WAS WWII A GOOD WAR?
Posted on June 14, 2008
This is a very old debate and one in which I have long taken an interest but I think there are far more important things to talk about today. Nonetheless, the recent issue of two books that raise the question anew does seem to legitimate at least a brief comment from me.
The Leftist book concerned (by novelist Nicholson Baker) is reviewed here and the conservative book (by Pat Buchanan) is reviewed here. I will confine myself to mentioning what I think are the important points that the reviews pass over.
The Baker book seems to center strongly on the flaws in Churchill’s actions — in keeping with the usual Leftist ad hominem style of argument. There is of course no doubt that Churchill was a flawed human being and there are acts by Churchill that I deplore too (the fire bombings, the “repatriation” of the Cossacks etc). Baker however in essence claims that it was only the character faults of Churchill and FDR that caused them to make war on Hitler. He seems to think we would all have been fine if the British and American bombers had stayed home.
That is all deeply unserious, however. You have to look at the political and strategic realities behind the declarations of war if you are to evaluate them intelligently. Blaming everything on the conspiracies of bad men is very Leftist but it betrays no real effort at understanding at all. All it tells us is that the speaker/writer is steamed up about something and is too stupid or lazy to investigate how it really came about. Baker seems to think that a pacifist response to Hitler would have worked in some way. The generally passive response of the German Jews to their persecution should have told Baker how well that worked with Hitler.
So on to the Buchanan book. Sadly, the reviewer there also seems inclined to play the man and not the ball. He is very abusive about Buchanan and is less than fair in evaluating Buchanan’s arguments. I think that Buchanan is wrong in his conclusions but he is not so far wrong as to be completely dismissed.
The critic completely dismisses Buchanan’s argument that Hitler had no designs on Britain and in fact regarded them as racial comrades — so Britain had nothing to fear and no reason to go to war. There is no doubt that Hitler himself argued exactly that way. I have myself heard a recording of one of his speeches to that effect. So dismissing the argument out of hand is pretty slapdash history.
I myself think that the jury will always be out on that one. It seems strange that I have to stress it but Hitler WAS a racist and there is no doubt that the British and the Germans are essentially the same race. So the idea that Hitler might have given very favourable consideration to the racial identity of the British is hardly far-fetched. The remarkably benign German occupation of Denmark is even a test-case of sorts.
But, as a good conservative, Churchill was cautious and there was no doubt in his mind that Hitler was an example of that most-disapproved type of person in a British value-system of the time: A man who “goes too far”. Churchill saw that Hitler recognized no constraints on his actions and that Hitler’s rhetoric was full of anger and hate. And Churchill could not entrust the world to such a man. So Churchill swung British foreign policy into its traditional “balance of power” role and ensured that NOBODY would ever come to dominate the whole of Europe. With what we now know about Hitler, I think we can be glad that Britain found a man who at the last moment activated that traditional British policy.
Note that it was actually Chamberlain who declared war on Germany. But it is Churchill who made it stick.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, OBAMA WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.) Cautionary blogs about big Australian companies: TELSTRA, OPTUS, AGL, St. George bank
» Filed Under Fascism, History, News, military
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “WAS WWII A GOOD WAR?”
Leave a Reply
JJR, I’ve read both books, and I’m still writing a review of both of them.
The Baker book is filled with all sorts of things, I’ve never heard before. And of course Uncle Pat’s book, is what I expected. A full on history lesson, from an America frist lens.
The main point of Uncle Pat’s book is, was it a good war, for the Pols, West Germany, and a whole host of other things that “Uncle Joe Stalin” did. Arguably more insane and murderous than Hitler. As well, did we really need to enter into WWII.
Both books, and another book called “The Myth of Pearl Harbour” have been making me question the Governments offical statement on WWII.
Be grateful that you are 1) able to question your government and 2) that you are not questioning it in German or Japanese should your forefathers have been fortunate enough to survive them.
!
Thank you for your thought-provoking piece.
This might be of interest to you.
I have been fortunate enough to have corresponded with both Sir John Keegan and Prof. Gerhard Weinberg about WWII. At one point I posed the following question to them both:
Despite all of the revisionist history which has been written since the end of that monumental war — much of which tends to reduce WWII to merely a conflict of competing national interests (all of which have some merit) — do you still believe that WWII was a battle between Good and Evil?
Both of these ackowledged WWII experts answered with an unequivocal Yes.
I’m not sure how any war could be termed “good” if our government did everything it could to provoke it. Americans refused to declare war on Germany despite a shooting war in the North Atlantic because Americans correctly determined FDR was attempting to provoke the Germans. Remember two American destroyers were sunk by the Germans prior to 12-7-41 and the public maintained its stance.
Its doubtful that America could have entered the war against Germany except for Hilter’s declaration of war against the US.
As for the Japanese there were a number of actions that were aimed at their national security from the freezing of their assets to the embargoes. What would the US do today if a Muslim dominated Europe embargoed the US and froze America’s assets?
Think about it.
Add to this FDR disregard of the Neutrality Act not only arming the Chinese but sending US mercenaries to fight there-an act that required such citizens to lose their citizenship-a law still on the books today.
How would we view Americans fighting for the Tailiban? Are you going to say its different, okay then how about Americans who are the employment of Blackwater. How does the Left paint them?
Just as ourt involvement in WWI resulted in buyers remorse Americans should consider what WWII accomplished.
We said we weren’t fighting for land but the map of Europe was redrawn by our allies.
The original cause, an independent Poland, was negated by the USSR which enslaved all of Eastern Europe.
Democracy did not expand but contracted as Western European Empires collapsed under FDR’s pressure reshaping the world and providing us with our current situation. Yeah the world benefitted.
The menace of Hitler was replaced with communism. Gee wasn’t this wonderful. Seems like the reds outdid the National Socialists by a factor of about 20 in the genocide role but hey who quibbles, WWII was a good war right?
Exactly what was accomplsihed that benefitted the US that wouldn’t have resulted if the US hadn’t entered the war?
Did we have a free Europe or China following the war. Was the world a more stable palce?
Anyone familiar with the conduct of the allies in the aftermath of the war would have a hard time convincing any intelligent person of the advantages of the war or parroting the line it was a good war.
Thomas Jackson —
“Exactly what was accomplsihed that benefitted the US that wouldn’t have resulted if the US hadn’t entered the war?”
If you really believe what you have written, if you really don’t know the answer to this bizarre question, then nothing I could say here will be of any help.
“…parroting the line it was a good war.”
Why, I wonder, would I prefer to accept John Keegan’s and Gerhard Weinberg’s analysis of the moral issues involved in WWII rather than yours?
Your skewered analysis of the Second World War and its aftermath is a perfect example of a particular mindset that is just beyond my comprehension. You, and others like you, zealously devote all of your talents and energies into trying to undermine the moral foundations of your country during a time of its greatest peril — both then and now. And you feel good about yourself for doing it.
Your points in the above comments are coherent, well-structured and totally bogus. However, I believe that it would be utterly pointless to enter into a debate with you about America’s moral integrity. It appears that you have already made up your mind on the subject.