Great overview of alternate outcomes of WW2 and why those who blame Churchill for the war are not credible. Subordinating the UK to Nazi Germany was not a viable or moral option.
The most famous historiography fight that I can think of in the US is the revision 'Lost Cause' from American history and a general re-analysis of the Civil War. I think many in America are aware that this has changed, but I think citizens should learn more about how we view history changes over time.
I wish more of the "mainstream consensus" would reckon with how awful the USSR was. Up to 1933, it was clearly the worst regime in the world (worse than fascist Italy, by far), and after Hitler took power in 1933 it was still the second-worst regime in the world. Maybe there was no way to avoid having the USSR continue and continue dominating Europe until 1989, but that ought to somehow be included in the calculus.
Just to be 100% clear, given the times we live in, it is a wonderful thing that the Allies managed to destroy the Nazi regime - I just wonder if FDR and his socialist cronies really had to be so indulgent about the foibles of that monster, Uncle Joe Stalin.
I would argue that even in 1940, the USSR is a worse regime than Nazi Germany; the Great Purge and the Moscow Trials were vastly more deadly than Kristallnacht, and the USSR treated the Poles as badly as Germany did.
It's really not until the "Final Solution" - which is in 1942 - that Nazi Germany manages to pull ahead in the "evilness" competition.
I wish it were wrong to say that most Americans, French, and British would not have supported a world war to stop the Nazi genocide against Jews and others. I wish it were wrong to say that substantial numbers of Americans had not wished the US had joined the Nazi state in a war against communism — and that a small, but substantial, number of Americans still feel the same way whether or not they realize that supporting the Nazi aims in Soviet territories would have meant supporting the Nazi holocaust against the Jews. Unfortunately, I believe it is correct to believe that those US and British leaders who led their states to counter Hitler did so out of colonial/imperial considerations. I think many Jews (and the state of Israel) do understand this quite well, though the conclusions that develop out of this understanding can be quite divergent.
Staring down such brutal facts can lead to an enthusiastic or reluctant endorsement of Israeli genocidal policies and atrocities against Palestinian Arabs. Or it can lead to an idealistic commitment to a universalized principle of “Never Again” which is surely what propels so many Jews to oppose genocide even (or especially) when it is being committed by the Jewish state (which it does partly because of, and partly despite, the fact of the Jewish state’s dependent client status with regard to its imperial overlord.) The latter position is in alignment with the progressive edge of liberalism which struggles (and often flails) to build not just legal and institutional structures that bend history toward justice, but also the types of character and habits of mind that can recognize (a la John Lennon) that peace and justice may indeed be imaginary in a dreamlike way, but that imagination need not merely be insubstantial fantasy but can also be the basis of intelligible blueprints, plans, practices, and constructions that may not produce perfection, but which still may inspire a future of even more hopeful and decent dreams along with the courage to try to “realize” them.
I do not see what Britain gained by fighting Hitler in the defense of Poland, Greece and France but I suppose different minds may vary. The United States and Britain also signed a pledge to not take territory as a result of the war from the Atlantic charter. WWII, for Britain, preceded the systemic dismantling of the British Empire starting with India but clearly not ending there. While I certainly agree that neither the US nor Britain (nor France or any other country) would not have went to war with Germany to stop Hitler's maltreatment of his own citizens, even when it rose to the level of genocide against Jewish people, the Holocaust was only possible through a war of conquest throughout Europe and Britain and the US did oppose Hitler's wars of aggression and I do not think they did it 'just' for colonial/imperial considerations. The US, in particular, was not trying to build an empire or colonies by fighting in Europe.
Europe was then and is now a major source of trade for the US, BUT you’re absolutely right that a purely cynical view of the US (in terms of both popular culture and elite strategists) does not give a satisfactory argument for why the US didn’t simply abandon Europe to a contest between England and The USSR on one side and Nazi Germany on the other while the US focused on dismantling the Japanese empire, securing its position in the Pacific, and gaining as much access to Chinese resources and markets as possible.
Why did we fight in Europe? Part of the answer was surely because our leaders (and/or “we” the people — after a little persuasion) thought we could. But that’s not an entirely satisfactory explanation for a number of reasons including the fact that it might be a little TOO cynical.
IF… I wanted to take the purely cynical position though, I would probably try to argue that the US saw an advantage in NOT letting either the USSR OR Germany emerge as the dominant power in Europe after the war. Whichever side emerged victorious would then be able to set the terms for US trade involvement in continental Europe. By fighting on one side or the other, I would argue, the US would be setting itself up to have a significant role in post war European affairs after reconstruction. I suppose I could then argue that allying itself with Germany to destroy the Soviet Union would have also forced the US to wage war against English speaking Great Britain which would have been quite a difficult position even for the most cynical of administrations (never mind the sophisticated nature of the English language propaganda resources commanded by London).
The United States was already a colonial empire before WWII with holdings in the Pacific including Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii etc, but you are right that the US never contemplated controlling an international colonial empire on the model of England or France — and was in fact quite eager to help dismantle this empires to open them up to US influence especially on the Pacific rim.
The link explores “Grand Area Planning” in the US that commenced with the beginnings of hostilities in the early 1940s with the US anticipating (correctly) that it would emerge from the rubble largely intact and as the sole world superpower. Of course, after the war Grand Area planning was continued and presented as part of the strategy of containment direct at the Soviet Union.
Too much cynicism is corrosive. Too much cynicism neglects the reality that there ARE ‘better angels’ of our human nature. Though such are often obscured and compromised by pragmatic considerations of self interest and power, humans can be empathic, cooperative, and altruistic on both the individual level and on the levels of institutions and mass action. On the other hand, those better angels are sometimes voices so “still and small” they are too easily ignored and dismissed by those liable to give into despair.
The reading is a little dry, but acerbic Noam Chomsky has probably dozens of talks on U-tube dating back to the 1970s. He first got my serious attention in the 1980s when he was going around giving talks pointing out that US foreign aid was not closely linked at all to supporting democracy and human rights, but was highly correlated with regimes that routinely massacred or tortured their own populations (Egypt, Brazil, Iran under the Shah, and numerous other national security states in Latin America.
I have so little respect for Noam Chomsky that I’m not going to bother reading anything related to him
I do wonder what the whole point of your first post was if you are going to basically concede it was wrong so quickly.
There is value in questioning the conventional narrative surrounding WWII. Cooper and Carlson aren’t wrong that the Allies brought out a fair share of myth making around WWII. Surely some of that should be deconstructed and revised. But I’d like some truly thoughtful discussion not just reflexive dismissal. Which is what Chomsky would provide.
My original point is that a significant number of Americans would have supported a war against the Soviet Union and not simply in spite of the fact that would have meant allying with Nazi Germany. A small but significant number of Americans still feel that way.
Great overview of alternate outcomes of WW2 and why those who blame Churchill for the war are not credible. Subordinating the UK to Nazi Germany was not a viable or moral option.
The most famous historiography fight that I can think of in the US is the revision 'Lost Cause' from American history and a general re-analysis of the Civil War. I think many in America are aware that this has changed, but I think citizens should learn more about how we view history changes over time.
I wish more of the "mainstream consensus" would reckon with how awful the USSR was. Up to 1933, it was clearly the worst regime in the world (worse than fascist Italy, by far), and after Hitler took power in 1933 it was still the second-worst regime in the world. Maybe there was no way to avoid having the USSR continue and continue dominating Europe until 1989, but that ought to somehow be included in the calculus.
Just to be 100% clear, given the times we live in, it is a wonderful thing that the Allies managed to destroy the Nazi regime - I just wonder if FDR and his socialist cronies really had to be so indulgent about the foibles of that monster, Uncle Joe Stalin.
I would argue that even in 1940, the USSR is a worse regime than Nazi Germany; the Great Purge and the Moscow Trials were vastly more deadly than Kristallnacht, and the USSR treated the Poles as badly as Germany did.
It's really not until the "Final Solution" - which is in 1942 - that Nazi Germany manages to pull ahead in the "evilness" competition.
I wish it were wrong to say that most Americans, French, and British would not have supported a world war to stop the Nazi genocide against Jews and others. I wish it were wrong to say that substantial numbers of Americans had not wished the US had joined the Nazi state in a war against communism — and that a small, but substantial, number of Americans still feel the same way whether or not they realize that supporting the Nazi aims in Soviet territories would have meant supporting the Nazi holocaust against the Jews. Unfortunately, I believe it is correct to believe that those US and British leaders who led their states to counter Hitler did so out of colonial/imperial considerations. I think many Jews (and the state of Israel) do understand this quite well, though the conclusions that develop out of this understanding can be quite divergent.
Staring down such brutal facts can lead to an enthusiastic or reluctant endorsement of Israeli genocidal policies and atrocities against Palestinian Arabs. Or it can lead to an idealistic commitment to a universalized principle of “Never Again” which is surely what propels so many Jews to oppose genocide even (or especially) when it is being committed by the Jewish state (which it does partly because of, and partly despite, the fact of the Jewish state’s dependent client status with regard to its imperial overlord.) The latter position is in alignment with the progressive edge of liberalism which struggles (and often flails) to build not just legal and institutional structures that bend history toward justice, but also the types of character and habits of mind that can recognize (a la John Lennon) that peace and justice may indeed be imaginary in a dreamlike way, but that imagination need not merely be insubstantial fantasy but can also be the basis of intelligible blueprints, plans, practices, and constructions that may not produce perfection, but which still may inspire a future of even more hopeful and decent dreams along with the courage to try to “realize” them.
I do not see what Britain gained by fighting Hitler in the defense of Poland, Greece and France but I suppose different minds may vary. The United States and Britain also signed a pledge to not take territory as a result of the war from the Atlantic charter. WWII, for Britain, preceded the systemic dismantling of the British Empire starting with India but clearly not ending there. While I certainly agree that neither the US nor Britain (nor France or any other country) would not have went to war with Germany to stop Hitler's maltreatment of his own citizens, even when it rose to the level of genocide against Jewish people, the Holocaust was only possible through a war of conquest throughout Europe and Britain and the US did oppose Hitler's wars of aggression and I do not think they did it 'just' for colonial/imperial considerations. The US, in particular, was not trying to build an empire or colonies by fighting in Europe.
Europe was then and is now a major source of trade for the US, BUT you’re absolutely right that a purely cynical view of the US (in terms of both popular culture and elite strategists) does not give a satisfactory argument for why the US didn’t simply abandon Europe to a contest between England and The USSR on one side and Nazi Germany on the other while the US focused on dismantling the Japanese empire, securing its position in the Pacific, and gaining as much access to Chinese resources and markets as possible.
Why did we fight in Europe? Part of the answer was surely because our leaders (and/or “we” the people — after a little persuasion) thought we could. But that’s not an entirely satisfactory explanation for a number of reasons including the fact that it might be a little TOO cynical.
IF… I wanted to take the purely cynical position though, I would probably try to argue that the US saw an advantage in NOT letting either the USSR OR Germany emerge as the dominant power in Europe after the war. Whichever side emerged victorious would then be able to set the terms for US trade involvement in continental Europe. By fighting on one side or the other, I would argue, the US would be setting itself up to have a significant role in post war European affairs after reconstruction. I suppose I could then argue that allying itself with Germany to destroy the Soviet Union would have also forced the US to wage war against English speaking Great Britain which would have been quite a difficult position even for the most cynical of administrations (never mind the sophisticated nature of the English language propaganda resources commanded by London).
The United States was already a colonial empire before WWII with holdings in the Pacific including Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii etc, but you are right that the US never contemplated controlling an international colonial empire on the model of England or France — and was in fact quite eager to help dismantle this empires to open them up to US influence especially on the Pacific rim.
https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1019&context=classracecorporatepower
The link explores “Grand Area Planning” in the US that commenced with the beginnings of hostilities in the early 1940s with the US anticipating (correctly) that it would emerge from the rubble largely intact and as the sole world superpower. Of course, after the war Grand Area planning was continued and presented as part of the strategy of containment direct at the Soviet Union.
Too much cynicism is corrosive. Too much cynicism neglects the reality that there ARE ‘better angels’ of our human nature. Though such are often obscured and compromised by pragmatic considerations of self interest and power, humans can be empathic, cooperative, and altruistic on both the individual level and on the levels of institutions and mass action. On the other hand, those better angels are sometimes voices so “still and small” they are too easily ignored and dismissed by those liable to give into despair.
The reading is a little dry, but acerbic Noam Chomsky has probably dozens of talks on U-tube dating back to the 1970s. He first got my serious attention in the 1980s when he was going around giving talks pointing out that US foreign aid was not closely linked at all to supporting democracy and human rights, but was highly correlated with regimes that routinely massacred or tortured their own populations (Egypt, Brazil, Iran under the Shah, and numerous other national security states in Latin America.
I have so little respect for Noam Chomsky that I’m not going to bother reading anything related to him
I do wonder what the whole point of your first post was if you are going to basically concede it was wrong so quickly.
There is value in questioning the conventional narrative surrounding WWII. Cooper and Carlson aren’t wrong that the Allies brought out a fair share of myth making around WWII. Surely some of that should be deconstructed and revised. But I’d like some truly thoughtful discussion not just reflexive dismissal. Which is what Chomsky would provide.
My original point is that a significant number of Americans would have supported a war against the Soviet Union and not simply in spite of the fact that would have meant allying with Nazi Germany. A small but significant number of Americans still feel that way.