Controversial Wars
Critics of the war in Iraq compare it – rightly or wrongly – to Vietnam. But there’s no disputing that like Vietnam, this war has split the nation down the middle. It’s enough to make one yearn for earlier times, when the nation united against a common enemy. Or did it? This hour of BackStory is about what happens on the home front when America goes to war. The guys are joined by author Nicholson Baker, and a three-star Marine general, to explore the question of whether any American wars have not been controversial.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Show Highlights
General Education
Marine Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper tells the History Guys what it’s like to have civilian bosses, why he spoke out publicly in favor of Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation, and what the study of history has to teach the soldier.
Related Links
Human Smoke, Nicholson Baker’s book about WWII.
Fighting…maybe for freedom, but probably not: slaves and free blacks in the Revolution
I just got up from auditing your fine story on war and its roots. As a Nam-era vet, I was very appreciative of your well-balanced review’s content and analysis. The Marine general’s observation, not a new one at this point in our 6-year Iraqistan War, that failure at the top of our civilian leadership (to include the epochal vacuity of Congressional non-oversight) plus our once-vaunted Media’s years of inferior critical coverage, lies at the heart of our loss of the war. I believe a special court should be formed, and that Robt. McNamara and Don Rumsfeld should be tried before it for strategic incompetency, intellectual cowardice, and egoism beyond belief, that led to immeasureable damage to millions of human beings as well as to the moral reputation of our nation. We, the citizenry, have not been asked to give anything in support of this war. Except to go shopping. We cannot ask our exisiting military forces to carry the intolerable burden of repeat tours in battle, while the rest of us watch American Idol. Recently I spoke with an infantry sergeant retruning for his THIRD combat tour. I ardently support a return of the Draft, but only if can be framed, in ironclad legally and contractually-binding language, as a “must serve” equal opportunity employer of EVERY war-age American, starting with the children of CEO’s and members of Congress. Only then will our ostrich-head-in-sand populace find true motivation to participate in our country’s foreign policy decisions. BTW, apropos of your use of the Uncle Sam poster on your website… I recall, during Bush’s phantasmagorically ill-advised run-up to the Iraq invasion, seeing this same poster. But the Uncle Sam image had been replaced by an image of Bin Laden. He was pointing directly at the viewer and saying: “I want YOU… to attack Iraq.” Think about that for a moment. I believe, but am not certain, that I still possess the right of free speech, so I will, reluctantly, follow up and express my present train of thought: Bush, I almost believe, may himself be an ultra deep-cover, sleeper agent of Al Quaeda. Such is the state of my own indignation at his lack of military standing and competence to commit and lead our soldiers in time of war.
QuoteBaker’s pacifist view of WWII may not be as ridiculous as it sounds. Let us compare the results of “cowardice” and heroism. At the outbreak of the war in Sept 1939 the Poles resisted fiercely. In one of the most heroic episodes of the war, the people of Warsaw held out for 30 days against a brutal, unrelenting Nazi onslaught. The result was mass casualties and the destruction of their beautiful city. The French surrendered Paris without firing a shot. Their people and their beautiful city survived intact. In the long run, who won?
Had England and France not declared war on Germany in 1939, Hitler might have launched his war against the Soviet Union earlier, with the result that these two tyrannies would have exhausted each other. The Western powers might then have been able to broker a peace that might have saved many of Europe’s Jews (which is one of Baker’s core points). Eastern Europe would likely have remained under the boot of one or the other tyrant, but that’s what happened anyway. A brokered peace might have rescued Poland and the other conquered states from tyranny.
The British historian JFC Fuller believed that, after all the fighting, the real victor in WWII was Stalin; and we immediately entered the Cold War. His “Military History of the Western World” has some fascinating observations on “the Good War” and its sorry aftermath.
I am not arguing one side or the other, but merely raising some counterfactual possibilities, with a lot of “mights.”
QuoteI agree with you (and Baker) that in certain cases pacifism in the face of physical aggression can be the most prudent course of action.
But when applying this argument to WWII, the underlying assumption still seems to be that someone else ultimately would challenge the Nazis.
The question is what would have happened if everyone (including the Soviets) had taken this stance? What would Europe (or the world) look like if no one had countered Hitler’s army with an equal and opposite force?
QuoteThe assumption of my “counterfactual” is that Hitler would have attacked the USSR sooner than he did, not that Stalin would strew rose petals in his path. Hitler always planned to take on the Soviet Union as part of his lebensraum vision for the 1000-year Reich, and I was basing my speculations on Hitler’s known intentions. Your question: “what would have happened if everyone (including the Soviets) had taken this stance?” is an entirely different situation. I’m not arguing for pacifism.
QuoteThe first respondent posits that, had England and France not declared war on Germany in response to Hilter’s invasion of Poland, Germany and the Soviet Union may well have gone to war against one another earlier, exhausting themselves and thereby potentially providing the scene for a brokered peace that would have saved many of Europe’s Jews and that might also have extracted some of the conquered states from German or Soviet tyranny. This is implausible.
QuoteAmong several reasons for the implausibility, here are four:
First, Hitler’s anti-semitism was fundamental and had become a matter of state policy by the mid-1930′s, well before the invasion of Poland in September 1939. His actions against Jewish populations at home, in Austria, and in Czechoslovakia make clear that negotiation would never have saved Jews in territories under Nazi control. Negotiation certainly did not dissuade him from commanding the Wehrmacht to invade Poland— on what grounds can we think that negotiation would have dissuaded him from commanding the SS to eradicate Jewish life in territory he controlled?
Second, Germany’s war plans to invade western Europe were meticulous and premeditated; they were strategic and were not made in response to declarations of war by France or England. The nature and the timing of the manufacture of these plans demonstrate Hitler’s design to establish a pan-European German empire. Even if France and England had not declared war, it is likely Germany would have executed its plan to overrun the Low Countries and invade France. Third, had Germany not invaded western Europe and instead invaded the Soviet Union first (or only), how likely is it that Russia could have defended itself against a German attack undiluted by the need to keep divisions in strength in western Europe? Isn’t it more likely than not that that the Soviets would have lost Stalingrad and Moscow to the Germans and been pushed back to the Urals? And if pushed to the Urals, how would the Soviets have kept the Germans from getting to the Black Sea? Germany thereby would have likely beaten the Soviet Union, and there would not have been a scenario of two exhausted dictators, open to negotiation.
Fourth, what evidence is there that either Hitler or Stalin ever negotiated in good faith? None. What evidence is there that either man ever upheld an agreement? None. Why can we think that either would have released Jews or freed conquered states through negotiation? Smart, clever, experienced, well-intentioned people tried negotiation with both. Did anyone ever succeed? No.
rkellogg makes very compelling points. I assumed a Red Army strong enough to fight the Germans to a bloody draw, and he/she casts enough doubt that I withdraw my scenario.
QuoteDuring the interview of Nicholson Baker regarding his book “Human Smoke” I agree fully with his opinion that world war II could have been prevented if England and France had not declared war on Germany or if they had agreed to an early peace treaty. I lived during the war in Germany and can definitely say that most Germans were not in favor of any war with the west and even the Nazis would have agreed to a quick peace treaty. This would have prevented the death of millions of people including the European Jews and the destruction of Europe. I have described my life under the Nazis and what we were thinking at that time in my book “HITLER YOUTH TO U.S. CITIZEN”, by Friedrich Neuhaus; fcneuhaus1@aol.com, see also the book listing in: http://www.amazon.com.
Quote