.
~ Cross-posted from comment in diary by catnip I Am Not My Leaders ~
I am not my brother’s keeper, unless you begin to strike at him.
To debate the Iraq War and get hostile over WWII makes no sense to me. Such a complicated flow of events leading up to WWII, the Anschlüss of Austria and the Blitzkrieg of the Pantzer divisions of the German Army, the most disciplined group of men any Army has ever seen. The SS, Gestapo, occupying forces, later new battalions added with enlisted nationals from the Ukraïne, France, Belgium and the Netherlands fighting at the East Front of Stalingrad.
The rules of engagement in fighting a war has evolved from the period of Napoleon and his defeat at Waterloo, where both sides agreed on a timetable of warfare and breaks when hostilities would cease, and let the forces get some rest.
The worst kind of wars and most brutal are the civil wars between brothers and families of a single nation: U.S. Civil War, Rwanda and Yugoslavia in the nineties. The world community find it difficult to engage in these battles, the United Nations could not provide legality to intervene within a sovereign nation. This is starting to change, the reformed U.N. will also address these conflicts in the future.
Debate between Deward Hastings and Spiderleaf ::
German Occupation and Iraq Compared – below the fold »»
The most devastating wars are the great World Wars in the 20th century, WWI fought in the trenches of northern France and parts of Belgium, the use of lethal gas killing millions of soldiers. Yet there were moments, soldiers from both sides got out of their respective trenches to call a period of truce at Christmas, shortly thereafter to retreat into the trenches and continue the slaughter of men. It’s very depressing to travel the route through Verdun in France and see acres filled with crosses of the slain, every small village has its WWI memorial in city square for their fallen heroes.
WWII was a direct consequence of the peace agreement imposed on the German nation, which made it easier for a dictator like Hitler to rise to power. The Germans are know for its discipline and commitment to the nation, Hitler made use of both and vilified the Jewish race and most minorities not meeting his standard of the Arian race. The German war industry, the cooperation with large corporations to meet the contracts supplied by the government, engaged and provided jobs for millions of citizens. Jobs, food and security gave Hitler all the support needed for him to win democratic elections to continue his path to occupy most of Europe.
WWII saw the battles fought in clear front lines, only when small towns or villages came into a cross fire, were they destroyed. Paris was saved by agreement between the aggressors and the French generals and government. The Netherlands was not involved in WWI after they declared to remain neutral, and was left alone by Germany. Quite different in May 1940 when Germany surprised the Netherlands with a Blitzkrieg invasion of pantzer divisions of the regular German army. They swept into Holland from the South and needed to cross the Rhine river bridges, the Moerdijk bridge near Dordrecht in the route to Rotterdam was crucial. My dad was engaged in the defense of the Moerdijk bridge on Sunday morning, May 10, 1940. The bridge was fully lined with explosive charges to be destroyed whenever the Germans approached. Of course the Germans had infiltrated the Dutch military and civilians with corroborators and that night all explosives had been defused and the German colonnes of armor and truck loads of soldiers crossed into central Holland. There was a Dutch defense on a few locations, and the Dutch authorities did not agree to surrender. That is when the Germans decided to bomb a defenseless civilian heart of the city of Rotterdam, of course not any harbor infrastructure, which the Germans needed to keep intact.
Later on, the Germans failed in their attempt to invade Great Britain and the bombing of cities started, often with V1 and V2 rockets from the coastline of the European continent. The Wernher von Braun designed rockets were launched from Dutch cities like The Hague, the launching pads were located in the city heart Haagsche Bos. Trying to take the sites out with allied bombings led to a fatal mistake when a nearby residential area was bombed causing hundreds of civilian deaths. The Dutch know what warfare is, its destruction and the occupation of a foreign power. Yet the Dutch had relatively little destruction compared to Belgium, France and Germany itself of course. The Germans bombed not only London, the center of government, but also Coventry. In retaliation the allies bombed Dresden, killing more than 100,000 civilians in a single raid. The German people regard this bombing as a war crime, even today when a memorial is held to commemorate all victims of that one night.
The American people have no sense of the horror of war, one cannot have the emotions from tv coverage, photos or even from witness accounts. That is a profound reason why the Europeans are still reluctant to wage a war and get involved unless they themselves are under direct threat. The UK and USA with imperial political eyes cross that line much too easily and engaged in the Iraq War with no scruples.
Does the German people and nation bear a responsibility for Hitler, the war and its atrocities, and the death camps? The German people have the feeling that they are responsible, even sixty years later. I would agree, without having the new generation to be held responsible what their parents have done. Same question for the United States, are its people and nation as a whole responsible for the acts of its leadership, the elected President, his cabinet and Congress for their acts or instances when they fail to act. My answer will be once again: yes.
The Vietnam war was in essence guerrilla warfare, not only in the jungle, but throughout South Vietnam in all rural area, small towns and villages. Friend and foe could not be distinguished, the battle very similar to civil strife with all its cruelties. The might of the U.S. meant unleashing air power with unprecedented bombing raids over Hanoi and North Vietnam, destruction meant also civilian populated areas, industry, infrastructure and harbor facilities. The number of deaths in excess of two million is a heavy prize to pay for a nation. The Christmas bombing of 1972 above the city of Hanoi, most likely can be considered a war crime by Nixon, Kissinger and the War cabinet. I’m glad Nixon was impeached for a burglary into the DNC HQ in Watergate, its cover-up and further acts of law-breaking by Nixon’s cabal.
I see no balance to compare the Iraq war with the acts of the Nazis during WWII, it’s sufficient to deal with the Iraq war by itself, and try to kick the Republicans out of the White House and all political power in Washington DC.
Compare the discipline and training of the German army during WWII and the U.S. forces in Iraq, comprised of a large portion of NG forces. I do worry that the US army, in Iraq by comparison, is made up of a group of irregulars, poor leadership in Army command and some soldiers are little better than civilians armed with a M16 rifle. It’s very worrisome, looking at an article recently covered, a training stage of three months and send to the battle front!
That’s my take on the issue, but just do not make a comparison with Nazis, fascism, massive deaths and destruction and the holocaust. That’s just not right, nor necessary.
<<< MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR >>>
Re: You Can’t Get Me Angry, Even If You Tried
Oui:
Thank you for the thoughtful (as usual) comments. Comparisons are always difficult, and I suppose it was too much to expect the kind of nuanced and reasoned response across the board that you and some others have presented. I sought to compare the behavior and tactics of the German Army in WWII with the US Army in Iraq . . . others chose to misread that as comparing the US Army to Nazis, neglecting both the distinction between Armies and political systems and the divisions within Germany at the beginning of WWII.
I did not make the comparison to defend the German Army. We rightly condemn, for example, the bombing of civilian Rotterdam and London, and rightly question the tactics used against the Yugoslav resistance, again directed largely against civilians. The comparison was made to remind all that the American Army in Iraq is no better, and in at least some ways is worse, both in strategic and tactical choices and in actual behavior in the field.
If I were comparing primarily the political systems I’d be comparing Nazi Germany in ’38 or ’39, or perhaps just after the invasion of Poland, with the Republican/Fundamentalist/Fascists of today . . . each about five years in power, each about equally far along in dismantling the democracies they superseded. It is at least possible that even at that late date the German people could have rejected the Nazis and changed the course of history. It is at least possible that at this late date the American people can reject Republican/Fundamentalist Fascism.
If we do then, and only then, there will be some slight opening for the argument that Americans are somehow, taken as a group, a little bit better than some of the rest of the world. There will still, of course, be at least fifty (not just five) years of blundered and wrongheaded foreign policy to be undone. At the moment the only thing to be noted about American exceptionalism is its exceptional blindness and arrogance . . .
by Deward Hastings on Tue Oct 11th, 2005 at 10:12:15 AM PST
now this is a conversation I’d be open to have… but your original comment didn’t get us there. I apologize for my strident response, but generalities are never conducive to debate.
unfortunately I’m at work and can’t get into a lengthy reply right now, but I wanted to let you know I appreciated the continued discourse.
cheers,
spider
Jaded Reality ~ W apologist since 10/9/05
by spiderleaf on Tue Oct 11th, 2005 at 10:19:12 AM PST
.
I’m willing take this topic and put it up as a new diary, so that you can have a debate of substance. I do understand it important enough, for a debate between both of you.
I did my best to differentiate in an historical reference, that in time and other circumstances, comparisons always go lame. I always try to understand how war changes ordinary citizens, neighbors who choose for opposite sides, end up killing each other. In a state of occupation, the Dutch resistance acted without remorse to liquidate collaborators with the Nazis, both men and women, who forwarded strategic information to the Gestapo. See movie: “Resistance Fighter – the Girl with the Red Hair”.
By comparison, what the German troops were for the Dutch in WWII from 1940-1945, are the U.S. troops for a majority of Iraqis today: occupying forces. The Dutch underground, similar to other countries, kept communications with London to provide intelligence for Allied bombing raids. The film A Bridge Too Far of Operation Market Garden led by General Montgomery, was only possible with support of Dutch intelligence. With failure to gain a position across the Rhine river, the Allied forces had to pull back, again supported by the Dutch underground organization.
The German occupying forces couldn’t tell the difference between the Dutch who were friendly or opposed the occupation. The worst part of the war in Holland, one could never trust a neighbor, friend or relative. The resistance had to operate in cells, to avoid Nazi raids where more than a few countrymen would be arrested, tortured, jailed or executed by German firing squad.
How similar to the circumstances the U.S. forces have to operate in Iraq today, not seen as liberators but as occupiers. The Germans never razed villages, bombed bridges or were confronted with resistance as the U.S. faces today in Iraq. The German SS did retaliate against civilians whenever an ambush led to the death or injury of a German officer.
Additional Reading ::
.
Nothing compares in history to the great sacrifices made by Allied Forces in Europe and the Pacific to liberate the World from Fascism and the Axis of Evil :: Germany, Japan and Italy.
Do not let George W. Bush Minor and/or Condoleezza Rice hijack the bravery of these men and women, who gave their lives for Freedom, and offer sacrilege by making comparisons to Churchill, Eisenhower or Roosevelt.
George is left with Stalin as comparison, just like the man he wanted destroyed by offering the lives of Americans and Iraqis in a War of Choice. Shame on the House of Bush, not on the Greatest Generation or the young men and women whose lives he took.
Bush
▼ ▼ ▼
It seems to me that the German political system under the Nazi regime is not comparable to the American political system today.
Nazi Germany was a totalitarian one party dictatorship. From early on in Hitler’s rule there was no longer any legal mechanism available to anti-Nazi Germans to change the regime. Anti regime activity in Germany was very dangerous to the few people actively involved.
The situation in modern America is quite different.
So far as resistance and collaboration to occupiers are concerned, I am sure that any such situation in any country would lead to some people being in each category. Presumably the majority of the population keep their heads down and try to avoid drawing attention to themselves.
I also agree that the quality (as opposed to equipment) of German troops in WW2 was higher than that of modern US forces.
Germany was a far more militaristic culture than the US. The Nazis regarded war as a very desirable activity and put a lot of effort into conditioning young Germans to be soldiers.
It is one of the most disquieting features of modern America that the upper classes do not seem to want to themselves send their own children to the wars they encourage. This is a very bad sign for a society, particularly a Republic.
a total inversion of history. It used to be that you had to be in the armed forces in order to be seen as fit to have a role in ruling. That is, after all, the basis for aristocracy. Napoleon came up with the people’s army, although Washington had the idea first. By the time of the French revolution most Aristocrats were not soldiers, nor did they do any work, or even break even operating their estates. There is a certain rot that took place in the Aristocracy that allowed the peasants to exert their rights. Now, the modern day equivalent of the peasants are populating, and to a large extent, running our armed services. Neither the rich, nor the intellectuals have much to do with our armed forces.
It’s a strange sort of martial spirit that our nation has at the moment.
and his capita censi armies might provide a model for the people’s army that comes earlier yet. Before he fought the Germans, Marius had to fight huge battles in the Senate to throw the Roman army open to the members of the Roman head count, its citizen peasants. Before Marius all Roman soldiers had to be landed citizens capable of paying for their own arms and armor. After, the Roman army was open to even the lowliest of Rome’s citizens and the state picked up the bill for arms and armor and gave out its first salaries and veteran land grants.
to me that “the situation in modern America is quite different”. And I find the “political systems” not only comparable but remarkably similar in too many areas . . . not least the pervasive mingling of government and corporate elites, and what Eisenhower called “the military/industrial complex”.
And then there’s the “totalitarian one party dictatorship” . . . as if the US is somehow catagorically different. Subtly different I’ll grant . . . we have the pretense of two parties, and to some extent what would have been intra-party debates and power struggles in Germany (or Soviet Russia, or China) are conducted a bit more “in public” here, at least for show, but I’m sure you’ve heard it suggested that the differences between the major American political parties is slight, and that we now have a “two party system” in little more than name only. Consider the difficulty the present Democratic Party has in articulating any positions different from the Republicans . . . even on the issue of a war which many of us regard as completely illegal in its inception and completely immoral in its conduct. Where’s the “choice”? With passenger rail defunct and the airlines in bankruptcy (and bailing on their pension obligations) where are the voices saying that transportation is just too important and old age security fundamental to a decent society to be left in the hands of simultaneously rapacious and incompetent private corporations? Who is looking at a bankrupt country with a bankrupt economy and saying “folks, this so-called “capitalist” system just isn’t working (except for a small number of capitalists)”?
Where access to information is strictly controlled (where do you get your news about events in Iraq?) and the majority of the population gets what little it has, and what opinions they have, from a half dozen (at most) closely controlled media outlets, institutional authority does find it possible to allow some public dissent. So we get to pontificate on blogs, to an audience of . . . wow . . . maybe thousands, and Bill Mahr and Jon Stewert will get to clown on Comedy Central (how’s that for “creatively marginalized”?) or some barely watched cable channel, and Chomsky can say what he wants (as long as it’s not on television and his audience does not exceed a few tens of thousands), and everyone, even those who should know better, crows about “free speech” in America.
And then there’s the “far more militaristic culture” of pre-war Germany. Well . . . I wasn’t there, so it’s really hard to make a comparison from personal experience. But my experience of America over the past half century is of a country disgustingly, almost rabidly, militaristic. I see a country which cannot provide health car for its own population, cannot protect its own cities from flood, cannot maintain its own civil infrastructure, spending more than all the rest of the world combined on its military. I see a “culture”, particularly in the South, of glorifying militarism, with flags on every pickup, and the unspoken presumption that choosing to kill is a high calling for America’s youth.
To our credit, and there is no small lot of that either, I also see a lot of “hell no, I won’t go” and a widespread, if still not majority, awareness that dropping bombs on women and children is not a noble calling.
Was it all that much different in Germany, a mere 20 years after the carnage of WWI, fought right on their doorstep? What of the constant output of Nazi propaganda condemning the decadence of Berlin, or the “softness” of German society? Were they seeing, and attempting to contain, something other than the “militaristic culture” of Allied and American propaganda? The closest direct experience I have with Germans of my parents and grand parents generation (granted all immigrants) is that they were far less militaristic than most Americans today.
and, just in passing, or closing, or something <g> . . . I don’t think it a bad thing that that any “class” of society does not want to send its kids to war . . . would that all classes felt that way, and acted on their feeling . . .
I don’t want to enter a debate on WWII versus Iraq war, but please, Oui, be careful when you make such statements as “The Germans never razed villages, bombed bridges or were confronted with resistance as the U.S. faces today in Iraq”.
It might be true of the Dutch resistance, which was mainly underground urban intelligence (and very brave), but in France, Yugoslavia, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Poland and especially Russia, they did face strong armed resistance (never heard of the Vercors, of the Russian partisans?) and they did raze villages (never heard of Oradour sur Glane, Lidice?). And it was not only the SS, but the regular Wehrmacht as well.
.
Massacres and
Atrocities Of
World War II
It shows that the SS – Schutzstaffel were involved in many of the retaliations and atrocities on civilians. I tried to differentiate with the regular German Army and occcupation.
In the occupation of the Netherlands, there was indeed a great difference between German forces and nationals from the Ukraine and Georgia. Even an uprising of Georgian troops on Texel, who killed the German forces, believing liberation was nearby.
▼ ▼ ▼
The idea that the Wehrmacht behaved along the rules of war whereas all the atrocities were committed by the SS has been debunked by German historians Hannes Heer and Klaus Naumann ten years ago.
They published a book: The War of Extermination: Crimes of the Wehrmacht 1941-44 (Vernichtungskrieg: Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941-1994, Hannes Heer/Klaus Naumann, Verlag Hamburger Edition, Hamburg, 1995). It was based on the results of extensive research using archives in Germany, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, including a great number of letters and photo albums of former members of the Wehrmacht. The content can be summarised as follows:
The Wehrmacht led a criminal war against civilians in Poland, the Balkans and the Soviet Union, It was seeking to create the “Lebensraum”(living space) for the Germans in the East by exterminating the Jews and the Tzigans, murdering the intelligentsia and enslaving the Slavic population and other “inferior races”.
The Wehrmacht was an integral part of the Nazi regime. Not only the SS and the Gestapo, but also the Wehrmacht, its generals (all of them active members of the Nazi party), thousands of officers and soldiers were active accomplices of the war crimes and genocide.
In total, about 10 million people were killed by the Wehrmacht not in the course of combat, but in mass shootings, executions, and the burning of villages, towns and entire regions.
The results of the research were overwhelmingly approved by experts. They were made accessible to the wide public in a touring exhibit (including 1,400 photographs) which provoked a strong reaction and a lot of indignation.
Wikipedia: Wehrmacht war crimes
Some more documents: The Wehrmacht, the Holocaust, and War Crimes
.
Some Polish massacres were undertaken under Soviet rule of eastern parts of Poland! The debunking debunked. All I know in the Netherlands the atrocities were committed by SS, SD and Gestapo authorities and the Wehrmacht were well trained and disciplined.
The tables turned when, in 1999, similar accusations were made by the magazine Der Spiegel–this time backed by the authority of several historians, research institutes and specialist journals.
In the October 1999 issue of Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, published by the Institute for Contemporary History, the Polish historian Bogdan Musial declared that the exhibit had wrongly classified nine photographs. The photos did show victims of mass executions, but those executed, he maintained, were victims of the Soviet secret police, the NKVD, not the Wehrmacht.
Following the treaty between Stalin and Hitler in 1939, the eastern parts of Poland were occupied by the Soviet army and, on orders from the Kremlin, were politically purged by the NKVD. Following the Wehrmacht surprise offensive against the Soviet Union in early June 1941, the NKVD did not have enough time to deport all of its victims further east, and killed thousands before the arrival of the rapidly advancing German army.
Musial was able to prove that the above-mentioned photographs showed such victims in the prisons yards of Zloczow, Tarnopol and Lemberg. After the arrival of the Wehrmacht, mainly Polish Jews were forced to dig up the corpses before they themselves were shot in the same mass graves. One of the photos shows Jews murdered in a pogrom following the arrival of the German army. However, Musial stressed, Ukrainian nationalists rather than German soldiers were the culprits. He also claimed that other photos had been wrongly classified, but failed to present any sound arguments or proof.
But Goebbels miscalculated. Despite overwhelming evidence of Soviet responsibility, Moscow blamed the Germans, and for the rest of the war Washington and London officially accepted the Soviet countercharge. When the Polish government-in-exile in London demanded an international inquiry, Stalin used this as a pretext to break relations. The Western allies objected but eventually acquiesced. Soon thereafter, the Soviet dictator assembled a group of Polish Communists that returned to Poland with the Red Army in 1944 and formed the nucleus of the postwar government. Stalin’s experience with the Katyn affair may have convinced him that the West, grateful for the Red Army’s contribution to the Allied military effort, would find it hard to confront him over Poland after the war.
… In 1944, President Roosevelt assigned Capt. George Earle, his special emissary to the Balkans, to compile information on Katyn. Earle did so, using contacts in Bulgaria and Romania. He too concluded that the Soviet Union was guilty. FDR rejected Earle’s conclusion, saying that he was convinced of Nazi Germany’s responsibility. The report was suppressed. When Earle requested permission to publish his findings, the President gave him a written order to desist. Earle–who had been a Roosevelt family friend–spent the rest of the war in American Samoa.
▼ ▼ ▼
I don’t see how the fact that 9 pictures (among 1 400!) were wrongly attributing one case of atrocity to the Wehrmacht invalidates the whole research’s results. You cannot honestly infer from it that “the debunking has been debunked”. As far as I know, the credibility of the whole research has not been challenged.
Besides, the Soviet Union responsibility in the Katyn massacre was known decades before the publication of the research results.
IIRC, the photograph flap had no bearing on the research itself (i.e. the historical findings respecting the atrocities of the Wehrmacht) but rather attribution some exhibits used the travelling exhibition on this subject sponsored by tobacco heir Jan-Philipp Reetsma.
Again IIRC, the organizers briefly took the exhibition out of circulation to recheck the photographic material, before reopening it. The historical findings themselves were never at issue.
Of the many comparisons we can make between Germany in the 1930’s and the US at the start of the 21st century–the abolition of civil liberties, the use of propaganda, the promotion of hatred of minorities–the military comparison is pretty absurd. Belief in the use of military force, yes, war crimes, yes, but the Germans demonstrably believed in competence in the field, while the US somehow finds it unnecessary.
Examples are many. The Anschluss, though successful, did not go nearly as smoothly as planned–tanks broke down on the road with distressing frequency. Hitler took a personal interest in the matter, and by the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the panzers were running reliably.
Compare this to Rumsfeld: “You go to war with the army you have . . . ” as though he had not himself chosen the time and date of the war. American troops in Iraq still lack needed armor. It is hard, from a military point of view, to make sense of such casualness. It may be that “failure is not an option,” but in wartime such sloppiness makes it pretty well guarranteed.
It should be noted that by the time we get to the 1940’s, the scale of war was vast. The Iraq war may be equally cruel, but the scale is still much smaller.
Once you accept that the option of an effective occupation was foregone, it then appears that American military incompetence is actually a blessing: The scale of harm will be inhibited. America’s great war plans are already being curtailed by the simple inability to fight.
.
What Bush got wrong about Yalta.
Bush’s cavalier invocations of history for political purposes are not surprising. But for an American president to dredge up ugly old canards about Yalta stretches the boundaries of decency and should draw reprimands (and not only from Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.).
As every schoolchild should know, Roosevelt and Churchill had formed an alliance of necessity with Josef Stalin during World War II. Hardly blind to Stalin’s evil, they nonetheless knew that Soviet forces were indispensable in defeating the Axis powers. “It is permitted in time of grave danger to walk with the devil until you have crossed the bridge,” FDR said, quoting an old Bulgarian proverb. He and Churchill understood, that Stalin would be helping to set war aims and to plan for its aftermath. Victory, after all, carried a price.
▼ ▼ ▼
Augustine is supposed to have described “just war” thus.
“War is Love’s response to a neighbor being threatend by force.”
A bit simplistic, to say the least since it ignores the other player, the aggressor who initiates the conflict; the aggressor who, in the end, is comitting murder in order to defend whatever lie he’s propagating that requires him to attack his fellow humans. But, of course, Augustine is really only describing that it’s okay to hit back, (somewhat different from what his “savior” is on record as saying), and in no way is he really describing the total atrocity that is war. He’s finding a way to legitimately embrace war’s existence, but that’s about it.
I really don’t know much about war except to say that I have the feeling that the more we embrace the idea of “just” war or “legitimate” war or “necessary” war, the further we move away from enlightenment, and the more needless suffering we bring upon ourselves.
I accept the unfortunate proposition that as a species we are simply not civilized nor respectful enough to abandon murderous war as a mechanism for settling disputes, but I strongly feel we should never stop resisting the tendency to embrace the necessity of war, but rather continue striving to make it truly obsolete.
I find that some of the best diaries are “born” out of comments…
It is in the give and take of comments that alot of the really good ideas just appear seemingly out of nowhere.
.
Nazi Party ◊ by Jewish Virtual Library
▼ ▼ ▼
We are an Imperial power. If only we would realize the amount of lives and money we would save if we stand down. During the cold war the corruption of the communist countries led many countries to ask for our help. We forced our help upon others. That threat is gone now. Now we have created a new enemy out of the ashes of 9/11. Basically Al Qaeda is an excuse to rearm. We don’t need 440 billion dollars a year to defeat Al Qaeda and thats probably not even counting the war costs.
Come on, these guys live in caves, whats the real agenda here? Its a scam to feed the military industrial complex. Hype the threat and pig out at the federal trough. Oh and its tax free too, skull and bones baby. Eisenhower knew it was happening that they were going to run things. Bush is now a tool of the military industrial complex aka Halliburton and Cheney. They win. All of us lose.