CNN/Author claims WWII was unneccesary

[warpedskydiver 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/06/12/nicholson.baker.ap/index.html

Quote

Baker said he was surprised and shocked at the way Churchill responded to Hitler's attacks on Poland and other neighboring states by launching a relentless bombing campaign against German cities as well as a blockade that was designed to starve the enemy into submission.

"He was acting like a bloodthirsty maniac during that period. That has to go back on the record in all of its unpleasantness. We can't learn from a hero like that. It's a mistake to say that because Hitler was bad, we have to clean up the image of Churchill. Churchill was also bad," Baker said.

[kelpdiver 2]

his picture says it all.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Pat Buchanan's book says the same thing.

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War


(oh yeah: and Pat Buchanan doesn't even have a beard.)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Lindsey 0]

How helpful do you think that insight is? And, imho, not much of anything is really necessary....we weigh it all out and make our choices.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

- John Stuart Mill

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SpeedRacer 1]

"John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill..."







(sorry.)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

his picture says it all.

He does look to be quite a dishonest character.

Probably wrote that crap, knowing he was full of shit, but intending to sell books due to the controversy.

Absolute crap.

[ryoder 1,590]

I once watched an interesting documentary (the name completely escapes me) that made an interesting argument:

WWII began with Germany having the most powerful, highly-mechanized army in the world. But the same thing that made it powerful also caused it to have a weakness: petroleum. In the Battle of the Bulge, the logistics of getting fuel to the forward units caused major problems for both sides.

The documentary made this claim: Had the Allies focused on just one thing: Taking out Germany's petroleum supplies, and avoided taking on it's military head-on, the war could have been over much sooner, and with fewer casualties.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[mnealtx 0]

That's an interesting thought.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I once watched an interesting documentary (the name completely escapes me) that made an interesting argument:

WWII began with Germany having the most powerful, highly-mechanized army in the world. But the same thing that made it powerful also caused it to have a weakness: petroleum. In the Battle of the Bulge, the logistics of getting fuel to the forward units caused major problems for both sides.

The documentary made this claim: Had the Allies focused on just one thing: Taking out Germany's petroleum supplies, and avoided taking on it's military head-on, the war could have been over much sooner, and with fewer casualties.

Absolutely. But, that is not the only strategy. If it's already powerful, it's protecting those resources. That is why allies were fighting the Germans in Northern Africa and the Middle East first, which forced reallocation of other assets to protect and reestablish supply lines of fuel.

We couldn't just fly overhead and bomb the oil fields, we needed those resources too. We also couldn't simply fly into the heart of Germany either. Remember, 1940s technology wasn't exactly accurate (especially bombing runs).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

That is why allies were fighting the Germans in Northern Africa and the Middle East first, which forced reallocation of other assets to protect and reestablish supply lines of fuel.

I recently watched Ken Burns' "The War" which argued that the US went into N Africa purely for reasons of stateside politics. i.e. the public was clamoring for something to be done about Germany, and the politicians wanted to be seen as doing something, but the Allies hadn't yet built up enough strength to go into Europe, so the military was ordered to go into N Africa and take on the Germans there. They even had a quote from an infuriated US General was was not happy about it.

I'm not saying this was definitely what happened, but it is what Ken Burns says happened. If someone watches it and catches the name of that disgruntled general, that would be a starting point to research it.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

That is why allies were fighting the Germans in Northern Africa and the Middle East first, which forced reallocation of other assets to protect and reestablish supply lines of fuel.

I recently watched Ken Burns' "The War" which argued that the US went into N Africa purely for reasons of stateside politics. i.e. the public was clamoring for something to be done about Germany, and the politicians wanted to be seen as doing something, but the Allies hadn't yet built up enough strength to go into Europe, so the military was ordered to go into N Africa and take on the Germans there. They even had a quote from an infuriated US General was was not happy about it.

I'm not saying this was definitely what happened, but it is what Ken Burns says happened. If someone watches it and catches the name of that disgruntled general, that would be a starting point to research it.

"The allies" were already in N. Africa at the time of the Torch landings. The UK 8th Army had been there a long while, engaging Rommel's Afrika Korps. Rommel's supply lines had been compromised by British naval control of the Mediterranean, and Rommel had already been defeated at El Alamein before any US troops landed in N. Africa.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

"The allies" were already in N. Africa at the time of the Torch landings. The UK 8th Army had been there a long while, engaging Rommel's Afrika Korps. Rommel's supply lines had been compromised by British naval control of the Mediterranean, and Rommel had already been defeated at El Alamein before any US troops landed in N. Africa.

That just reminded me; "The War" ripped General Fredendall a new one about his incompetence, but didn't name him. After watching it, I had to look up who it was Patton replaced, to get a name.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Quote

Baker said he was surprised and shocked at the way Churchill responded to Hitler's attacks on Poland and other neighboring states by launching a relentless bombing campaign against German cities as well as a blockade that was designed to starve the enemy into submission.

what war did he mean - the huge war at the eastern front or the little side show at the western front.

Although England's rationale to enter the war was because it was Poland's ally Churchill had no significant influence on the eastern war. That is where more than 3/4 of the German army operated and where 20 Million Russians died.(Compared to that US/UK operations were really on a much smaller scale)

To suggest that Churchill could decide the course WWII is truly laughable, and really a sign of a narrow minded western-centric view of history.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[billvon 3,114]

There never was a good war or a bad peace. - Ben Franklin

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - JFK

In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners. - Camus

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. - Reagan

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David Friedman

During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable, even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism. - Howard Thurman

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. - Eisenhower

I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war. - FDR

I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war. - GWB

[mnealtx 0]

si vis pacem, para bellum

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nerdgirl 0]

Interesting piece. Thanks for passing it along.

The author, Nicholson Baker, has a Quaker background (a Christian sect that practices pacifism).

Just from the CNN article on Nicholson Baker's book, Human Smoke, it’s clear that his argument is *NOT* with casus bello w/r/t the Nazi internment and death camps against Jews, Romany, Homosexuals, etc. Instead the thesis strikes me more – possibly to Baker’s protest – as furthering Clausewitz’s famous line that “War is merely a continuation of politics,” especially the behaviors of states leading to war and in the initial conflict that in historical hindsight (rather than being caught up in the "fog of war" of the time -- another Clausewitizian term originally) other actions were possible that would have prevented the Genocide.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is why allies were fighting the Germans in Northern Africa and the Middle East first, which forced reallocation of other assets to protect and reestablish supply lines of fuel.

I recently watched Ken Burns' "The War" which argued that the US went into N Africa purely for reasons of stateside politics. i.e. the public was clamoring for something to be done about Germany, and the politicians wanted to be seen as doing something, but the Allies hadn't yet built up enough strength to go into Europe, so the military was ordered to go into N Africa and take on the Germans there. They even had a quote from an infuriated US General was was not happy about it.

I'm not saying this was definitely what happened, but it is what Ken Burns says happened. If someone watches it and catches the name of that disgruntled general, that would be a starting point to research it.

"The allies" were already in N. Africa at the time of the Torch landings. The UK 8th Army had been there a long while, engaging Rommel's Afrika Korps. Rommel's supply lines had been compromised by British naval control of the Mediterranean, and Rommel had already been defeated at El Alamein before any US troops landed in N. Africa.

I know we can do "no-right" in your perspective, but relish a bit more detail of your warped sense of history: The British began their offensive into El Alamein on 23 Oct 42. On 8 Nov 42, the US Navy positioned the landing into Casablanca. Rommel would have been pushed back faster, but the US forces first engagement was not with the Germans, it was with the French, who delayed US advances. Rommel was reinforced in Tunisia, and counterattacked, driving allied forces back. It took months, but the counterattack failed (February 43).

Rommel focused on British forces while Gen. Patton out flanked him. Together with British Eighth Army they pinched the Germans to surrender 12 May 43.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Baker said he was surprised and shocked at the way Churchill responded to Hitler's attacks on Poland and other neighboring states by launching a relentless bombing campaign against German cities as well as a blockade that was designed to starve the enemy into submission.

The guy clearly hasn't the first idea about history.

The relentless bombing campaign was not in response to the invasion of Poland. Nor Austria or the Sudetenland. Nor even the invasion of Belgium, Holland, France, Denmark and Norway. Nor even the bombing of British military targets within the UK.

Throughout the early months of the war, the British Air Force was under strict orders to avoid at all costs any damage to civilian property. Orders were even issued to ensure that bundles of leaflets dropped over occupied territory were property broken up by aircrews before being released so as to avoid damage to buildings on which a bundle might fall.

After the Germans bombed Rotterdam into ruins on the 15th May 1940, the British Air Force was permitted to attack civilian property of industrial importance outside of combat zones such as steel works and oil refineries.

It was only after London was bombed by the Germans on the night of the 24th August 1940, (almost exactly a year into the war), that the general prohibition was rescinded in fulfilment of a promise to Germany (threat) that if British cities were bombed by the Germans, German cities would be bombed in retaliation.

Now I don't hesitate to observe that the German raid on London on the 15th May was itself, it seems, most likely an accident, but retaliation was promised and Britain simply knew its capitol had been bombed.

So the British bombed industrial areas of Germany in retaliation. The Germans bombed London back and from then on the Luftwaffe shifted its focus from British airfields onto London and other major conurbations.

It was not until 1942 however, that deliberate targeting of German population centres was begun by the British, again in retribution for the same destruction being visited by the Germans on British cities. Of course the morals of this can be debated forever, much as the fire and atomic bombings of Japan have been debated.

As for the blockade - that too was very much two way street. I guess he doesn't remember the fact that the Battle of the Atlantic virtually entirely comprised a battle between German offensive forces (submarines) and British (and laterly Allied) surface ships; the Germans being the ones trying to sink civilian merchant ships and thus starve Britain into submission and the British and Allies trying to protect them and keep the supply lines open.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is why allies were fighting the Germans in Northern Africa and the Middle East first, which forced reallocation of other assets to protect and reestablish supply lines of fuel.

I recently watched Ken Burns' "The War" which argued that the US went into N Africa purely for reasons of stateside politics. i.e. the public was clamoring for something to be done about Germany, and the politicians wanted to be seen as doing something, but the Allies hadn't yet built up enough strength to go into Europe, so the military was ordered to go into N Africa and take on the Germans there. They even had a quote from an infuriated US General was was not happy about it.

I'm not saying this was definitely what happened, but it is what Ken Burns says happened. If someone watches it and catches the name of that disgruntled general, that would be a starting point to research it.

"The allies" were already in N. Africa at the time of the Torch landings. The UK 8th Army had been there a long while, engaging Rommel's Afrika Korps. Rommel's supply lines had been compromised by British naval control of the Mediterranean, and Rommel had already been defeated at El Alamein before any US troops landed in N. Africa.

I know we can do "no-right" in your perspective, but relish a bit more detail of your warped sense of history: The British began their offensive into El Alamein on 23 Oct 42. On 8 Nov 42, the US Navy positioned the landing into Casablanca. Rommel would have been pushed back faster, but the US forces first engagement was not with the Germans, it was with the French, who delayed US advances. Rommel was reinforced in Tunisia, and counterattacked, driving allied forces back. It took months, but the counterattack failed (February 43).

Rommel focused on British forces while Gen. Patton out flanked him. Together with British Eighth Army they pinched the Germans to surrender 12 May 43.

Nothing in your comment invalidates anything that I wrote. There is a very strong tendency in the US to equate "the allies" with "the USA" and ignore the other members of the alliance; this was clearly evident in the post to which I responded.

Oh, and 1st El Alamein, which halted the Afrika Korp's advance, started July 1, 1942

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pirana 0]

Some great quotes earlier in the thread.

But basically, this guy either doesn't know shit from shinola to history; or his pacifist leaning is so strong his filters are in overdrive.

This amateur historian gives great credence to the long term inertia of human behaviors and consequences; and the long string of events leading to WWII easily goes back to the fall of Rome, the dynastic politics that filled the void, and the beginnings of nationalism. WWI and WWII were just the dying convulsions and wringing out of the complex system of alliances and betrayals that wreaked havoc in Europe for over a thousand years as powerful families and the nationalist tendencies they at first fought and then played off against each other played themselves out one last time. Well, maybe not the last time altogether, but the last time they will happen on that scale. With the crumbling of the Eastern Bloc, all the major players (Britian, France, Germany & Russia) are now integrated financially at a level that looks to have finally put that era to rest.

Now I wonder how long it will take for the Middle East to settle their civilization. Ironic that civilization started there, but can't seem to get settled there.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[CanuckInUSA 0]

War, the vast majority of the time, is an aweful waste of time, energy and lives. It's easy for us in our modern time to look back and ask "what if". But what happened between 1939 and 1945 happened. We can not take it back. There are no "do overs". An estimated 50 million people lost their lives in those years due to this war and almost an entire continent was reduced to rubble. Plus while Nazi Germany hung on for 3 more years, they really lost the war when they lost Stalingrad. But at what price? Russia suffered 20 million dead (or was it closer to 30 million) in their quest to push back the invaders.

But have we learned anything since 1945? Apparently not.

I am no peacenik, but ... Iraq is a total disaster thanks to that moron GWB and while I think I still support what NATO is trying to do in Afghanistan, I also wonder how much of what is going on in that country is unnecessary?

It can be argued that fighting Nazi Germany was the right thing to do. But it is becoming ever so clear that going in to Iraq was one of the stupidest things the US has ever done. Or is the USA + Iran all that egar towards pushing the world towards WWIII and has WWIII already begun and we just don't know it yet? Instead of obsessing about something that happened before the vast majority of us were even born, I think we should be looking ahead and asking ourselves why we continue to support present day wars.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[livendive 8]

I have not and likely will not read the book, but would like to point out that avoidable != unecessary.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Adriandavies 0]

So in Baker's parallel universe Neville Chamberlain didn't exist and it was Churchill who invaded Germany?

[warpedskydiver 0]

And the Americans bombed Pearl Harbor

I think he may be of the belief that Hitler was a nice guy, and was not dropping bombs, just twinkies.