The favorite war of most Americans is World War II. In fact it is part of their mental furniture that World War II was the Good War fought by the Greatest Generation; that it was Churchill's finest hour and that He was the man of the century; that Hitler was the Devil incarnate; and that Stalin... well we won't talk about Stalin.
I just finished reading an excellent book by Patrick Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Some people wouldn't consider reading the book because Buchanan was a speech writer for Nixon. That's too bad, because the book doesn't concern itself with partisan politics. Also, Buchanan writes clearly.
What a relief it was to find that the first 100 pages of this 400 page book were dedicated to the Great War, World War I. Any discussion of World War II that ignores WWI is seriously flawed. To a large extent they were the same war, interrupted by a 20 year armistice.
Let's take just one example from our standard World War II myth and morality fable: Hitler's grab of Czechoslovakia and Poland was proof positive that he intended to take over the world. If land grabs are so awful, what does that say of the USA and czarist Russia in the 1800s? What does it say of the British Empire? And what does it say of most Americans' favorite foreign country, Israel?
Any German or Austrian of Hitler's generation was used to the idea of "Czech-Slovakia" being part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Poland had been dominated by Prussia or Russia for centuries. Most historians acknowledge that Hitler didn't want war with Great Britain.
I won't comment on the validity of Buchanan's argument about how unnecessary the Western Front war was. What interests me is how mindlessly accepted the Good War morality tale is in the USA. Where is the healthy skepticism and free discussion? Why has there been so little mention of Churchill continuing the starvation blockade of Germany during the negotiation of the Versailles Treaty? We look at the war with no more balance and perspicuity than children in Baptist Sunday School learn about God and the Devil.
In case all of this sounds like water-under-the-bridge, keep in mind that every time there is an expansion in America's War on Terror, metaphors and the "lessons of history" are dragged up about Churchill, Hitler, the Holocaust, appeasement, etc. Every time the usual suspects are salivating over a new war, they need only show a television clip of Chamberlain waving his paper, after returning from the Munich conference about Czechoslovakia. Each new disaster starts with the leader of some Muslim country (that most Americans can't locate on a globe) being compared to Hitler.
Every American president of either party would see a good crisis going to waste unless he assumes mock-Churchillian poses in front of the television cameras. Regardless of which party you vote for, doesn't it seem healthy to have foreign policy discussions that are open and real, instead of on auto-pilot? It is time Americans stopped being slaves of the Good War morality fable.
I just finished reading an excellent book by Patrick Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Some people wouldn't consider reading the book because Buchanan was a speech writer for Nixon. That's too bad, because the book doesn't concern itself with partisan politics. Also, Buchanan writes clearly.
What a relief it was to find that the first 100 pages of this 400 page book were dedicated to the Great War, World War I. Any discussion of World War II that ignores WWI is seriously flawed. To a large extent they were the same war, interrupted by a 20 year armistice.
Let's take just one example from our standard World War II myth and morality fable: Hitler's grab of Czechoslovakia and Poland was proof positive that he intended to take over the world. If land grabs are so awful, what does that say of the USA and czarist Russia in the 1800s? What does it say of the British Empire? And what does it say of most Americans' favorite foreign country, Israel?
Any German or Austrian of Hitler's generation was used to the idea of "Czech-Slovakia" being part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Poland had been dominated by Prussia or Russia for centuries. Most historians acknowledge that Hitler didn't want war with Great Britain.
I won't comment on the validity of Buchanan's argument about how unnecessary the Western Front war was. What interests me is how mindlessly accepted the Good War morality tale is in the USA. Where is the healthy skepticism and free discussion? Why has there been so little mention of Churchill continuing the starvation blockade of Germany during the negotiation of the Versailles Treaty? We look at the war with no more balance and perspicuity than children in Baptist Sunday School learn about God and the Devil.
In case all of this sounds like water-under-the-bridge, keep in mind that every time there is an expansion in America's War on Terror, metaphors and the "lessons of history" are dragged up about Churchill, Hitler, the Holocaust, appeasement, etc. Every time the usual suspects are salivating over a new war, they need only show a television clip of Chamberlain waving his paper, after returning from the Munich conference about Czechoslovakia. Each new disaster starts with the leader of some Muslim country (that most Americans can't locate on a globe) being compared to Hitler.
Every American president of either party would see a good crisis going to waste unless he assumes mock-Churchillian poses in front of the television cameras. Regardless of which party you vote for, doesn't it seem healthy to have foreign policy discussions that are open and real, instead of on auto-pilot? It is time Americans stopped being slaves of the Good War morality fable.
Comments
But, what about the conclusion? Are you sure
in regards to the supply?