WWII - an unnecessary waste and the fault of England?

[Bill Mattocks]

Somehow, I have managed to not read this post by Lew Rockwell until now, nor did I know of Pat Buchanon's book that he cites. Now I have my summer reading list started. Interesting accusations, not sure what to make of it. I'm a student of history - but emphasis on 'student'.

Any comments here? I don't have any preconceived notions here, I'm genuinely looking for observations by any who have read this book.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance173.html

Whenever I write about the folly of war, I inevitably get e-mail from some armchair warrior who says something like: "You [pacifist, appeaser, liberal, communist, traitor, America-hater, peacenik, coward]! Don’t you know that if the U.S. military had not intervened to stop Hitler we would all be speaking German right now?"

A greater lie has never been uttered.

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War debunks the myths about World War II being necessary and demolishes the arguments offered in defense of World War II as a "good" war.

 

[Tez3]

The fault of England? Oh well the Celtic nations will be pleased at that!

Believe what you want, really, really don't care, the Americans love of changing history is well known as is that of their habit of criticising everyone and everything non American ( can't even get the correct country in the thread title) so *shrugs* let them get on with it. Everything is simple in hindsight.

The only bit I would point out is that the killing of Jews and others started in the 1930s not at the start of the war as the article seems to imply.

 

[Empty Hands]

Believe what you want, really, really don't care, the Americans love of changing history is well known as is that of their habit of criticising everyone and everything non American ( can't even get the correct country in the thread title) so *shrugs* let them get on with it. Everything is simple in hindsight.

Please don't make this about "Americans." This is Lew Rockwell for ****'s sake, and Pat Buchanan. They are not representative of the mainstream. Nor is the Neo-Nazi David Duke, who you told me some time ago is a constant talking head on the European news explaining the "American" point of view. To put it in UK political terms, it would be like getting all of my information on your country from the head of the BNP.

You should know anyway though that this is one book by one person. Making it about "Americans" comes off as bigoted in your own right.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Root cause for WWII was the terms imposed on Germany after WWI. That allowed for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, which led to rearmament and the use of the Jews as scapegoats. Rising aggression on the part of Germany combined with a "bend over and give in" policy of appeasement by Chamberlain allowed for an escalation, however other forces were in motion from the Italians, Japanese and Russians that made a large scale conflict of some kind, inevitable. We can backtrack history and seek out causes, but one often must go back more than to the first exchange of gunfire to find the deeper issues.

 

[Tez3]

Please don't make this about "Americans." This is Lew Rockwell for ****'s sake, and Pat Buchanan. They are not representative of the mainstream. Nor is the Neo-Nazi David Duke, who you told me some time ago is a constant talking head on the European news explaining the "American" point of view. To put it in UK political terms, it would be like getting all of my information on your country from the head of the BNP.

You should know anyway though that this is one book by one person. Making it about "Americans" comes off as bigoted in your own right.

Not bigoted but hurt. Why post up such things other than to deliberately insult and hurt? there's a lot to be said for self censorship and as for the OP appearing to share the view......
You have to understand the deep deep wounds that the British and the Europeans still carry from the war. The Americans and we don't forget this whatever some might think, did lose a lot of soldiers lives fighting for freedom but the whole of Europe was ravaged by war, civilians massacred, homes, work places and entire towns and villagers wiped out. The damage was vast and devastating, countries have taken decades to recover, some are still recovering. There are a huge amount of families all over Europe, mine included, that will never recover from the war, that will never recover what was lost all those years ago.
You've just celebrated your Independance, imagine how the people of Europe felt being under the boot of the Nazis, having their countries occupied? It damages a nation's psyche for generations. You are always going to get emotive replies to comments such as the Brits are responsible for the war or that Europe deserved such horrors. We don't forget that the anti British American Ambassador to the Court of St James at the time recommended leaving Britain to it's fate which he felt it richly deserved. His comments about democracy being finished in the UK, made during the Battle of Britain, is widely remembered here and ended his career as Ambassador.

Better to perhaps blame Hollywood for changing history than Americans as a whole I think, you can't deny they are 'creative' when making films about historical events! However looking up the real history isn't beyond most people.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

"WWII - a necessary evil and the fault of Germany?"

There, fixed that for ya.

 

[Empty Hands]

Not bigoted but hurt. Why post up such things other than to deliberately insult and hurt?

Intellectual curiosity? Amazement because he had never seen the argument before? Who knows? It may be insensitive (I don't really think so), but you don't know enough to say it was deliberately posted to hurt your feelings.

I think you will find that the views expressed by Rockwell and Buchanan are very much in the minority. The very same revisionism promulgated by Hollywood that you decry actually supports that point. If WWII was a unnecessary war in the minds of most Americans, why would we bother making all those movies about it showcasing our heroism? Why the big WWII monuments, all the movies, the parades and everything else?

After the ambiguities of the Vietnam war, WWII became a mythical uncomplicated conflict to many Americans where we fought an unambiguously evil regime for good and right reasons. None of that is compatible with what you are supposing for "Americans."

I understand hurt, but often it gets in the way of understanding.

 

[Tez3]

Intellectual curiosity? Amazement because he had never seen the argument before? Who knows? It may be insensitive (I don't really think so), but you don't know enough to say it was deliberately posted to hurt your feelings.

I think you will find that the views expressed by Rockwell and Buchanan are very much in the minority. The very same revisionism promulgated by Hollywood that you decry actually supports that point. If WWII was a unnecessary war in the minds of most Americans, why would we bother making all those movies about it showcasing our heroism? Why the big WWII monuments, all the movies, the parades and everything else?

After the ambiguities of the Vietnam war, WWII became a mythical uncomplicated conflict to many Americans where we fought an unambiguously evil regime for good and right reasons. None of that is compatible with what you are supposing for "Americans."

I understand hurt, but often it gets in the way of understanding.

One of the problems I think is that you can count the wars you've been in practically on one hand, the history of warfare in Europe is long and bloody. We've only just recently lost old soldiers from the First World War but while I was growing up there were old people who remembered the Boer War. In my parents time there would have been old people that remembered the Crimean war. That's as well as all the other wars that were going on, the Russian and Japanese etc. War is perhaps still a thing you enter into relatively lightly as in Kuwait, and Afghanistan. As with all other wars you send your considrable army in, your civilian population doesn't suffer in the same way so passing comments on who started wars is more of a game than it is here, as I said you will only get emotive replies from Europeans about this. The Germans had choices, they chose war...twice.


I didn't say it was posted deliberately to cause hurt though posting that it was 'England' was certainly insensitive, I would suggest though it was posted to cause a reaction rather than out of historical interest as it's of more political than of historical interest, more at home in the Study I think.


I'm not sure you'd want me to answer the question about why Hollywood makes films that 'showcase America's heroism' as that in itself answers the question. Why does any country have big memorials, parades etc? to glorify itself of course, goodness knows we have enough monuments and statues dotted around this sceptred isle to know that. It doesn't make it the truth, we've had three campaigns in Afghan before this one, the battle honours from the 19th century are on regimental flags here, you don't hear about the time we were beaten there or the time it was a draw there, only about the time we won.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

When your nation is being bankrupted by punitive terms, sometimes you are forced into some choices. The lesser of 2 evils argument.

Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required Germany to accept sole responsibility for causing the war and, under the terms of articles 231–248 (later known as the War Guilt clauses), to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. The total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion marks (then $31.4 billion, £6.6 billion) in 1921.[1] This was a sum that many economists deemed to be excessive because it would have taken Germany until 1988 to pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I did not intend it to insult nor to hurt anyone's feelings, nor even to 'get a reaction'. I was interested in viewpoints, which I thought could be fairly easily discussed. I had never heard such an argument before about the root causes of WWII and thought it interesting. Goodness knows we've seen enough posting about America's culpability in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, even Korea, not to mention comments about how we deserved 9-11 for what we've done to and in the Middle East, all seem fair game to me whether I agree or disagree; and this was not intended as tit-for-tat, either. Just a post about an interesting subject. It *is* in The Study, for what it's worth, just in a sub-group called 'The War College', which I thought appropriate if it is to be an open discussion about the root causes of WWII. If it's political, then I agree, it doesn't belong here, but I certainly didn't intend it as that.

 

[Tez3]

To look for the root cause of the Second World War you have to go back into the history of Europe, a long way back. You have to look at the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the role of the British Royal Family who managed to populate most of the courts of Europe. You have to look back even to the Franco-Prussian wars, the Napoleonic Wars and the politics of Europe as a whole. The ebb and flow, the taking and ceding of land through the centuries all contibuted to enable the Germans to go to war both times. Losing one war wasn't JUST the cause of the second world war. You have to look at the race to colonise Africa and the Far East, the trade wars. what the Germans were doing in Africa pre the second world war needs careful examination too. Saying that the German people were 'forced' to fight the second world war through being made bankrupt etc isn't a credible excuse though an easy and lazy one for them to make.
Non Europeans can see things in islolation, with both world wars being separate 'occasions' as opposed to part of the long history of Europe. The Americans can especially see it this way as their involvement was confined to these two wars, there was little need for Americans to be involved in European history, they were rightly busy busy making their own country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars

The two world wars are a continuation of European history of warfare, everything is connected.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

WWII was not as some think 1 big war. It was several wars lumped together.
War with Germany. War with Italy. War with Japan.
OR
A European war, and an Asian war. The European war being fought across Europe and Northern Africa, and the Asian war being fought across the Pacific.

Germany, Japan and Italy were allied, but I don't think you found many German/Italian troops fighting alongside the Japanese, and vice-versa.

The cause for the German aggression can find it's roots in the WWI terms, which allowed for the rise of the Nazi Party and Hitler.
Japanese aggression can be tied into American curtailing of raw materials during Japans war with China, Japanese desires for Empire and a weak emperor on the Japanese throne overpowered by wareagle military leaders.
Italy's entry was a result of the coup that put Mussolini in power and his desires for empire.
These, combined with lingering fallout from the Great Depression, plus several other factors paved the road to war across the globe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

 

[Tez3]

Europeans have long memories and territories such as Alsace-Lorraine, the Saar etc have been long disputed and passed from country to country, it makes war that much easier to legitimise when you are 'freeing' people. the Germans took land from the French in one war, the French regained them after the First World War, the Germans wanted them back and so it goes on and on. The terms laid on the French after the Franco-Prussian Wars were punitive so in turn when the Germans lost the terms laid on them were punitive, driven by the French. Tit for tat.
It's important to remember that the First World War didn't happen suddenly or in isolation, much history is behind it which needs to be remembered when considering the terms of surrender Germany had to sign.
http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/causeww1.htm#d

 

[Ken Morgan]

Yes the Versailles treaty, by modern standards was harsh, but it was not out of the ordinary for the 19th century. After you’ve lost millions of dead and wounded and billions in war costs not unheard of to try a cripple those you think responsible for starting the damn war to begin with.

The Germans through away much of the treaty by the early 1930’s anyway, Hitler got rid of the rest of it shortly after coming to power, with no objection from the allies.

The depression hit Germany hard, and the German people were looking for a saviour. They seen Hitler as that saviour. The man said exactly what he would do if he ever got power, but the people looked past all that and thought about national pride, food and jobs. Hitler never won power, I think his best showing was 35% of the vote in the Reichstag and 40% for President, he used force and violence to shove Nazism down the throats of the German people.

The democratic structure and heritage of Germany was crap, I blame mostly, if blame can indeed be applied, the German electorate/people. What’s the saying? Burke? “All that evil needs to succeed is good men to do nothing.”

The trick is of course recognizing true evil early on and killing it….

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I thought this was an interesting commentary on WWII, written from the perspective of an early civil rights leader, George Padmore. At the time he wrote this, he had just broken with the Communists, and returned from where he was living, in the USSR, to London.

http://bit.ly/9rrY5m

Sorry I can't post the text, it's not in text-available form. You can read it at the link, it's only a couple pages.

 

[Tez3]

Interesting that he while bashing British for their colonies he doesn't remark on the fact that black people in the UK were as free as their white counterparts, unlike America there was no colour bar, no separate facilities, schools or housing. Black people in the UK had equal rights, equal status and were treated the same as anyone else here something that caused the American military commanders problems when black soldiers came over.
I notice too that only France and the UK were considered to be at blame, with other European countries being considered unimportant? The Netherlands and Belguim both had considerable colonies at that time as did Germany. The colonies also include many 'white' countries who sent soldiers too.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1005964774,9800,.shtml

 

[Makalakumu]

Root cause for WWII was the terms imposed on Germany after WWI. That allowed for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, which led to rearmament...

This is something that I've always felt needed to be looked into by historians to a greater degree. Rearmament requires massive loans from banks across the world. Even when it was clear that Hitler was going to be a huge catastrophe for Europe, the Financier Superclass kept the money flowing, allowing Germany to build itself up and wage war. One would think that Hitler could have been stopped simply by choking off the money.

Here is an interesting book on the matter. I Paid Hitler, by Fritz Thyssen.

This is a fascinating first-person account from a German industrialist, covering the critical period between WWI and WWII, published in 1941 after Thyssen left Germany.

Despite its limitations, this material is very illuminating and gives Thyssen's version of his motives for giving substantial financial support, early, to the NSDAP (Nazi Party). After Thyssen's description of the episode of what happened to him and his father during the WWI-era, it is not so surprising. Thyssen's money was probably critical to the early successes of the NSDAP.

Thyssen describes his meetings with Hitler -- where and when -- and how the money was handed over (which Hitler would not take in person himself, directly).

Includes "the only known photo" of Thyssen with Hitler.

This is a valuable personal account for every student, researcher, or author of WWII history.

Highly recommended.

Here is an interesting story related to this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president


George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.


The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.



His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.



The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.



The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

So, I think we can see that a number of important AMERICAN interests supported Hitler even after the war started. This doesn't sound like something people can pin on England, even though the same thing was happening there.

And then we elect his son and grandson president. For christsakes, what a country we live in...

 

[Tez3]

Can please we get one thing clear? Please stop using the word England to describe the United Kingdom/Great Britain! It's incorrect, inaccurate and if you are having a discussion where accuracy is to be prized it's wrong, wrong, wrong!! Nobody says Texas or California to describe the USA so don't use England to describe the UK/GB!
There's a difference between the United Kingdom and Great Britain but I won't eleborate on this thread, you can look them up but either is better than using 'England' on a history thread.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Can please we get one thing clear? Please stop using the word England to describe the United Kingdom/Great Britain! It's incorrect, inaccurate and if you are having a discussion where accuracy is to be prized it's wrong, wrong, wrong!! Nobody says Texas or California to describe the USA so don't use England to describe the UK/GB!
There's a difference between the United Kingdom and Great Britain but I won't eleborate on this thread, you can look them up but either is better than using 'England' on a history thread.

Well sure, but I mean we often call the USA 'America' only to have Canadians tell us that technically, Mexico, Canada, and the USA are all 'America'. Still, it's common use and most people understand that you mean the USA when you say 'America'.

As well, I've been taken to task by different people for calling it the UK when they feel I should have said 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' or vice-versa. Since I don't really understand the difference (I kind of get the 'Commonwealth' part, just not the rest), I shrug my shoulders and attempt to comply with the instructions of whomever is miffed at me.

I will endeavor to call the UK the UK. If I actually should have said 'England', 'Great Britain', or 'The British Isles', I trust someone will correct me and I'll look around in bewilderment and say "OK."

 

[Tez3]

I'm sorry but if you can't understand about 'England' the chances of understanding European history and the cause of wars is unlikely. It's not a small thing nor a whim on the part of the British to confuse. The difference between UK and GB is minimal but it's important to understand what countries make up GB/Uk. Firstly there's England, then Scotland then Northern Ireland. Southern Ireland or Eire is not part of the UK, that made things difficult during th last war as they were more aligned towards Germany than the Allies.

The Channel Islands is a Crown Dependancy and spent five years under German occupation during the war. The Isle of Man is also a self governing Crown Dependancy.

Whether you use GB or UK or both together (or both together also correct) it indicates a collection of countries, to use just one country to denote all is incorrect.

Whether you use America to mean the USA, Canada and Mexico together or apart you still don't use the word Texas to denote all or any of them!

The Commonwealth is something different, it's not British at all. It's very important as close alliances between like minded countries who share history helps make the world a safer place. It's already been mentioned that Commonwealth troops came to be part of the Allies fighting force during the last war.
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/subhomepage/191086/

Understanding a country's place in the world goes a long way to understanding why they take the decisions they do. The United Kingdom is a very small, (just less than the size of Oregon) with a small population compared to many other countries in Europe, this makes us vulnerable and goes a long way to explaining perhaps why Chamberlain was so keen for peace, obviously it didn't work but you can see that if you compare the size of Germany (plus it's aligned countries) with us why peace was the best option then.