war from happening? Is that like burning the village to save it?

The war was already officially declared. I'm talking about making the phoney war an actual war.

Quote:

You're sure that "plans to invade the western hemisphere would start to circulate?" What basis is there for this speculation?

Why wouldnt they if they had the means to? The Americas are very rich in resources, plus you eliminate a contestant to your supremacy.

Plus you have the human trait of overconfidence.

Quote:

What "US hegemony over the seas" was there to be concerned about? At that point we were not an imperialist power yet and the majority of the country still wanted "peace, trade, and honest friendship" with other nations.

Yeah you were an imperialist power. And hegemony was the wrong word to use, sorry. Let me change that to any trace of US power over the seas.