This Should Be Interesting

Speaking of human fallibility, some people are still under the illusion that human beings are capable of carrying out any flawless endeavor--especially one involving millions of people--and, on this VE Day, one of them laments the “tainted triumph” of World War Two.

[W]e would do well, this V-E Day, to face some harsh realities about the nature of the Allied victory — if only to remind ourselves about the nature of all wars. To win World War II, we joined forces with a despot who was every bit as brutal a tyrant as Hitler; we adopted tactics that we ourselves had said were depraved; and we left too many of those we set out to liberate firmly in the grip of totalitarianism.

Armed Liberal isn’t surprised.

The first question - as compared to what? - is a critical one. I genuinely think that some people somehow believe that the world is a lab where perfect wars can be fought, or perfect legal cases made - or perfect businesses run, or perfect marriages maintained, or children can be perfectly raised. And if you can't - if in retrospect, your parents damaged you, or the business execution was clumsy, or if a war was fought by soldiers who were on occasion brutal or if decisions were made in weakness, fear or anger that were - again in light of historical omniscience, bad - then the whole enterprise is certainly subject to question and certainly shouldn't be celebrated.

I have a question for any World War Two naysayers (!) out there: after realizing that they should have slapped him down earlier, what should the Allies have done in the face of Hitler’s aggression in Europe? Another way of asking: what strategic move(s) should have been taken that wasn't or vice versa?

(Thanks to Austin Bay)

Comments

[Reese]

The answer is given in the question.

Hint:

Something that would have been frowned upon (sternly) by the League of Nations.

Reese

[David]

I don't think that Niall Ferguson was saying that the Allies should have or could have done anything differently in order to win World War II. He's saying that in addition to the appalling cost in blood and treasure, there was a high moral cost, too. The Allies did things that they would not have done under almost any other circumstances. This was perhaps the worse thing that Hitler did - he made us respond savagely to his savagery.

David

PS: I enjoy reading your blog, even though I often disagree with you.

[a4g]

They keep telling us the answer.

We should have surrendered, unconditionally.

Then Hitler wouldn't have been mad at us.

[A Texan]

The victory in Europe was due to the fact that Germany attacked so many countries, countries that had to band together to strike back at him.

He struck the UK on a daily basis, he conquered France, and moved through Spain, and into Egypt. He attacked Russia (stupidly in the dead of winter).

We, finally seeing the light, that if he wasn't stopped, would strike us as well, banded up with Uncle Joe Stalin, The Brits, and the Chinese to stop him good.

During the war, our brave young men had to grow up fast, and made our enemies realize what they had done.

Today, we continue to be the beacon of freedom in a troubled world.

Are we perfect? No, we still have people who don't like other people because of skin color, or because they speak another language, or a range of other reasons, but we are trying to set an example. Where else can a Christian, Muslin, and Jew stand shoulder to shoulder and criticize the government and not be shot on sight?

[Michael]

OT, but I have to get it off my chest: What a sweet new picture of you! You're just lovely.

[Tatterdemalian]

That is the core of leftist nihilism... for the crime of not being perfect, reality itself must be destroyed.

[birdwoman]

We should have attacked him earlier and much more harshly for breaking accords from the end of World War I.

Somehow, I doubt that's what most of the Naysayers are thinking, though.

(*)>

[Michael]

"That is the core of leftist nihilism... for the crime of not being perfect, reality itself must be destroyed."

And so often unspoken, evil must be allow to reign supreme as punishment for not being perfect.

I do not understand these idiots, for that is what they are, who blindly accept pure evil over imperfect good.

[Noble Eagle]

Thankfully, intellectual hand-wringers like Niall Ferguson didn't have much influence in WW II. Unfortunately, they do today. When they hide in their ivory towers, they don't pose much of a threat. But when their loopy ideas make their way into the real world - where actions, and lack of action - have dire consequences, they become more dangerous.

[Mike]

Why am I not surprised that that article came from the LA Times? (rhetorical question)

[JSAllison]

Welp, the feckless French should've marched on the Rhineland, in response to the Anschluss, but they didn't. Demonstrating gaullic l'audace by hiding behind the Maginot worked out real good, didn't it?

And we should've listened to Churchill and invaded the Balkans with 7th Army, not the French Riviera.

And we should've told Stalin: "Race ya to Berlin!" (While whispering to the Wehrmacht: Who you gonna surrender to, us or them? Hmmm? Clock's ticking ;) )

As far as fighting dirty goes, the Geneva Accords were not a suicide pact, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. And it's only dirty if you lose, as the winner gets to write the history books. ;)

[David Foster]

As the last post suggests, the best chance of stopping Hitler would have been at the time of the Rhineland incursion. The French were not alone in failing to meet this test: the British were dragging their feel considerably, and indeed one reason for the French failure to act was that they didn't want to go to war without allies! And we, of course, were resolutely pretending that none of this had anything to do with us.

My first-ever blog post was on this topic: it quotes from a very insightful French General who was a junior officer at the time of the decision not to act:
http://www.photoncourier.blogspot.com/2002_10_20_photoncourier_archive.html#83479766

[David Foster]

Also...I thought Tatterdemalian's comment was very good: "That is the core of leftist nihilism... for the crime of not being perfect, reality itself must be destroyed."

Regarding strategic alternatives once the U.S. was involved: we did a lot of things right. There was no alternative to the alliance with the USSR, although we should have been a lot more realistic about the true nature of this society, and we certainly should not have forceably returned Russian POW's to face almost certain execution by their own government ("Operation Keelhaul")

Also, the heavy emphasis on strategic bombing by both ourselves and the British is questionable. If the same resources had been devoted to tactical airpower, the results might have been better.

[Jimbo Bosso, palm beach, fl]

The Russians beat the Germans. If Hitler had not attacked Russia, the Germans could have built up their forces until they would have beaten England. Even in very optimistic developments, we would have been repulsed at Normandy if we faced a Germany that had been devoting its war productivity to better aircraft, etc., for its own defense instead of a devouring Russian offensive. Germany could have defended its territorial conquests in a one front war. They probably would have blown us off the beaches if they had not attacked Russia. It could have taken us 20 years to surpass their power, if ever. God blessed us with Hitler's blunders.
By the way. I used to blame the Germans for not killing Hitler but I saw on TV that there were attempts all the time. It would have required more attempts by the generals. Well, I guess they were all glory hogs. TV has really helped with that kind of problem, it's too bad the mullahs don't get the pride-war connection. They want to be famous as the ones who brought pride thru atomic strength. I fear for the Muslims, those mullahs may lead them to learn the hard way like Asia and Europe in WWII.