Hiltler most definitely could have been negoitiated with...
Posted on 06/10/2005 6:43:15 AM PDT by robowombat
The West rewrites history, too By Alexander Bukh
TOKYO - The issue of revisionist textbooks and what is perceived to be the "whitewashing" of history in Japan has received tremendous attention from regional and international media alike. As a result of numerous geopolitical and domestic factors, not only in Japan but also in its former colonies, the war over what is the correct view of 20th century history in Asia is far from over, as the regional powers present conflicting historical narratives, each one driven by emotional, political and strategic calculations.
At the same time, the Western media, faithful to their long tradition of upholding the rights of the weak and the oppressed, have taken a strong anti-Japanese stance, vigorously condemning Japan for rewriting one of the most shameful parts of its history.
However, few bother to mention that the history of the European phase of World War II was rewritten, and the modified Anglo-Saxon version has been permanently solidified with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
For two years I have led seminars in international relations at one of the most prestigious social science educational institutions in Europe. Twice around May 9, the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Russia, I had the chance to pose the question, "How was World War II in Europe won?". This to four groups of first-year undergraduate students representing the intellectual elite of Western European youth.
I received varying answers; some brought up the role of the British Air Force as the major factor, some talked about the bravery of the French Resistance, and some explained that the landing in Normandy led by the US had dealt the decisive blow to the Nazi war machine. The latter argument was usually accompanied by a slightly embarrassed smile, as these days it is considered politically incorrect to talk about the US in favorable terms, especially in progressive intellectual circles in the United Kingdom.
Not surprisingly, none of the students mentioned the Soviet Union as having played some kind of role in the victory over Nazi Germany.
This is a perfect reflection of the dominant historical narrative regarding World War II that is taught in Western European and probably also American schools and is shared by the majority of the population in those countries. The West won the Cold War, and consequently the victory of the Soviet Union 60 years ago has become the Allied victory, while the contribution and the sacrifice of the Soviet people have been conveniently omitted from memory.
During the May 9 celebrations a couple of weeks ago, the mainstream English-language media presented the anniversary as a highly controversial issue, focusing on the Baltic states that were occupied by the Soviet Union and the Eastern European states that suffered under the yoke of communism for more than four decades.
True, the Soviet victory could be a controversial issue for these nations that were liberated against their own will, annexed to the Soviet Union or had one oppressive regime replaced with another. However, the major newspapers, magazines and television channels - following the long tradition of siding with the victims of history - completely forgot that for Western Europe, the Soviet victory meant only one thing: regaining or preserving its freedom, and, ironically, democracy.
Unfortunately, very few among the general population in Western Europe and the US seem to know that historians do not debate whether the war was won by the Soviet or Anglo-Saxon effort, but on how long the Soviet victory would have been postponed if the landing at the beach in Normandy, France, had not taken place. How many know that at the time of the celebrated landing, in June 1944, four-fifths of the German forces were on the Eastern front, trying in vain to stop the mounting Red Army offensive? How many of those Western European international relations or history students know that 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in this war, compared to the 295,000 Americans killed mostly in the war against Japan and the 380,000 British civilians and soldiers killed on both fronts? How many Western school textbooks teach about the strong pro-Nazi sentiments in Europe and the US, the collaboration with the Nazis and the indifference with which news about the mass killings of Jews, Slavs and Romanians was treated in the US and the UK?
These white spots in the narrative are not due to the lack of interest or the intellectual abilities of the people, but result from the way the memory of the war has been constructed and presented to the population by the governments, media and other national and international institutions that participate in the broadly defined education process.
For me and numerous other ex-citizens of the ex-Soviet Union, the issue of this blunt and self-righteous hypocrisy is not only a matter of historical accuracy, but also a deeply personal issue.
Russia's victory in the Great Patriotic War, as World War II is known in that country, was probably the most important national celebration during Soviet times, and the "historical memory" related to the "great victory of the Soviet people" has been hammered into the minds of the citizens of the Soviet Union starting from kindergarten. I spent only the first third of my life in the Soviet Union, but the grandiose parades, the never-ending stories about heroes who sacrificed their lives on the front, the patriotic war movies, the songs ... all these memories are still very vivid in my mind.
A couple of decades later, with great disappointment, I and many other ex-citizens of the former Soviet Union have learned that many of the heroes we worshipped did not exist at all. We have discovered that many of those so-called heroes actually were not killed by the Nazis, but died at the hands of the NKVD (Soviet police) or as the result of poor strategy on behalf of the Soviet generals. We have realized that the movies were just movies, made to order for the party-led effort to present the war in a heroic light, and many of the songs were composed much later as part of the same propaganda machine.
At the same time, for me and many others of the second/third generation, the war also occupies totally different memories. It lives in the stories of our parents, stories about destroyed childhoods, about hunger and fear, about bombers with swastikas and devastated cities and villages, about relatives and parents leaving for the front never to come back. It lives in old black-and-white photos of people who look so familiar and so dear but whom we never had the chance to meet. It lives in old boxes full of medals that bear magic inscriptions - "For Stalingrad", "For Defense of Moscow", "For Berlin" - and official Soviet telegrams on old yellowing paper with only two lines: " We regret to inform you, that your husband/son has fallen in the battle for ..."
Might is right as the old saying goes, and this can be said about historical narrative as well. The Soviet Union has disappeared from the face of the Earth and with it all the related historical memories that do not fit into the self-indulgent historical narrative of the West. At the same time, the reasons for the fierce criticism of Japan's historical revisionism on behalf of the Western media are unclear to me. Is it because it brings up uncomfortable memories about the rewriting and "whitewashing" of history at home or the colonial policies of the Western powers that were hardly more humane than those of imperial Japan? Or is it because it fits perfectly into the image of the cunning and bloodthirsty samurai who, along with the exotic and obedient geisha, has dominated Western perceptions of Japan?
Alexander Bukh is a research fellow at Hosei University, Tokyo, and a PhD candidate in international relations, London School of Economics. He has worked and studied in Japan for nine years and in 2000 earned a master's degree in international law from Tokyo University.
And he condemns the west of pumping up their victory?
Ahem. Bullpappy. Moral equivalency was always one of the best weapons in the Soviet arsenal: like spider venom, it paralyzes its prey before it is devoured.
He doesn't deny the tyranny of the Soviet Union, or the Nazis. He merely tells the truth about WWII, and about Western attitudes toward the Nazis and Western colonial policies.
I didn't read it that way. He condemned the West for forgetting the Soviets role in that victory.
I am forced to wonder, did we take the wrong side in the war? Hitler was BAD, but wasn't Stalin worse?
I understand that many Germans couldn't figure out why we weren't supporting them in their struggle against the Communists.
Could Hitler have been negotiated with? Would he have agreed to leave Europe alone for assistance in defeating the Soviets??? If FDR's administration had not been so PRO-COMMUNIST, would we have defeated them 50 years earlier and saved 60,000,000 lives or so?
Unfortunately, very few among the general population in Western Europe and the US seem to know that historians do not debate whether the war was won by the Soviet or Anglo-Saxon effort, but on how long the Soviet victory would have been postponed if the landing at the beach in Normandy, France, had not taken place. How many know that at the time of the celebrated landing, in June 1944, four-fifths of the German forces were on the Eastern front, trying in vain to stop the mounting Red Army offensive? How many of those Western European international relations or history students know that 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in this war, compared to the 295,000 Americans killed mostly in the war against Japan and the 380,000 British civilians and soldiers killed on both fronts? How many Western school textbooks teach about the strong pro-Nazi sentiments in Europe and the US, the collaboration with the Nazis and the indifference with which news about the mass killings of Jews, Slavs and Romanians was treated in the US and the UK?
There's a very big difference.
The Russians beat the Germans but the Soviets attempted to portray it as a victory of Communism over Nazism - which was only incidentally true.
The West successfully stood by while the Russians and the Germans annihilated each other, then entered the fray and limited the Russian victory to Eastern Europe. But it greatly exagerated its military role - the the victory of freedom over tyranny which was only incidentally true.
any fool knows that modern wars are fought on logistics. while it is trued the russians supplied their own blood. the author leaves out the massive aid the US sent to the soviet union through murmansk and vladavostok. It was something like 100 billion in current US dollars.
The Soviet-Nazi war was fought for control of ALL Europe...and, if there had been a clear winner, for world dominance. The damage done to the Soviet Union was neither incidental nor inadvertant. This was the strategy of the Western powers from the outset.
I have no problem with that. The vast size and scope of the Soviet-German war is as unknown as the massive military operations on the Eastern Front in the First World War to most US citizens.
I understand that many Germans couldn't figure out why we weren't supporting them in their struggle against the Communists.
Could Hitler have been negotiated with?
I see your tagline but I am forced to ask: are you serious?
A sizeable portion of those 27 million were killed by Stalin himself, through both internal purges and by the use of battle tactics that forestalled the death of the regime but were cruelly wasteful of soldiers' lives.
Ping!
I think this is very much not true. Had the Nazis conquered the USSR, they would have controlled all of Europe and the Middle East. With all these human and natural resources under the control of the undeniably efficient Germans, they could quickly have built a military that would have been impossible for the British and eventually the Americans to resist.
Especially when Japan would probably have been in control of everything over to Oz and India.
USSR, on the other hand, would have found mounting an actual transcontinental invasion almost impossible. A superior navy could blockade USSR quite easily, as their ports are few and often blocked by ice.
In addition, the Commie system was much less efficient than the modified free-market system the Nazis allowed.
I think the Nazis, in the early 40s, were a much greater long-term threat than the Commies, who could never have been a true military threat to America without ICBMs (which in 1941 nobody knew were just around the corner).
Congressman Billybob
Hiltler most definitely could have been negoitiated with...
Absolute power corrupts all. If we sided with Hitler he would have been much worse later on.
The regime was incompetent in many ways - WWII was preceded by the annihilation of the officer corp - but it was the fate of the country which was at stake. Had the Russians lost at Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad they would have accompanied the Jews to the ovens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.