WWII was not a just war...
 

...at least according to this author:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/book....ap/index.html

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.


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

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?

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-...history/79722/

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.

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/...ets_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

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

Agreed. :yep:


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.

Catfish:
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.

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

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.

Oh jesus, is this twit yet another axis apologist?

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.

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.

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?