Revisionist View and WWII

[Annie]

I hate revisionist history.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson051305.html

There's more...

Remembering World War II
Revisionists get it wrong
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

As the world commemorated the 60th anniversary of the end of the European Theater of World War II, revisionism was the norm. In the last few years, new books and articles have argued for a complete rethinking of the war. The only consistent theme in this various second-guessing was a diminution of the American contribution and suspicion of our very motives.

Indeed, most recent op-eds commemorating V-E day either blamed the United States for Hamburg or for the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, or for our supposed failure to credit the Russians for their sacrifices.

It is true that the Russians paid a horrendous price. Perhaps two out of every three soldiers of the Wehrmacht fell on the Eastern Front. We in the West must always remember that such a tragic sacrifice allowed Hitler to be defeated with far less American British, Canadian, and Australian dead.

That being said, the Anglo-Americans waged a global war well beyond the capability of the Soviet Union. They invaded North Africa, took Sicily, and landed in Italy, in addition to fighting a massive land war in central Europe. We had fewer casualties than did the Russians because we fought more wisely, were better equipped, and were not surprised to the same degree by a treacherous former ally that we had supplied.

The Soviets invaded the defeated Japanese only in the last days of the war; the Anglo-Americans alone took on two fronts simultaneously. Submarine warfare, attacking the Japanese and German surface fleets, conducting strategic bombing over Berlin and Tokyo, and sending tons of supplies to Allied forces — all this was beyond the capability of the Red Army. More important, Stalin had been an ally of Hitler until the Nazi invasion of 1941, and had unleashed the Red Army to destroy the freedom of Finland and to carve up Poland.

Do we ever read these days that when the Luftwaffe bombed Britain, Russia was sending the Nazis fuel and iron ore? When Germany invaded Russia, however, Britain sent food and supplies.

Yes, World War II started to free Eastern Europe from fascist totalitarianism, and ended up ensuring that it would be enslaved by Soviet totalitarianism. But Roosevelt and Churchill were faced with an inescapable reality in 1945 that to keep the Russians out of Eastern Europe they would have had to restart the war against their former ally that possessed it — a conflict that might well have gone nuclear in two or three years. The latter had been in great part armed and supplied for four years by their own taxpaying democratic citizenries. The Red Army was near home in Eastern Europe; the American 3rd Army was 5,000 miles from the United States....

 

[padisha emperor]

When people say "we do more than the others", I find it quite stupid.
alone, the anglo-US would be probably not able to win. Alone, USSR would be probably not able to win.
because the german army was divised, on the two fronts, then the job of the two allied armies was easier than if the german units would have been united on one single front.

(dont forget the French in Africa, Italy, France (of course, their contribution is not the same than the UK-US-USSR's ones, that's sure, these nations did an awesome job, for it the world will be always respectfull

 

[Annie]

When people say "we do more than the others", I find it quite stupid.
alone, the anglo-US would be probably not able to win. Alone, USSR would be probably not able to win.
because the german army was divised, on the two fronts, then the job of the two allied armies was easier than if the german units would have been united on one single front.

(dont forget the French in Africa, Italy, France (of course, their contribution is not the same than the UK-US-USSR's ones, that's sure, these nations did an awesome job, for it the world will be always respectfull

PE, thanks. Not coming through with revisionists though. US bombed Hiroshima-bad.

US interred Japanese-bad.

UK/US bombed Dresden-bad.

That's from textbooks in America. Other than stopping Hitler's holocaust, there was nothing ok about our involvement in WWII.

 

[padisha emperor]

Dresden, Hamburg : it's a bad thing, bombardments on a city, wihtout real strategic interest, it's sad, bad...and it didn't change the moral of the german population.


For Hiroshima : sure, a nuke bomb is not a joyce, but this idea was not adopted with the smile, it was the last solution, and it avoids to the USA the lose of several hundreds of thousands, probably several millions of marines. (the conquest of Japan would have been certainly an awful massacre).
The USA nuked Japan, it's awful and terrific, but the first interest of a nation during a war, is to win with the minimum of human loses.

 

[Annie]

Dresden, Hamburg : it's a bad thing, bombardments on a city, wihtout real strategic interest, it's sad, bad...and it didn't change the moral of the german population.


For Hiroshima : sure, a nuke bomb is not a joyce, but this idea was not adopted with the smile, it was the last solution, and it avoids to the USA the lose of several hundreds of thousands, probably several millions of marines. (the conquest of Japan would have been certainly an awful massacre).
The USA nuked Japan, it's awful and terrific, but the first interest of a nation during a war, is to win with the minimum of human loses.

Nope, no apologia here for Hiroshima. Nor for Dresden. War is hell and to be avoided at all REASONABLE costs:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004822.php

Overriding the Rules of War

The Decision to Bomb German Cities (note: during WWII - rkb)

The decision to bomb cities was made late in 1940 ... What had once been called indiscriminate bombing (and commonly condemned) was now required ... The purpose was explicitly declared to be the destruction of civilian morale.

... A number of reasons had already been offered for the British decision. From the beginning, the attacks were defended as reprisals for the German blitz. This is a very problematic defense, even if we leave aside the difficulties of the doctrine of reprisals (discussed earlier in the book - rkb) ... Nor was it Churchill's purpose, once the blitz began, to deter German attacks or to establish a policy of mutual restraint.

"We ask no favor of the enemy. We seek from them no compunction. On the contrary, if tonight the people of London were asked to cast their votes whether a convention should be entered into to stop the bombing of all cities, the overwhelming majority would cry, 'No, we will mete out to the Germans the measure, and more than the measure, that they have meted out to us.'

...Reprisal was a bad argument; revenge was a worse one. We must concentrate (then - rkb) on the military argument. ...(long analysis of Britain's military posture in 1940 here - rkb) ... Today many experts believe that the war might have ended sooner had there been a greater concentration of air power against targets such as the German oil refineries. But the deicsion to bomb cities was made at a time when victory was not in sight and the specter of defeat ever present. And it was made when no other decision seemed possible if there was to be any sort of military offensive against Nazi Germany.

Bomber Command was the only offensive weapon available to the British in those frightening years. .... 'The bombers alone', Churchill had said as early as September 1940, 'provide the means of victory.'

The bombers alone - that poses the issue very starkly, and perhaps wrongly, given the debates over strategy to which I have already referred. Churchill's statement suggested a certainty to which neither he nor anyone else had any right. But the issue can be put so as to accomodate a degree of skepticism and to permit even the most sophisticated among us to indulge in a common and a morally important fantasy: suppose that I sat in the seat of power and had to decide whether to use Bomber Command (in the only way that it could be used systematically and effectively) against cities. Suppose further that unless bombers were used in this way, the probability that Germany would eventually be defeated would be radically reduced.

... the more certain a German victory appeared to be in the absence of a bomber offensive, the most justifiable was the decision to launch the offensive. it is not just that such a victory was frightening, but also that it seemed in those years very close; it was not just that it was close, but also that it was so frightening. Here was a supreme emergency, where one might well be required to override the rights of innocent people and shatter the war convention.

Given the view of Nazism that I am assuming, the issue takes this form: should I wager this determinate crime (the killing of innocent people) against that immesurable evil (a Nazi triumph)? Obviously, if there is some other way of avoiding the evil or even a reasonable chance of another way, I must wager differently or elsewhere. But I can never hope to be sure; a wager is not an experiment. Even if I wager and win, it is still possible that I was wrong, that my crime was unnecessary to victory. But I can argue that I studied the case as closely as I was able, took the best advice I could find, sought out available alternatives. And if all this is true, and my perception of evil and imminent danger not hysterical or self-serving, then surely I must wager. There is no option; the risk is too great. My own action is determinate, of course, only as to its direct consequences, while the rule that bars such acts is founded on a conception of rights that transcends all immediate considerations. It arises out of our common hsitory; it holds the key to our common future. But I dare to say that our history will be nullified and our future condemned unless I accept the burdens of criminality here and now.

This is not an easy argument to make, and yet we must resist every effort to make it easier. ...
This argument says: sometimes it is right to decide an emergency exists which requires us to do things we otherwise judge to be illegal and wrong. Do them we must, if the risk is sufficiently great and sufficiently immediate. But we should never kid ourselves that they were right - just that they were necessary.

Does this argument provide us with a way to distinguish between the murder and desecration of the contractors in Fallujah and casualties inflicted by the Marines there afterward?

And does it provide a useful way to critique terrorism as opposed to war?

UPDATE: I have a few minutes free right now and would like to expand on my questions here, in response to some of the comments so far.

One strength of the argument I quoted is that it accounts for two different, and conflicting, factors at work during war - factors which I believe differentiate just war from terrorism.

First and foremost, this argument ties the loss of civilian life to a pressing danger which cannot be handled (insofar as the decision maker can judge) in any other effective way.

This argument was made about the invasion of Iraq. Can the mob in Fallujah make the same claim about the Blackwater contractors? Can the perpetrators of the Madrid bombs, or of 9/11, do so?

My own belief is that they not only CANNOT do so, they do not even care to try.

Second, this argument acknowledges that the loss of civilians and innocents is deeply regretable and cannot be swept aside as inconsequential.

In other words, the Islamacist terror networks fail to do 2 things that the Coalition forces are doing in Iraq. First, they fail to claim that they face a massive risk which necessitates their actions. And second, they fail to show remorse or concern for having commited acts which might be considered immoral or regretable.

Now, how does this apply (if at all) to the controversy about Kos and lgf?

One way we might apply it is to say something along the following lines:

"Strong emotions and harsh judgements may be the only way to get at the stark realities in a horrible situation.

However, it is regretable when we use this language, because it inevitably makes important discourse impossible, it does serious injustice to those whom we dehumanize this way and it undercuts our own credibility and judgement.

Therefore, extreme rhetoric may occasionally be justified, but it carries with it a true cost. Use it very rarely and very carefully, lest you become what you criticize."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Dresden, Hamburg : it's a bad thing, bombardments on a city, wihtout real strategic interest, it's sad, bad...and it didn't change the moral of the german population.


For Hiroshima : sure, a nuke bomb is not a joyce, but this idea was not adopted with the smile, it was the last solution, and it avoids to the USA the lose of several hundreds of thousands, probably several millions of marines. (the conquest of Japan would have been certainly an awful massacre).
The USA nuked Japan, it's awful and terrific, but the first interest of a nation during a war, is to win with the minimum of human loses.

We did do more. Accomplishment is not a function of the number of casualties.

 

[NATO AIR]

WW2 was total war at that time. The fate of the world hung in the balance. Messy, terrible things happened. They were worth it though in the long run, unless these revisionist bastards want to be speaking German and owning black slaves.

 

[William Joyce]

WWII was an unnecessary war for America pushed for mainly by Anglo elites and Jews. Before our involvement, there was a huge America First movement by true nationalistic patriots like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh who dared to say the truth --- that we should not be involved. Hitler was not a threat to the U.S., not in the slightest. He was a threat to Jews. Why so many thousands of white Christian men have had to die for them is beyond me. But it continues to this day --- just look at Iraq. But our reward for being their soliders is that they mock us on TV and in the movies as Christian buffoons.

 

[Gunny]

WWII was an unnecessary war for America pushed for mainly by Anglo elites and Jews. Before our involvement, there was a huge America First movement by true nationalistic patriots like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh who dared to say the truth --- that we should not be involved. Hitler was not a threat to the U.S., not in the slightest. He was a threat to Jews. Why so many thousands of white Christian men have had to die for them is beyond me. But it continues to this day --- just look at Iraq. But our reward for being their soliders is that they mock us on TV and in the movies as Christian buffoons.

You need to rethink your math. Hitler declared war on the US the Dec 8, 1941. We did not initiate the state of war with Germany.

Speculation of course, but had he not declared war on us, we could very-well have conducted only a single-front war in the Pacific, and/or had a much more limited involvement in Europe.

And we did not fight WWII for the Jews. The Holocaust was kept secret from the American people for attitudes such as yours. We fought first and foremost in our own defense.

 

[Unkotare]

When people say "we do more than the others", I find it quite stupid.
alone, the anglo-US would be probably not able to win. Alone, USSR would be probably not able to win.
because the german army was divised, on the two fronts, then the job of the two allied armies was easier than if the german units would have been united on one single front.

(dont forget the French in Africa, Italy, France (of course, their contribution is not the same than the UK-US-USSR's ones, that's sure, these nations did an awesome job, for it the world will be always respectfull

PE, thanks. Not coming through with revisionists though. US bombed Hiroshima-bad.

US interred Japanese-bad.

UK/US bombed Dresden-bad.

That's from textbooks in America. Other than stopping Hitler's holocaust, there was nothing ok about our involvement in WWII.

Not true.

 

[yiostheoy]

I hate revisionist history.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson051305.html

There's more...

Remembering World War II
Revisionists get it wrong
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

As the world commemorated the 60th anniversary of the end of the European Theater of World War II, revisionism was the norm. In the last few years, new books and articles have argued for a complete rethinking of the war. The only consistent theme in this various second-guessing was a diminution of the American contribution and suspicion of our very motives.

Indeed, most recent op-eds commemorating V-E day either blamed the United States for Hamburg or for the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, or for our supposed failure to credit the Russians for their sacrifices.

It is true that the Russians paid a horrendous price. Perhaps two out of every three soldiers of the Wehrmacht fell on the Eastern Front. We in the West must always remember that such a tragic sacrifice allowed Hitler to be defeated with far less American British, Canadian, and Australian dead.

That being said, the Anglo-Americans waged a global war well beyond the capability of the Soviet Union. They invaded North Africa, took Sicily, and landed in Italy, in addition to fighting a massive land war in central Europe. We had fewer casualties than did the Russians because we fought more wisely, were better equipped, and were not surprised to the same degree by a treacherous former ally that we had supplied.

The Soviets invaded the defeated Japanese only in the last days of the war; the Anglo-Americans alone took on two fronts simultaneously. Submarine warfare, attacking the Japanese and German surface fleets, conducting strategic bombing over Berlin and Tokyo, and sending tons of supplies to Allied forces — all this was beyond the capability of the Red Army. More important, Stalin had been an ally of Hitler until the Nazi invasion of 1941, and had unleashed the Red Army to destroy the freedom of Finland and to carve up Poland.

Do we ever read these days that when the Luftwaffe bombed Britain, Russia was sending the Nazis fuel and iron ore? When Germany invaded Russia, however, Britain sent food and supplies.

Yes, World War II started to free Eastern Europe from fascist totalitarianism, and ended up ensuring that it would be enslaved by Soviet totalitarianism. But Roosevelt and Churchill were faced with an inescapable reality in 1945 that to keep the Russians out of Eastern Europe they would have had to restart the war against their former ally that possessed it — a conflict that might well have gone nuclear in two or three years. The latter had been in great part armed and supplied for four years by their own taxpaying democratic citizenries. The Red Army was near home in Eastern Europe; the American 3rd Army was 5,000 miles from the United States....

Well the Eastern Europeans do blame the USA for the Russian occupation of Eastern Europe.

I have spoken with several and they believe they were sold down the river.

 

[yiostheoy]

When people say "we do more than the others", I find it quite stupid.
alone, the anglo-US would be probably not able to win. Alone, USSR would be probably not able to win.
because the german army was divised, on the two fronts, then the job of the two allied armies was easier than if the german units would have been united on one single front.

(dont forget the French in Africa, Italy, France (of course, their contribution is not the same than the UK-US-USSR's ones, that's sure, these nations did an awesome job, for it the world will be always respectfull

Alone, the USSR would have certainly won.

It would just have taken Stalin longer.

Adolf's armies were destroyed by the Russian winter there.

Stalin would have grabbed Eastern Europe anyway, even if alone.

You cannot beat the Russian Bear in Europe.

Just as you cannot beat the Chinese Bear in Asia.

 

[yiostheoy]

WWII was an unnecessary war for America pushed for mainly by Anglo elites and Jews. Before our involvement, there was a huge America First movement by true nationalistic patriots like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh who dared to say the truth --- that we should not be involved. Hitler was not a threat to the U.S., not in the slightest. He was a threat to Jews. Why so many thousands of white Christian men have had to die for them is beyond me. But it continues to this day --- just look at Iraq. But our reward for being their soliders is that they mock us on TV and in the movies as Christian buffoons.

Hitler was not a threat to the Russians either.

They could have beaten him alone.

 

[yiostheoy]

WW2 was total war at that time. The fate of the world hung in the balance. Messy, terrible things happened. They were worth it though in the long run, unless these revisionist bastards want to be speaking German and owning black slaves.

NATO AIR you have swallowed the pro war propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

 

[yiostheoy]

I hate revisionist history.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson051305.html

There's more...

Remembering World War II
Revisionists get it wrong
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

As the world commemorated the 60th anniversary of the end of the European Theater of World War II, revisionism was the norm. In the last few years, new books and articles have argued for a complete rethinking of the war. The only consistent theme in this various second-guessing was a diminution of the American contribution and suspicion of our very motives.

Indeed, most recent op-eds commemorating V-E day either blamed the United States for Hamburg or for the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, or for our supposed failure to credit the Russians for their sacrifices.

It is true that the Russians paid a horrendous price. Perhaps two out of every three soldiers of the Wehrmacht fell on the Eastern Front. We in the West must always remember that such a tragic sacrifice allowed Hitler to be defeated with far less American British, Canadian, and Australian dead.

That being said, the Anglo-Americans waged a global war well beyond the capability of the Soviet Union. They invaded North Africa, took Sicily, and landed in Italy, in addition to fighting a massive land war in central Europe. We had fewer casualties than did the Russians because we fought more wisely, were better equipped, and were not surprised to the same degree by a treacherous former ally that we had supplied.

The Soviets invaded the defeated Japanese only in the last days of the war; the Anglo-Americans alone took on two fronts simultaneously. Submarine warfare, attacking the Japanese and German surface fleets, conducting strategic bombing over Berlin and Tokyo, and sending tons of supplies to Allied forces — all this was beyond the capability of the Red Army. More important, Stalin had been an ally of Hitler until the Nazi invasion of 1941, and had unleashed the Red Army to destroy the freedom of Finland and to carve up Poland.

Do we ever read these days that when the Luftwaffe bombed Britain, Russia was sending the Nazis fuel and iron ore? When Germany invaded Russia, however, Britain sent food and supplies.

Yes, World War II started to free Eastern Europe from fascist totalitarianism, and ended up ensuring that it would be enslaved by Soviet totalitarianism. But Roosevelt and Churchill were faced with an inescapable reality in 1945 that to keep the Russians out of Eastern Europe they would have had to restart the war against their former ally that possessed it — a conflict that might well have gone nuclear in two or three years. The latter had been in great part armed and supplied for four years by their own taxpaying democratic citizenries. The Red Army was near home in Eastern Europe; the American 3rd Army was 5,000 miles from the United States....

Annie hasn't been back since October.

The election must have really shook her up.

Or else she got a new government job with the Trump Admin.

 

[yiostheoy]

When people say "we do more than the others", I find it quite stupid.
alone, the anglo-US would be probably not able to win. Alone, USSR would be probably not able to win.
because the german army was divised, on the two fronts, then the job of the two allied armies was easier than if the german units would have been united on one single front.

(dont forget the French in Africa, Italy, France (of course, their contribution is not the same than the UK-US-USSR's ones, that's sure, these nations did an awesome job, for it the world will be always respectfull

PE, thanks. Not coming through with revisionists though. US bombed Hiroshima-bad.

US interred Japanese-bad.

UK/US bombed Dresden-bad.

That's from textbooks in America. Other than stopping Hitler's holocaust, there was nothing ok about our involvement in WWII.

Bill O'Reilly co-authored a pretty good book "Killing The Rising Sun" which explains the A-bombing of Japan.

The concentration of the Japanese-Americans in camps was fascist/Nazi at the time and driven by distrust and fear. This was sad.

There were lots of battle deaths against the Germans, even more than against the Japanese, and there was no A-bomb ready yet, so firebombing was used. No one has defended it. So it is easy to revise this history.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

WWII was an unnecessary war for America pushed for mainly by Anglo elites and Jews. Before our involvement, there was a huge America First movement by true nationalistic patriots like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh who dared to say the truth --- that we should not be involved. Hitler was not a threat to the U.S., not in the slightest. He was a threat to Jews. Why so many thousands of white Christian men have had to die for them is beyond me. But it continues to this day --- just look at Iraq. But our reward for being their soliders is that they mock us on TV and in the movies as Christian buffoons.

Hitler was not a threat to the Russians either.

They could have beaten him alone.

Hitler was destined to fail in the long term against Soviets, because he got most of his supplies from Soviets in the German - Soviet Credit Agreement ./ German - Soviet Commercial Agreement.
Once the supplies ran dry, the Nazis wouldn't have really had a chance.

However, it wasn't only Hitler in Operation Barbarossa invading the Soviet Union, but also included Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Croatia, and Slovakia

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I hate revisionist history.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson051305.html

There's more...

Remembering World War II
Revisionists get it wrong
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

As the world commemorated the 60th anniversary of the end of the European Theater of World War II, revisionism was the norm. In the last few years, new books and articles have argued for a complete rethinking of the war. The only consistent theme in this various second-guessing was a diminution of the American contribution and suspicion of our very motives.

Indeed, most recent op-eds commemorating V-E day either blamed the United States for Hamburg or for the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, or for our supposed failure to credit the Russians for their sacrifices.

It is true that the Russians paid a horrendous price. Perhaps two out of every three soldiers of the Wehrmacht fell on the Eastern Front. We in the West must always remember that such a tragic sacrifice allowed Hitler to be defeated with far less American British, Canadian, and Australian dead.

That being said, the Anglo-Americans waged a global war well beyond the capability of the Soviet Union. They invaded North Africa, took Sicily, and landed in Italy, in addition to fighting a massive land war in central Europe. We had fewer casualties than did the Russians because we fought more wisely, were better equipped, and were not surprised to the same degree by a treacherous former ally that we had supplied.

The Soviets invaded the defeated Japanese only in the last days of the war; the Anglo-Americans alone took on two fronts simultaneously. Submarine warfare, attacking the Japanese and German surface fleets, conducting strategic bombing over Berlin and Tokyo, and sending tons of supplies to Allied forces — all this was beyond the capability of the Red Army. More important, Stalin had been an ally of Hitler until the Nazi invasion of 1941, and had unleashed the Red Army to destroy the freedom of Finland and to carve up Poland.

Do we ever read these days that when the Luftwaffe bombed Britain, Russia was sending the Nazis fuel and iron ore? When Germany invaded Russia, however, Britain sent food and supplies.

Yes, World War II started to free Eastern Europe from fascist totalitarianism, and ended up ensuring that it would be enslaved by Soviet totalitarianism. But Roosevelt and Churchill were faced with an inescapable reality in 1945 that to keep the Russians out of Eastern Europe they would have had to restart the war against their former ally that possessed it — a conflict that might well have gone nuclear in two or three years. The latter had been in great part armed and supplied for four years by their own taxpaying democratic citizenries. The Red Army was near home in Eastern Europe; the American 3rd Army was 5,000 miles from the United States....

Well the Eastern Europeans do blame the USA for the Russian occupation of Eastern Europe.

I have spoken with several and they believe they were sold down the river.

The U.S.A, and Britain had supplied Soviets through Lend-lease, before supporting the Soviet takeover of much of Central Europe in Yalta Conference, and Potsdam Conference.

Absolutely, the West holds a bit of responsibility.

 

[Unkotare]

When people say "we do more than the others", I find it quite stupid.
alone, the anglo-US would be probably not able to win. Alone, USSR would be probably not able to win.
because the german army was divised, on the two fronts, then the job of the two allied armies was easier than if the german units would have been united on one single front.

(dont forget the French in Africa, Italy, France (of course, their contribution is not the same than the UK-US-USSR's ones, that's sure, these nations did an awesome job, for it the world will be always respectfull

Alone, the USSR would have certainly won.

It would just have taken Stalin longer.

....

Nonsense.