Figure 1.- |
|
The standard view of World War II is of a great crusade against tyranny and totalitarianism in which Britain and her Dominions and the United States fought and defeated the Axis dictators (NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan) and in the process saved Western Civilization. Here we would not include the Soviet regime as part of the crusade against tyranny, but would include the valiant Soviet people. The great success of the Allied coalition is noy only did the Allies defeat the Axis countries, but they suceeded in planting the germ of liberal democracy in their former enemies. This is the assessment of the great majority of historians. Of course history as Göring ponted out is commonly written by the winners. What is not common is that the citizens of the defeated Axis countries uniformily approved of the reforms opposed on their countries. There are historians on both the left and right who offer disenting view. Most that we have noted are idealogues who are guided more by their ideological proclivities than a dispasioned assessment of historical facts.
The standard view of World War II is of a great crusade against tyranny and totalitarianism in which Britain and her Dominions and the United States fought and defeated the Axis dictators (NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan) and in the process saved Western Civilization. Here we would not include the Soviet regime as part of the crusade against tyranny, but would include the valiant Soviet people. The great success of the Allied coalition is noy only did the Allies defeat the Axis countries, but they suceeded in planting the germ of liberal democracy in their former enemies. This is the assessment of the great majority of historians. Of course history as Göring ponted out is commonly written by the winners. What is not common is that the citizens of the defeated Axis countries uniformily approved of the reforms opposed on their countries.
There are historians on both the left and right who offer disenting view. Most that we have noted are idealogues who are guided more by their ideological proclivities than a dispasioned assessment of historical facts.
A translation of the introduction to Jacques Pauwels book reads, "World War II, an American crusade for the defense of freedom and democracy? Because winners write history, it is this version which has beem taught since 1945 on both sides of Atlantic. While we are preparing to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the surrender (the book was written before 2005), Jacques Pauwels, proofs at hand, reveals the myth of
“liberation”. In United States, Hitler was for long considered as an excelllent partner in business but in a unpredicted war, alliances are formed against “bad ennemies” with “bad allies.” D-Day which came very late on the 6th of June 1944 will bring from this WWII a fantastic financial bargain for USA. In freeing a part of Europe from fascists for then domineering it economically, all the conditions are unified in 1945 for beginning a very long Cold War."
Pauwels in his book basically sets up a straw case and then dismantels it. Basically he is saying that America engagement in World war II was not an idealistic, disinterested campaign against tyranny. Of course only children who belive in Santa Clause have views like this in the first place. Great nations have ideologies and are influenced by those ideologies, but they also have to act in the national interest. Thus America's participation in the World War II was based on the simple fact that NAZI Germany's domination of Europe and Imperial Japan's domination of Asia was a thret to America. This practical motivation does not diminish the sacrifice America made or the debt Europeans owe to America in that the United States saw their independence as in America's own best interest. Pauwels carefully selects his facts to support his view rather than forming his views from the available facts. A good example is his charge that in America "Hitler was for long considered as an excelllent partner in business". The fact is that in a free enterprise economy, businessmen are free to do business with who they choose. Thus there were men like Henry Ford (a vicious anti-Semite) who did business with Hitler. (Ford also did business with Stalin.) Many other American corporations did do business with Hitler. That of course does not mean that the American Government and the American peopke approved of Hitler. Far from it. President Roosevelt from the very beginning saw the dangers posed by Hitler and the evil in the NAZI regime. American public opinion nerver approved of Hitler, especially after the book burnings early in the NAZI era. Hitler's unpopularity grew as the NAZI Jew bating intensified and then as the NAZIs began to threaten the peace of Europe. There are even more instances of European businessmen doing business with the NAZIs. And unlike the American Government, European Governments attempted to placate and appease Hitler and the NAZIs. Not to mention the colaborators and Quizlings after the War began. Here Pauwels would be better served by looking at the examples of cooperasting with the NAZIs closer to home, especially Vichy.
Pauwels complains that D-Day "came late". Well it did, but what was the alternative? Does Pauwels believe that the Allies should have invaded earlier when the invasion probably would have failed? He should read about Dieppe. What would have been the fate of Belgium and France had this occurred?
Then he describes how America benefitted by domineering Europe economically. Pauwels needs a lesson in economics and symantics. The United States did not exploit Western Europe economically after the Allied victory. This is what the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe. America through the Marshall Plan helped the European economies not only revive, but build economies that provided a more comfortable life style than before the War. In this regard the United States also supported the steps toward European economic integration including the Treaty of Rome which lead to the European Union. This is not the policies of a domineering, explotive power. What really is at play in the Pauwels book is that the European left has never liked America and free enterprise and that the fact that Ametrica saved their countries is a continuing bitter pill to swallow.
Pat Buccanan argues that America fought the wrong war. That Stlain and Soviet Communism was the real threat. He of course hones in on Yalta as a betrayal to Poland and the other countries of Eastern Eyeope. He suggests that Yalta was as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. He questions the veneration of Churchill and Roosevelt who he claims secretly ceded Eastern Europe Stalin and Soviet tyranny. Buccanan fray into international relations is both poorly informed and cloded by his fervent anti-Communism. Allied cooperation with Stalin was simply hard headed power politics. The simpler fact is that in 1940after the defeat of France, the Axis powers and the Soviets held the clear ballance of power. The british Army had been defeated and stripped of its arms. The American Army did not even exist in any real terms. The tactic simnce time immoral in similar situations is to divide your enemies and defeat each in detail. This is precisely what the Allies did, or rather what Hitler did for them when he attaked the Soviet Union (June 1941). Buccanan argues that Hitler was the greatest danger. This is, however, so obviously untrue that it barely seems necessary to discuss. Hitler was a meglomanic who actually wanted a war. Stalin on the other hand while willing to go to war, did not see war as the supre activity of man. Stalin while willing to attack small mations, was not willing to begin a world war. In addition, Stalin did mot have access to as strong a military or as skilled engineers to develop weapns in 1940 that could threaten America. Clearly World War II for America wasthe fight war at the right time.
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to Main World War II page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Satellite sites]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]