Return to Index  

Right Wing Interpretation of History

December 19 2009 at 12:10 PM
A.J. Lockard 

Response to Re: Vague indeed.

Ken Joyce (I can only presume that "anonymous" post was you) - your continual right-wing reinterprtetation of history is as repetitious as it is boring. What is worst, however, is this unsupported statement which I simply can't leave unchallenged:

"We definitely would NOT have won WW2 without the use of DIRTY fighting and we certainly would not have won trying to be some kind of righteous force for left wingers."

What pretentious poppycock. The entire point of the war, of course, was to defend the democracies from the forces of fascism. There is a deep irony that the German Army was a far more democratic institution than either the American or the British Army, with officers holding discussion groups with their men, eating the same rations, and having far few privileges than what the British disdainfully called "Other Ranks" with their peculiarly medieval view of class relations.

But to suggest that there was no value in respecting the Hague, Geneva or other conventions for the conduct of land warfare - at least as much as anyone else was bothering - is, as pointed out, unsupported. Whatever deviations were applied were not "war-winners." John Ellis convincingly crunches the numbers in "Brute Force" and chalks up Allied victory to logistics, which as everyone knows, is what the professionals study.

The largest deviation from the norm as far as moral code goes - the Combined Bomber Offensive - can probably be dismissed from the conversation on a couple of fronts; it can be argued that it was not "fighting dirty" if everyone was doing it; if enemy war workers could be considered combatants; and if - this is the big one - the value of the CBO towards actually winning the war was negligible, which is certainly not hard to argue.

Unrestricted submarine warfare is another contentious issue, and the Americans were reluctant to press the issue at Nuremberg because of their own "guilt" of same in the Pacific. But again, one doubts as to its contributor as a "war-winning" measure.

But I get the feeling you are not discussing these general concepts so much as some sort or special forces, hands-dirty wink-wink acknowledgement that Allied soldiers in the field murdered prisoners and performed other acts of which you apparently approve and further indicate were "necessary" to "win the war." It's a ridiculous proposition which you would have a very difficult time proving, and for good reason.

 Respond to this message