On the face of it I agree that the war against the Nazis seems to fit the
definition of a "good" war
I'm quite certain that many Americans think the
Civil War against the South was a "good" war…because down the road
slavery was officially abolished. But it was way down the road. And they didn't
need a war to abolish slavery anyway. And anyway – abolishing slavery wasn't the impetus for that war. Abolition was an afterthought.
Had the North let the South go, and
offered safe haven to the slaves together with a trade boycott against the few
southern states that supported slavery…a move that the French at the time
would have supported by the way…the southern republic would have collapsed in short
order.
The American Civil War
didn't prevent the Ku Klux Klan from operating openly until well into the
1960's, a hundred years later and WW2 did not prevent the Holocaust.
didn't prevent the Ku Klux Klan from operating openly until well into the
1960's, a hundred years later and WW2 did not prevent the Holocaust.
My view is that war in and of itself solves nothing. Military force leads
to the application of more force, until what seemed like a good idea at the time -
turns into the mass firebombing of civilians as happened in Germany
under orders from Winston Churchill – thus alienating Germans who hated
Hitler – and eventually it leads to the dropping of weapons of mass destruction on
hundreds of thousands of innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as ordered by Harry
S. Truman. Then, it's a short hop to Korea and the Cold War, both of which were a pathetic
waste of money and lives.
to the application of more force, until what seemed like a good idea at the time -
turns into the mass firebombing of civilians as happened in Germany
under orders from Winston Churchill – thus alienating Germans who hated
Hitler – and eventually it leads to the dropping of weapons of mass destruction on
hundreds of thousands of innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as ordered by Harry
S. Truman. Then, it's a short hop to Korea and the Cold War, both of which were a pathetic
waste of money and lives.
That is where war leads.
In my humble opinion, what's important is the prevention of war and
that means all war. War is counterproductive by its very nature.
that means all war. War is counterproductive by its very nature.
I believe that World War Two could have been prevented if:
1. Canada, the USA, Britain, Holland, Scandinavia and France had admitted
large numbers of Jewish refugees into their countries. They knew in the very
early 1930's that Jews were being persecuted and wanted out. But all of those
countries closed their doors pretty darn tight. They preferred war.
large numbers of Jewish refugees into their countries. They knew in the very
early 1930's that Jews were being persecuted and wanted out. But all of those
countries closed their doors pretty darn tight. They preferred war.
2. The embargoing of all arms and munitions shipments to Germany, had been
instituted in 1934, when it became known that Hitler was pursuing an agenda that
involved dispossessing and persecuting the German Jewish population. But oddly enough,
France and Britain dealt arms to Germany up until 1938. And the United States
dealt arms and munitions and other military hardware to Hitler's Germany up
until late 1941. All of this of course, in violation of the Treaty of
Versailles.
instituted in 1934, when it became known that Hitler was pursuing an agenda that
involved dispossessing and persecuting the German Jewish population. But oddly enough,
France and Britain dealt arms to Germany up until 1938. And the United States
dealt arms and munitions and other military hardware to Hitler's Germany up
until late 1941. All of this of course, in violation of the Treaty of
Versailles.
3. Roosevelt had convened a summit meeting of world leaders in 1939, when
Hitler offered to give back parts of Poland in return for a ceasefire. Of course
Roosevelt refused – on advice from Churchill, who was, I might add, the father of
Britain's Mustard Gas programme to be used against recalcitrant colonial rebels
in Yemen and Sudan.
Hitler offered to give back parts of Poland in return for a ceasefire. Of course
Roosevelt refused – on advice from Churchill, who was, I might add, the father of
Britain's Mustard Gas programme to be used against recalcitrant colonial rebels
in Yemen and Sudan.
4. German officers had been encouraged to carry out their plan to do away
with Hitler.
with Hitler.
But the people who own the wealth of this world actually wanted war.
In 1939, British member of parliament George Landsbury said in the House of
commons that he was as horrified as anyone by German aggression and slaughter.
However – he added that he didn't see how more slaughter would undo what had
already occurred. Lansbury was supporting the call for a world summit to be chaired
by the "neutral" American President. He spoke in vain, because Henry Ford and other "Democrats" had
the ear of the President and thought Hitler was just fine.
commons that he was as horrified as anyone by German aggression and slaughter.
However – he added that he didn't see how more slaughter would undo what had
already occurred. Lansbury was supporting the call for a world summit to be chaired
by the "neutral" American President. He spoke in vain, because Henry Ford and other "Democrats" had
the ear of the President and thought Hitler was just fine.
The fact is that the continuing slaughter accomplished nothing…and
certainly didn't prevent WW2's centrepiece: The Holocaust.
certainly didn't prevent WW2's centrepiece: The Holocaust.
Good wars should accomplish good things. So far, I aint seen it.
I’ll go you one further: WW2 actually created the conditions in which the Holocaust could occur. The true horror of the Holocaust is its massive, industrial scale, and that couldn’t have happened without a total war smokescreen. (The Holocaust didn’t get into full swing until well into the war.)
Another point is that WW2 could potentially have been severely shortened without the Churchill/Roosevelt doctrine of unconditional surrender. If Germany had been given any kind of middle ground option, it’s possible that peace could have been achieved (especially with Russia threatening on their other side). But the Germans were given the choice of fighting, or succumbing to the people who had bombed them mercilessly and viciously for years. Can’t say I blame them for fighting on.
Interesting comment. Thanks.
What about the so-called “Generals Plot” against Hitler. I have a vague knowledge of it but never looked very closely.
It seems to me that there must have been some way for the Allies to have helped that along.
Massive and horrendous as it was, WW2 was reasonably calibrated to the need at hand: the demolition of the Third Reich.
Supportive nations embracing large numbers of Jewish refugees would have been a welcome humanitarian gesture but it wouldn’t have stopped Hitler in his tracks.
Remember, he started hunting down and exterminating humanity much earlier, the mentally-handicapped, Romany and homosexuals.
Krystalnacht came much later in 1938, ushering in the full-on persecution of Jews.
Wikipedia:..”In a single night, Kristallnacht saw the destruction of more than 200 synagogues and the ransacking of thousands of Jewish businesses and homes. It marked the beginning of the systematic eradication of a people who could trace their ancestry in Germany to Ancient Rome and served as a prelude to the Holocaust that was to follow…..”
Hitler would have had no trouble finding other groups and races to pick on if the Jewish folk had been magically removed from Europe.
He was just that kind of guy. And don’t forget, vile as he was, he had hordes of enthusiastic supporters and not just in Germany.
All who died fighting Hitler fought a good war, although many parts of it were utterly and sinfully wrong.
Like the Allied firebombing of Europe. And the USA atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
On Remembrance day we must remember equally all of these tragedies. Some necessary, many not.
Some should make us very, very angry.
I agree with all your points. What I find distressing is that the allied leaders did not work hard enough to prevent the war or stop it in its early stages.
Also – I don’t think we know enough about the underlying history of WW2, at least I don’t.
But Allied leaders seemed to feel that if they meted out sufficient punishment against the German civilian population through total war, that somehow that would turn them against Hitler and his evil syncophants. My opinion is that it may well have had the opposite effect and strengthened Hitler’s hand. He was able to convince people that it was all brought on by the Jews.
Is it possible that the Allies bought into the Goebbels theory that if you tell a big enough lie and repeat it often enough, the masses will believe it to be the truth? (Krystalnacht comes to mind).
I’m also thinking here of one of history’s great infamous lies told to justify war and that was Johnson’s Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
Also the revenge mentality that pervaded Europe following WW1 and the vengeful nature of treaty terms at Versailles
surely provided the conditions for the rise of a dictator.
Perhaps a more merciful and compassionate approach to helping the German people would have neutralized Nazism.
I am also stunned by the number of Americans who have railed against Obama’s policy of showing a willingness to talk with America’s “enemies”. Had those people won, we might well be seeing TV News footage of bombs falling on Teheran.
My belief is that every war no matter how “good” it may seem to be on the surface – sets of a chain reaction – spreading highly negative consequences – most of them unforeseen.
I believe the Generals’ Plot refers to the assassination attempt on July 20, 1944. Since this was a plot conceived at the highest levels of the military staff, I’m not sure that outside intervention was possible or necessary. Only very cruel luck (cruel to the rest of us, that is) kept Hitler alive when the bomb went off.
“But Allied leaders seemed to feel that if they meted out sufficient punishment against the German civilian population through total war, that somehow that would turn them against Hitler and his evil syncophants. My opinion is that it may well have had the opposite effect and strengthened Hitler’s hand.”
It certainly had the opposite effect. And the weird thing is, the British had been hit hard during the Blitz and saw national morale skyrocket during it. One can just imagine their thinking: “It didn’t work on us… but it will certainly work on those German animals.” Utterly cockeyed thinking.
Anthony, although Krystallnicht can certainly be considered the debut of the Holocaust, I still maintain that the horror of the Holocaust is its industrial scale and mode of execution, directed against human beings. And again, without semi-secret camps in Poland and an overtly militaristic society, there’s no way you can keep a lid on that stuff.
There’s no such thing as a good side. Once you join a war, you’re tainted. Always.