So......that analysis I promised to write......well......I think what I was trying to explicate in my previous and probably emotion-laden post on the nature of total war in respect to discrete series of logical formulations of - what was I saying? Oh yeah, my confusion/inability to express the underlying tensions of my brain does not lie in the actions of the participants of WWII during the war - after all, the good student of history should be aware of the extent to which the darker side of human nature continues to emerge, cat-like, to pounce upon the seemingly infallible pillars of civilization...but I digress - rather, my focus is on the actions of the Allies in the immediate aftermath the war.
Liz and Mia have both examined the Nuremberg trials and come to the conclusion that the trials, though exhibiting a hypocrisy of the highest order among the Allied countries, were justified and necessary, especially if one takes into account the new, humanity-based international framework that resulted. I guess I have to agree that it was right for the trials to occur, but were they actually successful in the long run? The fact that the actions of the Allies during the war were not decried, let alone examined, for a while after the war gave those countries a pretty free hand in their international wheelings and dealings (that is, a hand free from the threat of prosecution by a human rights court):
USSR: Stalin! That bastard was around for 8! (EIGHT!) more years after the war ended;
USA: Vietnam and Gitmo, those symbols of American military superiority;
Britain and France: I don't know much about this, but there were definitely brutal tactics used in Kenya and Algeria, respectively.
The actions of these countries have weakened human rights courts and given local despots and warlords around the world the confidence to kill whomever they please. Does this mean the Nuremberg trials were a failure? Was WWII a failure? [The first question was serious, the second purely for hyperbolic purposes].
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
If You Can't Stand the Heat, Get Out of the Cold War
I enjoyed the Cold War, US-USSR antagonism, brink of nuclear destruction simulation today, and while it is not over yet (though the outcome was already decided when Glorious Leader Stalin decided to free us from the shackles of Leninism and lead us to global Soviet hegemony - go team USSR! and the Jamaican and Irish Socialist Republics!), I am currently of the mind to make a comment or two concerning it and the period of time it pertained to - the first decade and a half after WWII. To begin, what drove these countries to pursue their respective courses of action? In response to Jonathan's post about the Long Telegram, I do agree that the U.S. policymakers weren't really being idealistic, or at least expressing a positive form idealism. I don't know if this is actually a correct term, but maybe we could look at the U.S. as being negatively idealistic. Instead of trying to spread democracy or any other type of ideology, per se (not the correct usage), the policy of the U.S. was negate the spread and effects of another ideology. This is in some ways equally as dangerous as positive idealism because it leads to the same rigid thinking, lack of flexibility, and demonization of the enemy. Not that the Soviets' policy made much more sense (yeah! refuse those eggs!). The players on both sides of the conflict were pretty close-minded and usually unwilling to compromise, with the exception of the occasional thaw once every decade and a half. But I guess M.A.D. ended up working out for everyone. Yeah!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
It's All Just Horrible
The "Horrible Histories" series of books from England by Terry Deary is one of the major reasons I became interested in history (note: squeamish be warned, clicking the link above does present the clicker with some cartoon violence, so be wary before rolling your eyes over it). The books' attraction to the youth of my day was their focus on the more violent, and certainly less boring, parts of history (that and the various cartoons interspersed throughout the books' chapters). Yet, at the same time, the books never glorified war or took the blood and gore too lightly; in fact, they often had the opposite effect.
One example that struck me upon first reading it approximately a decade ago and that has stuck with me ever since is from "The Woeful Second World War," which concerned, of all things, WWII. In the particular story, Deary presents the reader with the picture of a night carnival, complete with smiling, happy families and children whose only care in the world is to be next on the ferris wheel (perhaps he was laying it on a bit thick, but it provides an excellent contrast to what would follow). Suddenly, a great number of planes fills the sky and begins dropping tens upon hundreds of bombs. There is fire, death, destruction, horror everywhere, and by the end most of the fair ground is gone, along with the people there. Throughout the entire story, Deary has led the reader to believe that this scene took place in England, that those were British chlidren, German bombs, but after it is done he reveals that this was not the case - that was Berlin, those were German children, RAF planes. Why the British, our allies, would do such a thing confused me, to say the least (I hadn't even learned about Dresden then) and certainly contributed to whatever quest for knowledge I am still on today.
I was reminded of this last summer when I was doing a summer program at Oxford (birthplace of the name-dropper). It so happened that I was reading "Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut (in which the bombing of Dresden plays a prominent role) right as we were discussing the concept of 'just war' in my international relations class. As an exercise, the class split into groups to determine whether various wars throughout history could be considered 'just,' particularly from the standpoint of the victors. My group analyzed WWII, and we decided that, while the entry of the the various Allied countries into the war was justified (e.g. invasion of Poland and the rest of Europe; Pearl Harbor), much of the Allies' conduct could not be considered just (e.g. the firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and many other cities; the use of the atomic bomb).
So what I am I trying to say here? Honestly, this post isn't so much an analysis as a reflection. Of course, it's easy to defend the actions of the U.S. and Britain with the simple mention of the Holocaust, but almost every major player in WWII was complicit in some atrocity - it was just to varying degrees. Man, total war is a real...well, you know, the word that can also mean a canine of the female persuasion. Anywhile, I'll end this post with a quote from "The Fog of War," in which Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, discusses his role, and that of the U.S., in the bombing of Japan:
One example that struck me upon first reading it approximately a decade ago and that has stuck with me ever since is from "The Woeful Second World War," which concerned, of all things, WWII. In the particular story, Deary presents the reader with the picture of a night carnival, complete with smiling, happy families and children whose only care in the world is to be next on the ferris wheel (perhaps he was laying it on a bit thick, but it provides an excellent contrast to what would follow). Suddenly, a great number of planes fills the sky and begins dropping tens upon hundreds of bombs. There is fire, death, destruction, horror everywhere, and by the end most of the fair ground is gone, along with the people there. Throughout the entire story, Deary has led the reader to believe that this scene took place in England, that those were British chlidren, German bombs, but after it is done he reveals that this was not the case - that was Berlin, those were German children, RAF planes. Why the British, our allies, would do such a thing confused me, to say the least (I hadn't even learned about Dresden then) and certainly contributed to whatever quest for knowledge I am still on today.
I was reminded of this last summer when I was doing a summer program at Oxford (birthplace of the name-dropper). It so happened that I was reading "Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut (in which the bombing of Dresden plays a prominent role) right as we were discussing the concept of 'just war' in my international relations class. As an exercise, the class split into groups to determine whether various wars throughout history could be considered 'just,' particularly from the standpoint of the victors. My group analyzed WWII, and we decided that, while the entry of the the various Allied countries into the war was justified (e.g. invasion of Poland and the rest of Europe; Pearl Harbor), much of the Allies' conduct could not be considered just (e.g. the firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and many other cities; the use of the atomic bomb).
So what I am I trying to say here? Honestly, this post isn't so much an analysis as a reflection. Of course, it's easy to defend the actions of the U.S. and Britain with the simple mention of the Holocaust, but almost every major player in WWII was complicit in some atrocity - it was just to varying degrees. Man, total war is a real...well, you know, the word that can also mean a canine of the female persuasion. Anywhile, I'll end this post with a quote from "The Fog of War," in which Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, discusses his role, and that of the U.S., in the bombing of Japan:
[General Curtis] LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He... and I'd say I... were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side has lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/quotes)Perhaps a more cogent analysis of this subject in a later post - if I can wrap my head around all of this...
Thursday, March 26, 2009
In der Marine! Ja, Sie können die sieben Meere durchsegeln!
Now that Jonathan has, on this momentous occasion, revealed to the world our group's paper topic, I feel it is time to start some researching. First off, dibs on die kriegsmarine - sorry Sam, even if Das Boot is your favorite movie (is it? that would be an odd coincidence) you now have to research die heer (and what a heer it was). This first research post could be considered rather short, but I have only just begin to delve into the realm of the unknown that is the kriegsmarine. And so, here's a summary of Plan Z, Germany's uncompleted pre-war fleet-building program, and here's a slideshow of the Battle of the Atlantic (from the Times, hence all the pictures of British ships). May your bacchanalian desire for kriegsmarine-related information be sated for the time being.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Put on your Russian Glasses (Made of Russian Glass)
Here's a little more on Stalin and how he is viewed. This article from December talks about Stalin's popularity, either sustained or renewed, and I think it's interesting to see how Russians themselves look at him. Perhaps, with decades in between them and the purges of the 1930's, today's Russian see only the positive aspects of Stalin's rule: industrialization, defeating Hitler, making the USSR a world power. Like Putin's popularity in the past few years - people were willing to stand by his curtailing of civil liberties while their country was prosperous - maybe Russians are willing to turn a blind eye to Stalin's atrocities. The Soviet Union was never truly defeated, and there was never de-soviet-ification similar to what happened in Germany after World War Two. That's why many Russians consider him one of their greatest countrymen.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
What's Your Opinion on Mass Murderers?
Responding to Sam's post, which asked why Hitler has, for the most part, been considered worse than Stalin, I would say that it's not just because the U.S. had allied with the Soviets. Even after World War II and into the Cold War, the American propaganda films focused more on bashing Communism and the Reds in general than on the figure of Stalin, perhaps because Stalin was already dead by 1953. On the other hand, Hitler's image and persona were quite prevalant in American war propaganda, to the point that he was featured in children's cartoons.
Another reason most people's perceptions about the two dictators are often skewed would be the Holocaust - to be more precise, the Holocaust survivors. Enough people managed to survive the Nazi concentration camps and tell their stories that readings about the Holocaust are often required in elementary and middle schools, and there are a number of museums around the world making sure that we "never forget." Compare this to the coverage of Stalin's victims - there are no accounts of life in the gulags I'm aware of besides Solzhenitsyn's works because almost no one escaped - there was no liberation of Stalin's camps. The fact is that Stalin's atrocities aren't as present in the collective memory as Hitler's. It's 6 millions vs. ?
Another reason most people's perceptions about the two dictators are often skewed would be the Holocaust - to be more precise, the Holocaust survivors. Enough people managed to survive the Nazi concentration camps and tell their stories that readings about the Holocaust are often required in elementary and middle schools, and there are a number of museums around the world making sure that we "never forget." Compare this to the coverage of Stalin's victims - there are no accounts of life in the gulags I'm aware of besides Solzhenitsyn's works because almost no one escaped - there was no liberation of Stalin's camps. The fact is that Stalin's atrocities aren't as present in the collective memory as Hitler's. It's 6 millions vs. ?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Fascism vs. Liberal Democracy: A Debate of Uberific Proportions
I will begin this post by declaring that I, in my official position as Judge Nate Charnas ("The People's Judge"), having presided over the case of Fascism vs. Liberal Democracy in connexion as to whether the government of the former style is viable and can meet the needs of the governed, do declare that Fascism has lost. May there be feastings of some type for the anti-fascists.
There, now that I've gotten that off my chest I can clearly and calmly offer an analysis and explanation of today's debate and of my shortly subsequent decision. The anti-fascists were pretty successful at arguing against the economic benefits of fascism, citing Italy's deficit under Mussolini, though I feel that the fascists could have provided some good counter-arguments by bringing up the re-militarization of Germany under Hitler. The anti-fascists also pointed out the negative aspects and affects of nationalism (rather strongly, I might add), but they could have gone farther in trying to refute the fascist's claims that nationalism and success go hand in hand, or at least chosen stronger examples than Switzerland and Qatar. The fascists could have argued longer and more clearly about the the need for a strong, central leader in times of crisis like the French Revolution or after World War I, or tried to show that the Weimar Republic was not such an exception to other liberal democracies. The most important point, which I don't think was discussed enough, concerned how the curtailment of civil rights met the needs of the governed. The fascists argued about the importance of the common or greater good over the needs of the individual, but this reflected a set of beliefs more than evidence or an argument. I realize it was hard to justify Hitler's actions against Jewish Germans, but some historical example of the benefits for the governed of curtailing rights (it didn't even have to be from Germany) would have definitely helped.
There, now that I've gotten that off my chest I can clearly and calmly offer an analysis and explanation of today's debate and of my shortly subsequent decision. The anti-fascists were pretty successful at arguing against the economic benefits of fascism, citing Italy's deficit under Mussolini, though I feel that the fascists could have provided some good counter-arguments by bringing up the re-militarization of Germany under Hitler. The anti-fascists also pointed out the negative aspects and affects of nationalism (rather strongly, I might add), but they could have gone farther in trying to refute the fascist's claims that nationalism and success go hand in hand, or at least chosen stronger examples than Switzerland and Qatar. The fascists could have argued longer and more clearly about the the need for a strong, central leader in times of crisis like the French Revolution or after World War I, or tried to show that the Weimar Republic was not such an exception to other liberal democracies. The most important point, which I don't think was discussed enough, concerned how the curtailment of civil rights met the needs of the governed. The fascists argued about the importance of the common or greater good over the needs of the individual, but this reflected a set of beliefs more than evidence or an argument. I realize it was hard to justify Hitler's actions against Jewish Germans, but some historical example of the benefits for the governed of curtailing rights (it didn't even have to be from Germany) would have definitely helped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
