World War II Counterfactuals
I'm not sure why I continue to engage in debate on the Guardian's group blog "Comment is Free". The standard of discussion is pretty poor, which is disappointing on the occasions when the article itself is intelligently written and on an important subject. Many of those who post comments below the articles are semi-bigoted, aggressive, hopelessly ill-informed and thoroughly unwilling to reflect seriously with the relevant subject or to engage with it in its complexity. Instead a manichean worldview of brave Western powers up against backward Muslim extremists usually prevails. Think teenage neo-conservatives on crack and you've got the general flavour.
I guess I still post comments below the more interesting articles mainly to engage with the article's author as they sometimes get involved in the discussion, but also because I find that even debating with people of the type I describe above can force you to think carefully about your opinions, ensure that your knowledge of the facts is verifiable and so on, and that can only be a good thing.
Anyway, I mention this because on one of the threads this afternoon there was an American spewing forth the old classic about how "we saved your limey assess in World War II" and I felt my response to him was worth sharing here. This view of the US role in WWII is, in a more subtle form at least, by no means the preserve of US jingoists. Many others, e.g. British "Atlanticists", seem to think the US marched in and defeated Hitler single-handed as the rest of the world looked on in awe and wonder. Here's the response I gave:
"I love the old "we saved your limeys worthless "arses" in WWII" [sic] stuff so I can't resist responding.
First, who's "we"? Perhaps you were alive back then, but if not, lets save the credit for those who've earnt it, eh?
Second, if the UK hadn't stood alone during the Battle of Britain - withstanding a massive terror-bombing campaign on civilian centres and beating the Luftwaffe against all odds - there'd have been no bridgehead for D-Day, no Western Front and no challenge to the Nazis in North Africa. Germany would have been free to concentrate on the USSR, the few miles between their furthest advance and Moscow would probably have been bridged, and Western Eurasia would have been conquered - branded with a great big swastika.
At that point, the US may well have sued for peace in favour of a balance of power with Fascist Eurasia, rather than fight a war it'd probably have lost.
Third, if the USSR hadn't fought as it did, losing over 20 million souls (13 per cent of population) in the fight against Hitler (to the UK's 450,000 (0.9 per cent) and America's 418,000 (0.3 per cent)) the conquest of Russia would have probably precipitated the conquest of the Western front and, again, the US sues for peace. I'd say the Russian people of the time deserve a bit of credit for that.
A little history shows that it took many nations and peoples to beat the Nazis - the US, the UK, the USSR and many more besides. The war wasn't fought in Hollywood, with the cavalry coming to rescue the damsel in distress or whatever. It was fought in the real world, which is a rather more complex place."
posted by David Wearing at 1:37 PM
7 Comments:
Having endured your previous post about the situation in my homeland - Israel, I understand where you're coming from and why it is pointless to argue with you. Nevertheless...
The fact that Soviets lost 20 million people in a war doesn't by itself testify to their greater contribution to victory - instead, it gives evidence to the Nazi butchery of Soviet Jews and Roma, incompetence of Soviet generals, overall brutality of the regime and the total breakdown of essential services to civilians. True, Stalin fought Hitler virtually alone for a couple of years, but he brought this calamity on himself.
Battle for Britain was, indeed, the finest hour of the Anglo-Saxon race forever. Yet in itself it didn't bury Hitler's plans for Britain - you were "saved" by Fuerer's decision to invade Russia. You don't want to thank Americans - thank Hitler, for all I care.
Then it was a small matter of Lend-Lease ($31.4 billion worth of supplies to Britain; $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union). Finally, despite being latecomers to the conflict, Americans lost more soldiers in a war then UK. Now, you have full right to object to "limey" slur and the rudeness of the language, but the facts are simple - American blood, money and guns had always been a trump card for European democracies - in 1918, in 1941, in 1947, and in 2001 as well, since you are the first target for Islamization.
I assume by my previous post you mean "Europe, Israel and Palestine"? Since your comments on that are a bit cryptic I can't really respond.
On this post, I'm afraid you've misunderstood. As I said "A little history shows that it took many nations and peoples to beat the Nazis - the US, the UK, the USSR and many more besides". Take any one of those major nations out of the equation and the war would possibly have been lost.
My objection is to the idea that one nation can alone claim the exhalted position of having "saved" the rest of us. This is a particularly ugly claim when made by people who were nowhere near the conflict but see fit to exploit it, and those who suffered and died in it, as a source for cheap nationalistic glory.
A couple of your comments I found slightly bizarre.
First,
"Battle for Britain was, indeed, the finest hour of the Anglo-Saxon race forever".
Not sure why you'd use such language. Its certainly not language I'd use. Hitler might recognise these kinds of sentiments though.
and then,
"you are the first target for Islamization"
you're not suggesting, are you, that Britain is going to be conquered by Muslims?
""
I don't quite understand why there is such a hullabaloo on "Islamic conquering" of the west. I wish people would take a more realistic look at what Muslim countries (including countries with a dominant Muslim majority) are having to cope with nowadays. Do you think these people are even concerned with "conquering" the west? And as for the Muslim's in the west, I think the majority is also not in a position to even think about this ridiculous idea. So where does this statement actually come from? Perhaps our own fear of "the unknown" makes for a lot of paranoia.
BTW, the Guardian does have it's share of crazies, but the free flow of information is also incredible :-) Enjoy reading your posts on them and hope to still eb reading them in the future :-)
Rgrds,
P.
Its called "threat inflation". For powerful states, the misbehaviour of your enemies can be a great excuse to extend your own power. Use a bit of propaganda to inflate the threat and you can pretend your aggression is really self-defence.
Take the Cold War. The USSR was crippled after WWII. All but destroyed. Yet US planners deliberately inflated an awesome Soviet threat to democracy to justify projecting power into Western Europe and elsewhere in the late 40s and in the 50s. This was repeated in the 80s, even as the USSR was collapsing.
And now al-Qaeda, a serious threat to our security, is inflated into a threat to "our way of life" itself, which justifies projecting power into the Middle East for reasons that have very little to do with fighting terrorism
This may be a little out of context, but I have also read some articles about how the current political situation is very much out of context itself (can not say this any other way without seeming redundant...) This whole "spin" on religions as the cause for concern (sectarian violence in Iraq, the Shiite vs. Sunni, Islam vs. Jew, etc.) is a deviance from the truth, which most sane people would understand, but which is still being glazed and postured in most mainstream media. I don't believe it, and I also know for a fact that it's a tried and tested political strategy (hence your statement on post WWII USSR). But then this makes me, logically-somehow, give way to "conspiracy theorists" who have often portrayed governments (the US government-mainly) as the "all powerful new order" willing to use whatever means to "triumph" which seems too far fetched to me. But I can not for the life of me find any other apt motive for their ruthlessness in obtaining this power (information, natural resources, etc.) especially when in the end this path leads them to destroying the very country that their government currently resides in (Iraq's damage to US economy). Is there no rational initial motive? All problems can be solved by infiltrating their cause, and I just, simply, don't get it ? Thought you could shed some light on this.
Rgrds,
P.
BTW i think it was Philip Giraldi (or Alastair Crooke? Can't remember) that had an excellent article on how the Iraqi Violence and current GWOT was distorted out of proportion as being a clash of civilizations, there's also an article on the so-called "Iraqi-Al Qaeda's":
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18140.htm
thanks
If I were to say to you that American Express or Disney seek to extend their market share and maximise profits, would you call that a conspiracy theory or just a straightforward observation about the nature of these institutions?
States are essentially power structures that tend to act in a way that serves the interests of those best able to influence them. So in the USSR the Communist Party and in capitalist countries the economic and social elites (corporations or individuals).
So throughout history you see states, empires etc working in a broadly similar way: maximising power in the interests of those on control of the state, through economic, diplomatic or military means.
The British Empire fought many wars, controlled many territories, in order to secure access to essential raw materials, cheap labour, markets for its manufactured goods, and strategic advantage over its rivals for that kind of access e.g. Russia, France etc.
What the US is doing today is not unique or unusual. Its just the way states behave. There's no conspiracy.
Well, I guess there goes my "conspiracy theory" :-) THansk for the reply.
Rgrds,
P.
Post a Comment
<< Home