| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| PBS Show To Argue Allies Bad As Nazis |
| 2008-06-26 |
| MEMBERS of the Greatest Generation - especially those with weak hearts - might want to steer clear of an upcoming PBS documentary that suggests the Allied victory in World War II was "tainted" and questions whether it can even be called a victory. Moreover, the documentary, titled "The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century," asserts that the war could only be won by forming an unholy alliance with a dictator - Joseph Stalin, who was as brutal as the one they were fighting, Adolf Hitler - and by adopting the same "pitiless" and "remorseless" tactics practiced by the enemy. The three-part documentary is a companion to the best-selling book, "The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West" by Harvard and Oxford historian Niall Ferguson. The one-hour Part One of the documentary premieres Monday night at 10 on Ch. 13. The other two parts air the following two Mondays. World War II is the focus of Part Two. His thesis: Instead of looking at the 20th century as having been disrupted by two world wars with periods of relative peace before, between and after them, it is more appropriate to view much of the history of the century as a continuous bloody conflict that was interrupted occasionally for a few short, exhausted catnaps of relative calm. It is an illuminating viewpoint, and Ferguson does an effective job tying all of the century's mass deportations, enslavements, ethnic cleansings and genocides together so that you can't help being won over to his view that the violence of the 20th century was virtually never-ending. But it is Ferguson's revisionist view of the tactics applied by the Allies in World War II that is likely to raise the hackles of those who have always believed in the "necessity" of bombing German and Japanese civilians, culminating in the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to end a war we did not start. "I think it's very hard for those who have imbibed the idea of a 'great generation' that what the Allies did to defeat the Axis was in some measure to adopt totalitarian tactics," Ferguson says in a Q&A on PBS's Web site. "The aim of strategic bombing was . . . in large measure to kill German civilians by destroying the most densely populated parts of the country. And it only really worked when the level of destruction reached apocalyptic levels. It behooves us all to stare this reality in the face, by trying to understand what it was like to be on the receiving end of firestorms like the ones that engulfed Hamburg or Dresden." And once again, it is demonstrated that nothing is sacred - not even World War II. Why, exactly, is PBS supported with taxpayer money? |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #8 Napoleon was once seen as Hitler is now seen. But today, Napoleon is remembered in France as a great French leader. Someday the Germans will remember Hitler in much the same way. Except Hitler was a dickhead corporal. The german field marshals really did the planning. Back in '91 when I was in the US infantry, we almost unanimously agreed that the German army of '40-'42 was the best the world had ever seen. They did things that would really strain the US military of today. They did this with individual initiative and a professional NCO corps. As the casualties mounted and the German army was stretched thin, the paranoia of Hitler filtered down through the ranks. Initiative was stifled. NCOs decision making was replaced with a ridged command structure leading straight to the top. If the German army of '41 was facing us on the Normandy bluffs, the battle would have turned out remarkably different. We can thank the Russians and the mental delusions of Hitler for the victory. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-06-26 23:23 |
| #7 There is a revisionist movement pushing this point because for them, if Iraq pans out as a winner, they're painted in history for the clap trap they are. So the new angle is to disparage the success of WWII with the same narrative that they use now - we're no better than our enemy [not that any one of the punks deems it better to live there than here]. WWII is the contemporary gold standard, so the mission is to debase the standard. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-06-26 21:58 |
| #6 Look to the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp, and the summary executions, for an example of what 'Total War' is all about and how the 'hate America first' crowd would have loved to court martial those guys today. In fact, since there is no statute of limitations on 'murder', those poor bastards probably, rather than be disgusted by these 'revisionist' historians, should be worried. I bleed for the future we are handing over to our children. |
| Posted by: Total War 2008-06-26 20:40 |
| #5 Ironically, someday I have long known, WWII will be looked at much like the Napoleonic Wars are today. Napoleon was once seen as Hitler is now seen. But today, Napoleon is remembered in France as a great French leader. Someday the Germans will remember Hitler in much the same way. There will be other monsters, as there have been already, though most far less memorable. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, etc., etc. Only squishy fools see America as "imperialistic", neither knowing or caring that the beloved and wonderful "Pax Americana" exists only as long as American might. Someday the squishy fools will win, ushering in another age of barbarity and genocide, which they will demand the warriors put a stop to. And if the warriors fail, it will be the squishy fools who feel the tyrant's wrath first of all. Perhaps only then will there be justice, when the squishy fools are given rifles and told to fight or die. And they will die. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-06-26 19:20 |
| #4 My dad navigated B-29s. What we did to Japan with incindiaries equalled or surpassed what we did with nukes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to the Germans. It was barbaric. Anybody who tells you different hasn't studied it. It was also necessary. And that's the one (and to me only) reason they can be called the Greatest Generation; they did what had to be done and they didn't grumble about it. It is good for us and our children to see this and understand it. It may come to this again. Soon. And we need to be prepared for it. If you haven't read The Pity of War, you really haven't thought about the 20th century. So much of that century was set in motion by WWI, a war far too ignored by everyone today. We are about to set in motion a similar set of events, this time encompassing the entire world instead of only the metropoles of the European empires. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-26 18:06 |
| #3 My Dad's division took down part of a concentration camp in April 1945. The guards surrendered. The Americans did not take any of them prisoner. Was that, technically speaking, a "war crime" or "atrocity" or "something bad they shouldn't have done"? Yeah. Was it wrong? Don't think so. "Law" and "justice" are not inevitably the same. Am I bothered by it? No. Was dad bothered by it? Not at the time. Later, I think so; he didn't tell me and I never asked. It upset him to talk about the nasty details of his service, and I didn't want to upset him. Does that mean it doesn't matter who won World War II because they were all (im)morally equivalent? Hell, no. There is a very great moral difference between the side that built and operated the concentration camps and the side that put them out of business. If you are unable to see that, you must either be rooting for the bad guys (Pat Buchanan) or one of them over-edumacated intellectuals who has forgotten common sense (Niall Ferguson). |
| Posted by: Mike 2008-06-26 17:44 |
| #2 Niall Fergusen is an obvious pacifist, besides being a complete fool. Perhaps he needs to go on a VFW speaking tour... |
| Posted by: Muggsy Gling 2008-06-26 17:31 |
| #1 So I guess we rounded up all the "undesirables" too and killed them. Fucking assclowns. It took 1000 bombers dropping hundreds of bombs to take out a large factory. They were lucky if 2% hit the target. Never mind the surrounding area was toast and usually it was safer for the air crews to burn the city down around the factory and it had the added benefit of displacing the workers, soldiers and drained off supplies and material for the war effort. That is why it is called TOTAL WAR. Every aspect of the country is a target. Especially with the technology of the day, it was the best they could do. Why, exactly, is PBS supported with taxpayer money? Because the people holding the tax purse strings for it are socialists and will do everything they can to destroy the old ways so you accept their new ways. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-06-26 17:09 |