WWII was not a just war...

[fred8615]

...at least according to this author:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/06/12/nicholson.baker.ap/index.html

[Tchocky]

But Colm Toibin, in the newspaper's Sunday Book Review, called it "riveting and fascinating" and "a serious and conscientious contribution to the debate about pacifism."
That's a copper-bottomed recommendation right there. Toibin is a great author, and absolutely riveting in conversation. I had the pleasure of having a long chat with him at a public reading several years ago.
I may pick this one up, the style of writing seems an interesting approach.


Baker makes his case through hundreds of brief vignettes culled from newspapers, diaries and secondary sources that are presented chronologically and without context or commentary by the author.

The book slices and dices the years that led to war into hundreds of little anecdotes rather than a single sweeping narrative. Baker presents the facts in a detached, journalistic manner that belies his underlying passion and leaves it to the reader to sort out contradictions and infer the broader picture.

THe thread title is a little misleading. Questioning does not equal condemnation.

[August]

Sounds to me like he just waded through old newspapers and cherry picked things that would support his argument.

How is that different from the holocaust deniers who do the same thing?

[joegrundman]

It's received some pretty critical reviews

as has an apparently similarly revisionist book by Pat Buchanan that is coming out soon, "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War"

http://www.nysun.com/arts/patrick-j-buchanans-know-nothing-history/79722/

[GlobalExplorer]

I wonder what qualifies this guy to make such sensational claims?

Anyone interested in the topic should read as much as possible, and form an own opinion, but you need to read hundreds of books.

Over the years I found that I could releate better and better with decisions .. why didnt Eisenhower drive on Berlin and such .. even some books written in the 1950ties already contained a lot of insight. The only thing that remains completely irrational was the eradication of Jews.

[Randomizer]

Intend to get this one from the local library, I see no reason to add it to my own collection. Have read and listened to a number of reviews and by all accounts, author Nicholson Baker certainly cherry-picks his data but I have yet to actually read any of his published works.

The book apperantly ignores the Pacific war, except where it lumps the strategic bombing of Japan into a moral pot with the bombing of Germany. One review waxed long about the Congress' Declaration of War against Nazi Germany noting how American business interests stood to profit and so on. Apperantly the tiny detail of Roosevelt asking for the declaration after Hitler's declaration of war against the United States is not worthy of Baker's comment.

Anybody interested in a radio review can go here:

http://www.cbc.ca/wordsatlarge/blog/2008/06/a_talking_books_panel_gets_int_1.html

These reviewers apperantly inhabit a world of sweetness and light and dancing bears where all things are what you want them to be and history is only valid when told using current (2008 pacifist) values as a moral standard.

I will give it a read though, just out of curiosity.

Good Hunting

[Catfish]

Hello,
i must say - apart from what i learned at school - my picture of the UK and the first world war has drastically changed, especially regarding Churchill. He already behaved like a bloodthirsty maniac during WW1, and there is enough written evidence. I wonder what comes out when the British archives are supposed to open their libraries in 2018, a hundred years after WW1. I also wonder if all those "stolen" or "missing" information will show up then ...

The UK would not have had to enter WW1, if for their colonial politics and stifling the german population against public international law, and a worldwide war would never have taken place. As well France and England would not have had to declare war in 1939 to Germany because of the invasion of Poland. Remember the other half of Poland was invaded by Russia - who declared war to them ?

Don't get me wrong, i am glad that Hitler and his "politics" as well as his dictatorship and hate against jewish culture have been put to an end, but freeing people from concentration camps was never a major concern for the Allies, BUT it was a justification for all that happened before i admit.

Greetings,
Catfish

[STEED]

Sounds to me like he just waded through old newspapers and cherry picked things that would support his argument.

How is that different from the holocaust deniers who do the same thing?

Agreed. :yep:


Churchill responded to Hitler's attacks on Poland and other neighboring states by launching a relentless bombing campaign against German cities as well as a blockade that was designed to starve the enemy into submission.

So it was alright for Mr Hitler to bomb the crap out of us along with a U-Boat blockade?

[Subnuts]

So it was alright for Mr Hitler to bomb the crap out of us along with a U-Boat blockade?

Perhaps this Nicholas Baker guy is both a pacifist and a closet Nazi. Wouldn't surprise me.

[AVGWarhawk]

Catfish:
Don't get me wrong, i am glad that Hitler and his "politics" as well as his dictatorship and hate against jewish culture have been put to an end, but freeing people from concentration camps was never a major concern for the Allies, BUT it was a justification for all that happened before i admit.

Freeing people fron concentration camps was not a concern for the Allies? How could it have been when the first camps were being discovered a few months before wars end? Once these camps were found, most of the surrounding city population did not know about them when the Allies had them come to the camps to clean up what was left behind. So, it was not really a justification for all that happened, only part of at in hindsight and at wars end because these camps were not known until the last days.

[STEED]

Catfish:
Don't get me wrong, i am glad that Hitler and his "politics" as well as his dictatorship and hate against jewish culture have been put to an end, but freeing people from concentration camps was never a major concern for the Allies, BUT it was a justification for all that happened before i admit.

Freeing people fron concentration camps was not a concern for the Allies? How could it have been when the first camps were being discovered a few months before wars end? Once these camps were found, most of the surrounding city population did not know about them when the Allies had them come to the camps to clean up what was left behind. So, it was not really a justification for all that happened, only part of at in hindsight and at wars end because these camps were not known until the last days.

Not strictly true AV, in 43 or 44 when American bombers were sent to bomb the factory plants at Auschwitz they had order not to bomb the camps. What info was told to the bomb crew I don't know, but we buit up inteligence map of the Auschwitz consentration camp and Birkenau extermination camp from those who escaped and photo rekons.

Germany armed forces had to be halted first and that meant bombing there industries to speed up the fall of Germany.

[August]

I think the truth was just too horrible to comprehend fully.

[fred8615]

Churchill responded to Hitler's attacks on Poland and other neighboring states by launching a relentless bombing campaign against German cities as well as a blockade that was designed to starve the enemy into submission.
When I first read that, I wondered if the article author made a mistake (which is certainly possible) or if the book author is really that stupid?

Churchill wasn't PM when Poland was invaded! As First Sea Lord, he still couldn't order a blockade without Chamberlin's approval I think. And the bombing of German cities wasn't started until after the Luftwaffe accidently bombed civilian areas of London. And this of course was after Warsaw, Rotterdam, Guernica, etc.

RE: concentration camps.

I've heard that the Allied military had good knowledge about the camps, but it wasn't released to the press until the camps were starting to be liberated. When the Russians liberated Auscwhitz and reported what was going on there, some Western media dismissed it as Soviet propaganda. It wasn't until the camps in the west were liberated that they believed the Russians.

[CaptHawkeye]

Oh jesus, is this twit yet another axis apologist?

[CaptHawkeye]

Hello,
i must say - apart from what i learned at school - my picture of the UK and the first world war has drastically changed, especially regarding Churchill. He already behaved like a bloodthirsty maniac during WW1, and there is enough written evidence. I wonder what comes out when the British archives are supposed to open their libraries in 2018, a hundred years after WW1. I also wonder if all those "stolen" or "missing" information will show up then ...

Most people who know WW2 already know that Churchill was an idiot. He was the moron who virtually forced the allies to undertake the disasterously stupid Italian and Sicilian invasions that ended up stalling Overlord for well over a year. D-Day could have happened in 1943 and it would have been a hell of a lot easier since the Atlantic Wall was still largely unfinished and most the defense force in France was still using pre-war equipment. No Tigers or even long barrel Panzer 4s to be had. Then he tried to push an invasion of Greece, at that point allied commanders basically stopped listening to him.

The UK would not have had to enter WW1, if for their colonial politics and stifling the german population against public international law, and a worldwide war would never have taken place. As well France and England would not have had to declare war in 1939 to Germany because of the invasion of Poland. Remember the other half of Poland was invaded by Russia - who declared war to them ?

No one of the allies denies the attrocities of comit by Stalin's Soviet Union on countries. The major difference is, Germany started the war for expressly racial purposes. By 1943 they had actually succeded in killing almost 1/4 of the Slavic population west of Moscow. So while neither of them were paticularly "good", the Soviet Union at least never had an agenda calling for world control and racial aryanism over all.

Don't get me wrong, i am glad that Hitler and his "politics" as well as his dictatorship and hate against jewish culture have been put to an end, but freeing people from concentration camps was never a major concern for the Allies, BUT it was a justification for all that happened before i admit.

Of course it wasn't the plan, but does it matter? Picking on the planned "goals" of the allies is just nitpicking nonsense. In the end, which side was running the concentration camps and carrying out the mass racial genocide?

[August]

"Monday morning quarterbacking"

Gee too bad we didn't have you leading our troops right? :roll:

[joegrundman]

Most people who know WW2 already know that Churchill was an idiot. He was the moron who virtually forced the allies to undertake the disasterously stupid Italian and Sicilian invasions that ended up stalling Overlord for well over a year. D-Day could have happened in 1943 and it would have been a hell of a lot easier since the Atlantic Wall was still largely unfinished and most the defense force in France was still using pre-war equipment. No Tigers or even long barrel Panzer 4s to be had. Then he tried to push an invasion of Greece, at that point allied commanders basically stopped listening to him.



this is somewhat revisionist too, and many in the free world do not cherish those calling Churchill an idiot. He was no great strategist, but by his intransigence and leadership the war was fought by the British Commonwealth alone for a year before anyone else cared to join in, and let us not forget that every other party that was subsequently at war with Germany was not troubled to do so until the Axis declared war on them. So up their own a$$es were their heads. Had Britain, and Churchill, been more like these other countries, perhaps we would have signed the deal Hitler wanted to offer us.

As for a 1943 invasion of France, it was scotched because Germany was not the only party that was not yet ready, and furthermore the Russians had not yet had time to destroy most of the German army.

Yet the Russians needed something to be done by the Western Allies who appeared to Stalin to be enjoying the show a touch too much, so Italy was chosen as a softer touch than German controlled France.

Anyway, what do people think of the fact that Pat Buchanon is also on the Unnecessary War bandwagon? I mean this guy is a former presidential candidate, right? A much, much more serious publication than the equivalent from some literary lightweight that few had heard of before.

[August]

Anyway, what do people think of the fact that Pat Buchanon is also on the Unnecessary War bandwagon? I mean this guy is a former presidential candidate, right? A much, much more serious publication than the equivalent from some literary lightweight that few had heard of before.

I think Pat Buchanon went insane years ago and this is just one example that made the news.

[CaptHawkeye]

"Monday morning quarterbacking"
Gee too bad we didn't have you leading our troops right? :roll:
Maybe you could post something relevant instead of posturing drivel? But we'll just have to see about that won't we.

this is somewhat revisionist too, and many in the free world do not cherish those calling Churchill an idiot.
That's too bad for them I guess. If it insults them pointing out that their greater leader wasn't PERFECT, like ya know, not superhuman, then that's hilarious. If you want to talk about REAL revisionist history that is.

He was no great strategist, but by his intransigence and leadership the war was fought by the British Commonwealth alone for a year before anyone else cared to join in, and let us not forget that every other party that was subsequently at war with Germany was not troubled to do so until the Axis declared war on them.
Erhem, not really, the League of Nations declared war on the Axis just after the invasion of Poland. So you might want to add France and the other allied powers still in the leauge to that.

So up their own a$$es were their heads. Had Britain, and Churchill, been more like these other countries, perhaps we would have signed the deal Hitler wanted to offer us.
Unlikely, the British populace HATED Hitler and they HATED Nazi Germany. Why do you think Churchill even got into office while Chamberlian was ditched in favor of him?

As for a 1943 invasion of France, it was scotched because Germany was not the only party that was not yet ready, and furthermore the Russians had not yet had time to destroy most of the German army.
Yet the Russians needed something to be done by the Western Allies who appeared to Stalin to be enjoying the show a touch too much, so Italy was chosen as a softer touch than German controlled France.
Here lies the basic assumption that France was the "harder target" than Italy was. Let's crunch some numbers then shall we?

"1.200+ LSTs available in April 1943 - 233 were used in Overlord
2. 991+ LCTs available in April 1943 - 835 were used in Overlord.
3. 220+ LCI(L)s available 4/1943; 72 were used in Overlord.
4. 7,000 Higginns boats of all types available 4/1943; only 7 were available by Sept 1943 due to the Med landings of Sicily and Italy. Overlord needed only a little less than 2,000.

Would you look at that? Sicily was a treamendous waste of manpower and time.

By May of 1943, USAAF forces deployed in Europe alone were 2,413 fighters.

The Luftwaffe had 1,310 fighters in total.

So in just one front, the USAAF outnumbered the entire collective Luftwaffe more than 2 to 1. Fancy that. They have so many aircraft they don't even know what to do with all of them. While the 1943 Luftwaffe is impotent and exhausted. They can't even come close matching the numbers of Allied aircraft on ONE FRONT.

So if you want to talk about revisionist history, talk about collective efforts by "feel good" high school text book writers to make Churchill seem like a god-like commander who never made a mistake and always came out on top. Make him seem even marginally competant in military matters for sheer comedy. Churchill was a politician, and whenever he pushed his views on the military bad things happened.

[August]

Maybe you could post something relevant instead of posturing drivel? But we'll just have to see about that won't we.

You post things like "Churchill was an idiot. He was the moron..." and you talk to me about posturing? :roll: Maybe when you accomplish a 10th of what Churchill did then you'll have the right to call him an idiot. Until then you're not fit to shine his shoes.

[CaptHawkeye]

Maybe you could post something relevant instead of posturing drivel? But we'll just have to see about that won't we. I can't seem to come up with anything other than an appeal to authority.

Do you understand why i'm not able to take you seriously? Or do you think I don't find it utterly hilarious that you take ever criticism aimed at your "great leader" to be a personal insult? How about you actually address the arguments? Instead of just whine and complain? Do you know what the definition of an ad hominem is? Look it up some time, if you're intelligent enough to slam the right combination of words down on the keyboard.

[August]

Do you understand why i'm not able to take you seriously? Or do you think I don't find it utterly hilarious that you take ever criticism aimed at your "great leader" to be a personal insult? How about you actually address the arguments? Instead of just whine and complain? Do you know what the definition of an ad hominem is? Look it up some time, if you're intelligent enough to slam the right combination of words down on the keyboard.

"My great leader"? Erm no, I'm an American actually. I guess you missed that huh.

I'm just sick and tired of nobody armchair quarterbacks like yourself using insulting language in order to enhance their cut and paste, after the fact, criticisms of major historical figures and events.

If your arguments are so weak that you must set the tone first by calling somebody like Winston Churchill an "idiot" and "moron", when clearly he was not, then it's just not worth addressing them.