OMNI WORLD WAR II—THE “GOOD WAR”?—NEWSLETTER #1. May 17, 2013. Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace and Justice.
My blog:
War Department/Peace Department
War Department/Peace Department
Newsletters
Index:
“Only
one war in my lifetime - the Second World War - has retained any vestige of
moral core. Yet, even that one was contaminated by war culture on the
"good" side.” Patricia Hynes.
Contents #1
War Against Germany
Pauwels,
Myths of the Good War
Wood,
Worshipping the Myths of WWII
Hynes, Good
to Bad War
Baker, For
Pacifism (Dick)
Roberts, US
Soldiers and French Women
War Against Japan
Roland Worth , US
Embargo of Japan and Pearl Harbor
ICE Case
Study, the Road to Pearl Harbor
Resister
Hirabayashi v. US
Dick, Forgiveness , Japan and US
MYTHS OF WWII
The
Myth of the Good War: America
in World War II By Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels
Global Research, February 09, 2010
60
Years Ago, February 13-14, 1945: Why was Dresden Destroyed
9 February 2010
In the night of February 13-14, 1945, the ancient and beautiful
capital of Saxony, Dresden ,
was attacked three times, twice by the RAF and once by the USAAF, the United
States Army Air Force, in an operation involving well over 1,000 bombers. The
consequences were catastrophic, as the historical city centre was incinerated
and between 25,000 and 40,000 people lost their lives.[1] Dresden was not an important industrial or
military centre and therefore not a target worthy of the considerable and unusual
common American and British effort involved in the raid. The city was not
attacked as retribution for earlier German bombing raids on cities such as Rotterdam and Coventry ,
either. In revenge for the destruction of these cities, bombed ruthlessly by
the Luftwaffe in 1940, Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne and countless other German
towns big and small had already paid dearly in 1942, 1943, and 1944.
Furthermore, by the beginning of 1945, the Allied commanders knew perfectly
well that even the most ferocious bombing raid would not succeed in
“terrorizing [the Germans] into submission,”[2] so that it is not realistic to
ascribe this motive to the planners of the operation. The bombing of Dresden , then, seems to have been a senseless slaughter,
and looms as an even more terrible undertaking than the atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ,
which is at least supposed to have led to the capitulation of Japan .
In recent times, however,
the bombing of countries and of cities has almost become an everyday occurrence,
rationalized not only by our political leaders but also presented by our media
as an effective military undertaking and as a perfectly legitimate means to
achieve supposedly worthwhile objectives. In this
context, even the terrible attack on Dresden has recently been rehabilitated by
a British historian, Frederick Taylor, who argues that the huge destruction
wreaked on the Saxon city was not intended by the planners of the attack, but
was the unexpected result of a combination of unfortunate circumstances,
including perfect weather conditions and hopelessly inadequate German air
defenses.[3] However, Taylor’s claim is contradicted by a fact that he himself
refers to in his book, namely, that approximately 40 American “heavies” strayed
from the flight path and ended up dropping their bombs on Prague instead of
Dresden.[4] If everything had gone according to plan, the destruction in
Dresden would surely have been even bigger than it already was. It is thus
obvious that an unusually high degree of destruction had been intended. More
serious is Taylor ’s insistence that Dresden did constitute a
legitimate target, since it was not only an important military centre but also
a first-rate turntable for rail traffic as well as a major industrial city,
where countless factories and workshops produced all sorts of militarily
important equipment. A string of facts, however, indicate that these
“legitimate” targets hardly played a role in the calculations of the planners
of the raid. First, the only truly significant military installation, the
Luftwaffe airfield a few kilometres to the north of the city, was not attacked.
Second, the presumably crucially important railway station was not marked as a
target by the British “Pathfinder” planes that guided the bombers. Instead, the
crews were instructed to drop their bombs on the inner city, situated to the
north of the railway station.[5] Consequently, even though the Americans did
bomb the station and countless people perished in it, the facility suffered
relatively little structural damage, so little, in fact, that it was again able
to handle trains transporting troops within days of the operation.[6] Third,
the great majority of Dresden’s militarily important industries were not
located downtown but in the suburbs, where no bombs were dropped, at least not
deliberately.[7]
It cannot be denied that Dresden, like any other major German city, contained militarily
important industrial installations, and that at least some of these
installations were located in the inner city and were therefore wiped out in
the raid, but this does not logically lead to the conclusion that the attack
was planned for this purpose. Hospitals and churches were also destroyed, and
numerous Allied POWs who happened to be in the city were killed, but nobody
argues that the raid was organized to bring that about. Similarly, a number of
Jews and members of Germany’s anti-Nazi resistance, awaiting deportation and/or
execution, were able to escape from prison during the chaos caused by the
bombing,[8] but no one claims that this was the objective of the raid. There is
no logical reason, then, to conclude that the destruction of an unknown number
of industrial installations of greater or lesser military importance was the
raison d’être of the raid. The destruction of Dresden ’s industry – like the liberation of a
handful of Jews – was nothing more than an unplanned “by-product” of the
operation.
It is frequently suggested, also by Taylor , that the bombing of the Saxon capital
was intended to facilitate the advance of the Red Army. The Soviets themselves
allegedly asked their western partners during the Yalta Conference of February
4 to 11, 1945, to weaken the German resistance on the eastern front by means of
air raids. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that confirms such
allegations. The possibility of Anglo-American air raids on targets in eastern
Germany was indeed discussed at Yalta, but during these talks the Soviets
expressed the concern that their own lines might be hit by the bombers, so they
requested that the RAF and USAAF would not operate too far to the east.[9] (The
Soviets’ fear of being hit by what is now called “friendly fire” was not
unwarranted, as was demonstrated during the raid on Dresden itself, when a
considerable number of planes mistakenly bombed Prague, situated about as far
from Dresden as the Red Army lines were.) It was in this context that a Soviet
general by the name of Antonov expressed a general interest in “air attacks
that would impede enemy movements,” but this can hardly be interpreted as a
request to mete out to the Saxon capital – which, incidentally, he did not
mention at all – or to any other German city the kind of treatment that Dresden
received on February 13-14. Neither at Yalta ,
nor at any other occasion, did the Soviets ask their Western Allies for the
kind of air support that presumably materialized in the form of the
obliteration of Dresden .
Moreover, they never gave their approval to the plan to bomb Dresden, as is
also often claimed.[10] In any case, even if the Soviets would have asked for
such assistance from the air, it is extremely unlikely that their allies would
have responded by immediately unleashing the mighty fleet of bombers that did
in fact attack Dresden.
In order to understand why this is so, we have to take a close
look at inter-Allied relations in early 1945. In mid- to late January, the
Americans were still involved in the final convulsions of the “Battle of the Bulge,” an unexpected German
counter-offensive on the western front which had caused them great
difficulties. The Americans, British, and Canadians had not yet crossed the
Rhine, had not even reached the western banks of that river, and were still
separated from Berlin
by more than 500 kilometers. On the eastern front, meanwhile, the Red Army had
launched a major offensive on January 12 and advanced rapidly to within 100
kilometers of the German capital. The resulting likelihood that the Soviets
would not only take Berlin , but penetrate deep
into Germany ’s
western half before the war ended, greatly perturbed many American and British
military and political leaders. Is it realistic to believe that, under those
circumstances, Washington and London were eager to enable the Soviets to
achieve even greater progress? Even if Stalin had asked for Anglo-American
assistance from the air, Churchill and Roosevelt might have provided some token
assistance, but would never have launched the massive and unprecedented
combined RAF-USAAF operation that the bombing of Dresden revealed itself to be. Moreover, attacking
Dresden meant
sending hundreds of big bombers more than 2,000 kilometers through enemy
airspace, approaching the lines of the Red Army so closely that they would run
the risk of dropping their bombs by mistake on the Soviets or being fired at by
Soviet anti-aircraft artillery. Could Churchill or Roosevelt be expected to
invest such huge human and material resources and to run such risks in an
operation that would make it easier for the Red Army to take Berlin
and possibly reach the Rhine before they did?
Absolutely not. The American-British political and military leaders were
undoubtedly of the opinion that the Red Army was already advancing fast enough.
Towards the end of January 1945, Roosevelt and Churchill
prepared to travel to Yalta
for a meeting with Stalin. They had asked for such a meeting because they
wanted to make binding agreements about postwar Germany before the end of the
hostilities. In the absence of such agreements, the military realities in the
field would determine who would control which parts of Germany, and it looked
very much as if, by the time the Nazis would finally capitulate, the Soviets
would be in control of most of Germany and thus be able to unilaterally
determine that country’s political, social, and economic future. For such a
unilateral course of action, Washington and London themselves had created a
fateful precedent, namely when they liberated Italy in 1943 and categorically
denied the Soviet Union any participation in the reconstruction of that
country; they did the same thing in France and Belgium in 1944.[11] Stalin, who
had followed his allies’ example when he liberated countries in Eastern Europe,
obviously did not need or want such a binding inter-allied agreement with
respect to Germany, and therefore such a meeting. He did accept the proposal,
but insisted on meeting on Soviet soil, namely in the Crimean resort of Yalta . Contrary to
conventional beliefs about that Conference, Stalin would prove to be most
accommodating there, agreeing to a formula proposed by the British and
Americans and highly advantageous to them, namely, a division of postwar Germany into occupation zones, with only
approximately one third of Germany ’s
territory – the later “East
Germany ” – being assigned to the Soviets.
Roosevelt and Churchill could not have foreseen this happy outcome of the Yalta
Conference, from which they would return “in an exultant spirit.”[12] In the
weeks leading up to the conference, they expected the Soviet leader, buoyed by
the recent successes of the Red Army and enjoying a kind of home-game
advantage, to be a difficult and demanding interlocutor. A way had to be found
to bring him down to earth, to condition him to make concessions despite being
the temporary favourite of the god of war.
It was crucially important to make it clear to Stalin that the
military power of the Western Allies, in spite of recent setbacks in the
Belgian Ardennes, should not be underestimated. The Red Army admittedly
featured huge masses of infantry, excellent tanks, and a formidable artillery,
but the Western Allies held in their hands a military trump which the Soviets
were unable to match. That trump was their air force, featuring the most
impressive collection of bombers the world had ever seen. This weapon made it
possible for the Americans and the British to launch devastating strikes on
targets that were far removed from their own lines. If Stalin could be made
aware of this, would he not prove easier to deal with at Yalta ?
It was Churchill who decided that the total obliteration of a
German city, under the noses of the Soviets so to speak, would send the desired
message to the Kremlin. The RAF and USAAF had been able for some time to strike
a devastating blow against any German city, and detailed plans for such an
operation, known as “Operation Thunderclap,” had been meticulously prepared.
During the summer of 1944, however, when the rapid advance from Normandy made it seem
likely that the war would be won before the end of the year, and thoughts were
already turning to postwar reconstruction, a Thunderclap-style operation had
begun to be seen as a means to intimidate the Soviets. In August 1944, an RAF
memorandum pointed out that “the total devastation of the centre of a vast
[German] city…would convince the Russian allies…of the effectiveness of
Anglo-American air power.”[13]
For the purpose of defeating Germany , Thunderclap was no longer
considered necessary by early 1945. But towards the end of January 1945, while
preparing to travel to Yalta, Churchill suddenly showed great interest in this
project, insisted that it be carried out tout de suite, and specifically
ordered the head of the RAF Bomber Command, Arthur Harris, to wipe out a city
in Germany’s east.[14] On January 25 the British Prime Minister indicated where
he wanted the Germans to be “blasted,” namely, somewhere “in their [westward]
retreat from Breslau [now Wroclaw in Poland].”[15] In terms of urban centres,
this was tantamount to spelling D-R-E-S-D-E-N. That Churchill himself was
behind the decision to bomb a city in Germany ’s
east is also hinted at in the autobiography of Arthur Harris, who wrote that
“the attack on Dresden
was at the time considered a military necessity by much more important people
than myself.”[16] It is obvious that only personalities of the calibre of
Churchill were able to impose their will on the czar of strategic bombing. As
the British military historian Alexander McKee has written, Churchill “intended
to write [a] lesson on the night sky [of Dresden ]”
for the benefit of the Soviets. However, since the USAAF also ended up being
involved in the bombing of Dresden , we may
assume that Churchill acted with the knowledge and approval of Roosevelt . Churchill’s partners at the top of the United States ’
political as well as military hierarchy, including General Marshall, shared his
viewpoint; they too were fascinated, as McKee writes, by the idea of
“intimidating the [Soviet] communists by terrorising the Nazis.”[17] The
American participation in the Dresden raid was
not really necessary, because the RAF was undoubtedly capable of wiping out Dresden in a solo
performance. But the “overkill” effect resulting from a redundant American
contribution was perfectly functional for the purpose of demonstrating to the
Soviets the lethality of Anglo-American air power. It is also likely that
Churchill did not want the responsibility for what he knew would be a terrible
slaughter to be exclusively British; it was a crime for which he needed a
partner.
A Thunderclap–style operation would of course do damage to
whatever military and industrial installations and communications
infrastructure were housed in the targeted city, and would therefore inevitably
amount to yet another blow to the already tottering German enemy. But when such
an operation was finally launched, with Dresden
as target, it was done far less in order to speed up the defeat of the Nazi
enemy than in order to intimidate the Soviets. Using the terminology of the
“functional analysis” school
of American sociology,
hitting the Germans as hard as possible was the “manifest function” of the
operation, while intimidating the Soviets was its far more important “latent”
or “hidden” function. The massive destruction wreaked in Dresden was planned –
in other words, was “functional” – not for the purpose of striking a
devastating blow to the German enemy, but for the purpose of demonstrating to
the Soviet ally that the Anglo-Americans had a weapon which the Red Army, no
matter how mighty and successful it was against the Germans, could not match,
and against which it had no adequate defenses.
Many American and British generals and high-ranking officers
were undoubtedly aware of the latent function of the destruction of Dresden , and approved of
such an undertaking; this knowledge also reached the local commanders of the
RAF and USAAF as well as the “master bombers.” (After the war, two master
bombers claimed to remember that they had been told clearly that this attack
was intended “to impress the Soviets with the hitting power of our Bomber
Command.”)[18] But the Soviets, who had hitherto made the biggest contribution
to the war against Nazi Germany, and who had thereby not only suffered the
biggest losses but also scored the most spectacular successes, e.g. in
Stalingrad, enjoyed much sympathy among low-ranking American and British
military personnel, including bomber crews. This constituency would certainly
have disapproved of any kind of plan to intimidate the Soviets, and most
certainly of a plan – the obliteration of a German city from the air – which
they would have to carry out. It was therefore necessary to camouflage the
objective of the operation behind an official rationale. In other words,
because the latent function of the raid was “unspeakable,” a “speakable”
manifest function had to be concocted.
And so the regional commanders and the master bombers were
instructed to formulate other, hopefully credible, objectives for the benefit
of their crews. In view of this, we can understand why the instructions to the
crews with respect to the objectives differed from unit to unit and were often
fanciful and even contradictory. The majority of the commanders emphasized
military objectives, and cited undefined “military targets,” hypothetical
“vital ammunition factories” and “dumps of weapons and supplies,” Dresden ’s alleged role as
“fortified city,” and even the existence in the city of some “German Army
Headquarters.” Vague references were also frequently made to “important
industrial installations” and “marshalling yards.” In order to explain to the
crews why the historical city centre was targeted and not the industrial
suburbs, some commanders talked about the existence there of a “Gestapo
headquarters” and of “a gigantic poison gas factory.” Some speakers were either
unable to invent such imaginary targets, or were for some reason unwilling to
do so; they laconically told their men that the bombs were to be dropped on
“the built-up city centre of Dresden,” or “on Dresden” tout court.[19] To
destroy the centre of a German city, hoping to wreak as much damage as possible
to military and industrial installations and to communication infrastructures,
happened to be the essence of the Allied, or at least British, strategy of
“area bombing.”[20] The crew members had learned to accept this nasty fact of
life, or rather of death, but in the case of Dresden many of them felt ill at ease. They
questioned the instructions with respect to the objectives, and had the feeling
that this raid involved something unusual and suspicious and was certainly not
a “routine” affair, as Taylor
presents things in his book. The radio operator of a B-17, for example,
declared in a confidential communication that “this was the only time” that
“[he] (and others) felt that the mission was unusual.” The anxiety experienced
by the crews was also illustrated by the fact that in many cases a commander’s
briefing did not trigger the crews’ traditional cheers but were met with icy
silence.[21]
Directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, the
instructions and briefings addressed to the crews sometimes revealed the true
function of the attack. For example, a directive of the RAF to the crews of a
number of bomber groups, issued on the day of the attack, February 13, 1945,
unequivocally stated that it was the intention “to show the Russians, when they
reach the city, what our Bomber Command is capable of doing.”[22] Under these
circumstances, it is hardly surprising that many crew members understood
clearly that they had to wipe Dresden
from the map in order to scare the Soviets. A Canadian member of a bomber crew
was to state after the war to an oral historian that he was convinced that the
bombing of Dresden
had aimed to make it clear to the Soviets “that they had to behave themselves,
otherwise we would show them what we could also do to Russian cities.”[23]
The news of the particularly awful destruction of Dresden also caused great
discomfort among British and American civilians, who shared the soldiers’
sympathy for the Soviet ally and who, upon learning the news of the raid,
likewise sensed that this operation exuded something unusual and suspicious.
The authorities attempted to exorcize the public’s unease by explaining the
operation as an effort to facilitate the advance of the Red Army. At an RAF
press conference in liberated Paris
on February 16, 1945, journalists were told that the destruction of this
“communications centre” situated close to “the Russian front” had been inspired
by the desire to make it possible for the Russians “to continue their struggle
with success.” That this was merely a rationale, concocted after the facts by
what are called “spin doctors” today, was revealed by the military spokesman
himself, who lamely acknowledged that he “thought” that it had “probably” been
the intention to assist the Soviets.[24]
The hypothesis that the attack on Dresden was intended to intimidate the
Soviets explains not only the magnitude of the operation but also the choice of
the target. To the planners of Thunderclap, Berlin had always loomed as the perfect
target. By early 1945, however, the German capital had already been bombed
repeatedly. Could it be expected that yet another bombing raid, no matter how
devastating, would have the desired effect on the Soviets when they would fight
their way into the capital? Destruction wreaked within 24 hours would surely
loom considerably more spectacular if a fairly big, compact, and “virginal” –
i.e. not yet bombed – city were the target. Dresden , fortunate not to have been bombed
thus far, was now unfortunate enough to meet all these criteria. Moreover, the
British American commanders expected that the Soviets would reach the Saxon
capital within days, so that they would be able to see very soon with their own
eyes what the RAF and the USAAF could achieve in a single operation. Although
the Red Army was to enter Dresden
much later than the British and the Americans had expected, namely, on May 8,
1945, the destruction of the Saxon capital did have the desired effect. The
Soviet lines were situated only a couple of hundred of kilometers from the
city, so that the men and women of the Red Army could admire the glow of the Dresden inferno on the
nocturnal horizon. The firestorm was allegedly visible up to a distance of 300
kilometers.
If intimidating the Soviets is viewed as the “latent,” in other
words the real function of the destruction of Dresden , then not only the magnitude but also
the timing of the operation makes sense. The attack was supposed to have taken
place, at least according to some historians, on February 4, 1945, but had to
be postponed on account of inclement weather to the night of February
13-14.[25] The Yalta Conference started on February 4. If the Dresden fireworks had taken place on that
day, it might have provided Stalin with some food for thought at a critical
moment. The Soviet leader, flying high after the recent successes of the Red
Army, would be brought down to earth by this feat of his allies’ air forces,
and would therefore turn out to be a less confident and more agreeable
interlocutor at the conference table. This expectation was clearly reflected in
a comment made one week before the start of the Yalta Conference by an American
general, David M. Schlatter:
I feel that our air forces are the blue chips with which we will
approach the post-war treaty table, and that this operation [the planned
bombing of Dresden and/or Berlin ] will add immeasurably to their
strength, or rather to the Russian knowledge of their strength.[26]
The plan to bomb Dresden
was not cancelled, but merely postponed. The kind of demonstration of military
potency that it was supposed to be retained its psychological usefulness even
after the end of the Crimean conference. It continued to be expected that the
Soviets would soon enter Dresden
and thus be able to see firsthand what horrible destruction the Anglo-American
air forces were able to cause to a city far removed from their bases in a
single night. Afterwards, when the rather vague agreements made at Yalta would have to be put into practice, the “boys in the
Kremin” would surely remember what they had seen in Dresden ,
draw useful conclusions from their observations, and behave as Washington and London
expected of them. When towards the end of the hostilities American troops had
an opportunity to reach Dresden before the Soviets, Churchill vetoed this: even
at that late stage, when Churchill was very eager for the Anglo-Americans to
occupy as much German territory as possible, he still insisted that the Soviets
be allowed to occupy Dresden, no doubt so they could benefit from the
demonstration effect of the bombing.
Dresden was obliterated
in order to intimidate the Soviets with a
demonstration of the enormous firepower that permitted bombers of the RAF and
the USAAF to unleash death and destruction hundreds of kilometers away from
their bases, and the subtext was clear: this firepower could be aimed at the Soviet Union itself. This interpretation explains the
many peculiarities of the bombing of Dresden, such as the magnitude of the
operation, the unusual participation in one single raid of both the RAF and USAAF,
the choice of a “virginal” target, the (intended) enormity of the destruction,
the timing of the attack, and the fact that the supposedly crucially important
railway station and the suburbs with their factories and Luftwaffe airfield
were not targeted. The bombing of Dresden
had little or nothing to do with the war against Nazi Germany: it was an
American British message for Stalin, a message that cost the lives of tens of
thousands of people. Later that same year, two more similarly coded yet not very
subtle messages would follow, involving even more victims, but this time
Japanese cities were targeted, and the idea was to direct Stalin’s attention to
the lethality of America’s terrible new weapon, the atomic bomb.[27] Dresden had little or nothing to do with
the war against Nazi Germany; it had much, if not everything, to do with a new
conflict in which the enemy was to be the Soviet Union. In the horrible heat of
the infernos of Dresden , Hiroshima
and Nagasaki ,
the Cold War was born.
Notes
[1] Frederick Taylor. Dresden :
Tuesday, February 13, 1945, New York , 2004,
pp. 354, 443-448; Götz Bergander, Dresden
im Luftkrieg. Vorgeschichte, Zerstörung, Folgen, Weimar , 1995, chapter 12, and especially pp.
210 ff., 218-219, 229;
“Luftangriffe
auf Dresden “, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Dresden,
p. 9.
[2] See for example the comments made by General Spaatz cited in
Randall Hansen, Fire and fury: the Allied bombing of Germany ,
1942-45, Toronto ,
2008, p. 243.
[3] Taylor ,
p. 416.
[4] Taylor ,
pp. 321-322.
[5] Olaf
Groehler. Bombenkrieg gegen Deutschland , Berlin , 1990, p. 414; Hansen, p. 245; “Luftangriffe auf Dresden ,” http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Dresden,
p.7.
[6]
“Luftangriffe auf Dresden ,” http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Dresden,
p. 7.
[7] Taylor ,
pp. 152-154, 358-359.
[8] Eckart Spoo, “Die letzte der Familie Tucholsky,” Ossietzky,
No. 11/2, June 2001, pp. 367-70.
[9] Taylor, p. 190; Groehler, pp. 400-401. Citing a study about
Yalta, the British author of the latest study of Allied bombing during World
War II notes that the Soviets “clearly preferred to keep the RAF and the USAAF
away from territory they might soon be occupying,” see C. Grayling, Among the
Dead Cities: Was the Allied Bombing of Civilians in WWII a Necessity or a
Crime?, London, 2006, p. 176.
[10] Alexander McKee. Dresden
1945: The Devil’s Tinderbox, London ,
1982, pp. 264-265; Groehler, pp. 400-402.
[11] See e.g. Jacques R. Pauwels, The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, Toronto , 2002, p. 98 ff.
[12] Ibid., p. 119.
[13] Richard Davis, “Operation Thunderclap,” Journal of
Strategic Studies, 14:1, March 1991, p. 96.
[14] Taylor ,
pp. 185-186, 376; Grayling, p. 71; David Irving. The Destruction of Dresden , London ,
1971, pp. 96-99.
[15] Hansen, p. 241.
[16] Arthur Travers Harris, Bomber offensive, Don Mills/Ont.,
1990, p. 242.
[17] McKee, pp. 46, 105.
[18] Groehler, p. 404.
[19] Ibid., p. 404.
[20] The Americans preferred “precision bombing,” in theory if
not always in practice.
[21] Taylor, pp. 318-19; Irving, pp. 147-48.
[22] Quotation from Groehler, p. 404. See also Grayling, p. 260.
[23] Cited in Barry Broadfoot, Six War Years 1939-1945: Memories
of Canadians at Home and Abroad, Don Mills, Ontario , 1976, p. 269.
[24] Taylor ,
pp. 361, 363-365.
[25] See e.g. Hans-Günther Dahms, Der Zweite Weltkrieg, second
edition, Frankfurt am Main, 1971, p. 187.
[26] Cited in Ronald Schaffer. “American Military Ethics in
World War II: The Bombing of German Civilians,” The Journal of Military
History, 67: 2, September 1980, p. 330.
[27] A. C. Grayling, for example, writes in his new book on
Allied bombing that “it is recognized that one of the main motives for the
atomb-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to demonstrate to the Russians
the superiority in waponry that the United States had attained…In the case of
Dresden something similar is regrettably true.”
JACQUES R. PAUWELS. The Myth of the Good War
The USA
in World War II
James Lorimer, Toronto , 2002.
First published in October 2002. 264 Pages / Paperback/ $24.95.
First published in October 2002. 264 Pages / Paperback/ $24.95.
This book offers a fresh and
provocative look at the role of the USA in World War II. It spent four
months on the nonfiction bestseller lists in Europe when it was first published
in Belgium
in 2001. Since then it has been translated into French, German and Spanish.
Popular historian Jacques
Pauwels attacks the widely held belief that World War II was the “good war,”
the war in which America
led the forces of democracy and freedom to victory over fascist dictatorship
and Japanese militarism. He argues that
the role of the USA in World War II was determined not by idealism, but by the
interests of America’s corporations and by the country’s social, economic, and
political leaders.
JACQUES R. PAUWELS has taught
European history at the University of Toronto, York University, and the University of Western Ontario .
A WWII
veteran's controversial perspective
|
||||
WORSHIPPING
THE MYTHS OF WORLD WAR II
Reflections on
|
||||
260 pages; 5" x 8"
|
||||
Excerpt Press Release |
||||
Description:
Is
any war a “good war”? In Worshipping
the Myths of World War II, the author takes a critical look at what he sees is
|
||||
About the
Author(s)/Editor(s)
Edward W. Wood, Jr.,
was severely wounded in World War II. A retired city planner, he is the
author of On Being Woundedand Beyond the Weapons of Our Fathers.
His articles, essays, and poetry have appeared in publications ranging from
the U.S. Air Force Academy journal War,
Literature & the Arts to The Friends Journal. He lives
in
|
||||
Reviews/Endorsements:
"Edward
Wood's beautifully written and articulately argued little book should be on
the bedside reading table of presidential advisors, state department movers
and shakers, military historians, and all concerned citizens who have given thought
to the growing frequency and intensity of the world's armed hostilities...It
is a book to be read slowly, perhaps in small doses, so that its echoes stay
with the reader during his waking day, nagging, pricking, at his
consciousness."
War, Literature & the Arts: International Journal of the Humanities
“Wood
has written a heartfelt and searing indictment for anyone who would imagine
that World War II should be called good or its warriors great. He was there.
He knows the life-long scars of war for those who do the killing.
Relentlessly he unmasks the romancing of war and reminds of its brutality,
especially in industrial war with its inevitable murder and maiming of
thousands if not millions of civilians. He critically reviews much of the
literature about World War II and finds hope for a world without war only
through an honest recognition of what war really is.”
Bishop Frederick Borsch, professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and author of The Spirit Searches Everything: Keeping Life's Questions
“The
aftermath of war stretches out for decades after war’s end. The truths and
lies of war are best understood by the veterans of these conflicts, in
particular those who served on the front lines. Ed Wood and his compatriots
experience the human toll of war every day of their lives. We need to listen
to them, and learn.”
Lori Grinker, photojournalist and author of Afterwar: Veterans from a World in Conflict
“Worshipping
the Myths of World War II is
an important addition to the literature of war and peace, exploring our
nation’s descent into a calcified war mentality after World War II. Ed Wood
is provocative and challenging, to be sure, but he also offers the solace of
realistic and achievable means for breaking out of that mentality. He has
given us clear direction for progress toward a ‘public maturity’ for the
Jeanne Herrick-Stare, senior fellow for civil liberties and human rights, Friends Committee on National Legislation
“The
wizards of war have too long held sway in our country, telling us in
Orwellian doublespeak that war is the best and only means to foster democracy
and peace. Edward Wood pulls their curtain away, showing how politicians,
pundits, and popularizers distort history by turning the tragedy and triumph
of World War II into a parable about the virtues and benefits of all wars.
And he shows, sadly, how
Leonard Steinhorn, author of Greater Generation: In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy
“This
intelligent and eloquent rumination, by a wounded veteran of ‘the good war,’
with its impassioned renunciation of all wars, could not be more timely.
Whatever the moral core of World War II, which Edward Wood freely
acknowledges, that experience has been used to create myths, from
Howard Zinn, author of Just War and editor of The Power of Nonviolence: Writings by Advocates |
THE BOMBING OF ROYAN
World War II: The Good War Gone Bad
Thursday, 09 August 2012
11:37
This is the first article in an irregularly
appearing series, "Listening to Soldiers and Vets," featuring the
voices of soldiers and veterans from armed conflicts of the 20th and 21st
centuries, voices whose clarity and moral fiber were forged in the crucible of
war.http://truth-out.org/news/item/10664-world-war-ii-the-good-war-gone-bad
So long as we resort to war to
settle differences between nations, so long will we have to endure the horrors,
the barbarities and excesses that war brings. -British Air Marshall Sir Robert
Saundby on the Allied bombing of Dresden
In January 2012, the White House and
the Department of Defense released a pithy, strategic policy document, "Sustaining US Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense."
Like all predecessor defense policies since World War II, its raison d'etre is
maintaining American global supremacy through military superiority. And its
premise: "Everybody else must be weaker," to sustain US national
security. Cold wars and hot wars since World War II have turned us into a
self-appointed global cop, notes Army veteran and international policy
specialist Andrew Bacevich. As for statecraft, he adds, "Washington has become an intellectual dead
zone."
The
seeds of American militarism spawned by the Second World War compel us to probe
beneath the "good war" moniker because it is the poster war that keeps war
acceptable in our society. In this piece, the soldiers' and
veterans' voices are unique in being few - it was our most popular war,
critics are rare and in from voices of highly educated veterans and high-level
military commanders.
The Good War Gone Bad
I was born as British and American
troops were establishing beachheads in Taranto
and Salerno , Italy , for what would be a
protracted and deadly campaign to rout Mussolini's fascist regime. Two of my
mother's brothers and two other uncles, all first generation Americans, served
in the war. Only one war in my lifetime
- the Second World War - has retained any vestige of moral core. Yet, even that
one was contaminated by war culture on the "good" side.
In the world war to defeat fascism and
that ended the Holocaust, the Allies committed a legion of militarily
unnecessary and criminal acts, from British and American bombers intentionally
firebombing hundreds of thousands of civilians in German and Japanese cities to
mass serial and gang rape of German women by Russians at the war's end. More
than 100,000 women and girls in Berlin
were raped over a period of eight weeks in spring 1945 by conquering Allied
Russian soldiers, men drunk on alcohol intentionally left behind by German
soldiers to impair their fighting ability.(1)
Churchill caused an estimated three million Indians to starve as British
authorities precipitated the 1943-44 Bengal famine in India by exporting Indian grain to feed Britain and extracting India 's
industrial production to support the Allied war effort.(2)
In showcasing the atom bomb by dropping it on a country in the process of
negotiating a truce, the United
States instigated the cold-war buildup of
nuclear weapons, the specter of nuclear war, the duplicitous "Atoms for
Peace" program and a multitude of proxy wars.
Thus, even the allegedly just war,
World War II, was corrupted in means and consequences. Moreover, Allied
corruption pre-dated the outbreak of the war. In his history of nonviolence,
Mark Kurlansky indicts the "captains of banking and industry in the United
States, Britain and France"(3)
and their acquiescent political leaders for a decade of industrial and
financial support of Germany during which period Hitler made his fascist
intentions known.
The Bombing of Royan: A
Bombardier's Reflections on Air War
War corrupts everyone who
engages in it ... I and others had become unthinking killers of innocent people.
-"Just War"(4)
The probing journey made in 1966 by
World War II veteran and historian Howard Zinn to the French Atlantic coast
town of Royan -
a town he had helped to destroy as a bombardier in a 1945 Allied air-ground
assault - sheds piercing light into military culture and the inevitable
inhumanity of war. The official US version, parroted by The New York Times, of
the three-day air assault on Royan with incendiaries, nearly one-half million
gallons of napalm bombs and 2,000 pound demolition bombs pronounced the routing
of "stubborn German garrisons ... still holding out" a success.(5)
Zinn, however, uncovered media falsification, military hubris and needless
tragedy in his pursuit of the facts behind the bombing mission.
The April 1945 mission took place three
weeks before the end of the war in Europe .
Garrisoned German troops in Royan were waiting for the declaration of war's end
to surrender; they were not resisting or attacking. Further, while officially
recorded as a mission directed at German installations, Zinn points out that it
was designed as saturation, not precision, bombing with little ability to
target the German garrison. "From our great height (25,000 feet), I
remember distinctly seeing the bombs explode in the town, flaring like matches
struck in a fog. I was completely unaware of the human chaos below."(6)
The town center of Royan had been
mistakenly bombed three months earlier by British bombers who missed their
military target; the April bombing completed its obliteration. Jellied
gasoline, known as napalm, was first used by the US Eighth Air Force on Royan,
serving as a trial test of the American Air Force's new skin-burning incendiary
weapon and a precursor to its massive use in the Korean War and later in Vietnam .
A French admiral's memoir, published in
1966, offered further insight into the why of the Royan assault. In a word,
morale. It would boost French ground troop morale to follow the bombing with
some invigorating end-of-war fighting, the admiral explains. Moreover, French
military pride demanded that the enemy not be allowed to surrender but must be
conquered.(7)
The living, burning furnace of French people, homes, forest and town center
was, as the military memoirist recalls, a blaze of glory that sharpened the
appetite for further military action and glory on the eve of the war's end. The
troops were ordered next to attack the French island of Oleron - "... a
conquest without military value ..."(8)
Zinn collates the venal motives behind
the assault on the small French Atlantic town and uses them as a mirror for the
macro dynamics of war culture. Blinding military ambition and pride in
compiling victories, the quest for honor and glory even in militarily useless
battles, the irresistible urge to try out new weapons and a habit of obedience
to duty such that one does not step out of line: all generate and intensify the
one-way momentum of war beyond the bounds of just war principles and
international conventions - even for the "good guys." Zinn's
unvarnished account of the bombing of Royan serves as an archetype of air war's
morbid legacy throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries.
The Slippery Slope of Air
War
The first bombs used in war were
dropped from Italian planes in 1911 onto desert oases near Tripoli ,
to kill Turks and Arabs and to win possession of what would be named Libya . At home,
poets feted the pilots and rhapsodized about the sound and fury of the new
aerial warfare. Other colonial powers followed suit against other colonial
people. Britain
routinely used aerial bombing throughout its empire to control uprisings, with
no regard for whom and what were bombed. France
maintained order in Syria by
bombing villages around Damascus
to the point of near total destruction in early 1926.(9)
European powers considered rebellious colonial peoples as "savages,"
"infidels" and inferior to themselves and, thus, outside the
conventions of war they more or less honored with each other.
In 1925, Spain bombed Moroccan villages and,
in breach of the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning biological and chemical warfare,
dropped mustard gas. In a similar quest to liquidate "inferiors," Japan dropped incendiary bombs throughout the
provisional capital of China ,
Chungking , in 1939, creating massive infernos
that consumed wood houses and people.
While the specter and likelihood of air
warfare grew, Europeans resisted full-scale air warfare against each other's
citizens until the Spanish Civil War. From 1936 to 1939, Germany dropped
millions of bombs on Spanish cities, towns and villages to crush the resistance
to Franco's fascism. The devastation of the Basque cultural center and capital,
Guernica , with
a mix of fire, splinter and high explosive bombs, caught the Western world's
attention. Media coverage of Basque people being bombed and Picasso's modernist
depiction of human and animal agony and terror in Guernica spoke to the West in a way that
European and Japanese bombing of colonial peoples had not - because they had
bombed "their own." It also set a precedent for bombing human settlements in the Second
World War.(10)
Bombing of Cities in World War
II
Are the former Allied nations
willing ... to question the morality
of means by which they won the war ...? -Mark Anderson
Bombing between Allied and Axis Powers
began with British bombing of German military targets and industrial targets,
which also destroyed working-class neighborhoods. The Nazis retaliated with the
blitzkrieg of British cities, killing an estimated 40,000 civilians over six
months. British strategic bombing of German military and industrial targets
traveled swiftly down a slippery slope to area bombing of whole cities with
incendiary bombs followed by high-explosive bombs that prevented Germans from
fighting the fires. One night's air attack on Hamburg killed 50,000 residents. Plans were
set in place to kill millions of German civilians through urban bombing, in
order to destroy citizen morale.(11)
Once the logic of bombing took over - obliterate as much as possible as quickly
as possible to end the war as soon as possible - the rights of civilians in
armed conflict, as defined by international conventions, vanished. Given the
moral abhorrence of the Nazi genocide of European Jews, the extreme scale of
Nazi war crimes and the status of World War II as a just war, the Anglo-American
bombing of 131 German cities and towns, which killed up to half a million
civilians and wounded nearly a million in cataclysmic firestorms, has not
been scrutinized until recently.
At best, we do have a few clear-eyed
veterans of that war who grasped war's slippery slope and inevitable descent
into barbarity. British Air Marshall Sir Robert Saundby wrote of the Allied
bombing of Dresden :
It is not so much this or the other
means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself.
Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized and
if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. So long
as we resort to war to settle differences between nations, so long will we have
to endure the horrors, the barbarities and excesses that war brings[12].
Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
[T]he use of this barbarous
weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
was of no material assistance in our war against Japan . The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender. -Adm. William D. Leahy
The saturation bombing of German and
Japanese cities, which incinerated, poisoned and suffocated hundreds of
thousands of civilians in cataclysmic firestorms, seasoned the US government for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
After the first atomic blast, which killed 100,000 residents of Hiroshima immediately,
the grievous radiation sickness of survivors was not anticipated, nor was it
believed when reported. Without any reconsideration, a second bomb - this one
plutonium - was dropped on Nagasaki ,
killing 70,000 outright. The American military censored all documentation and
photo images of the two bombs' unparalleled human devastation,(13)
sheltering Americans from the horrors of what our government perpetrated on
Japanese civilians: women, men and children instantly reduced to ash. Likewise,
the post-war US occupying
authority forbade, under penalty of law, Japanese citizens to own
pictures of the atomic bomb destruction of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki .
A teenager in Nagasaki on August 9, Kyoko Hayashi ran from
the blast with a "pack of people whose hands, feet, faces no longer looked
human."(14)
As a survivor, a hibakusha, she feels that a unique violence of the atomic bomb
is that it destroyed the fundamental human reciprocity of those who die and
those who see them off. Near the age of 70, she visited Trinity site, the Air Force Atomic Museum
and the Science Museum
at Los Alamos where photos, objects and films
about the history of the atomic bomb were shown. (She noted the audiences were
comprised of white people only.) Of this soul-wrenching experience, she wrote,
"I understand that winners create a proud history ... The world did not
need your experiment."(15)
At the time of the atomic bombing,
Japanese peace negotiations were underway in Moscow , negotiations of which President
Truman knew at least three months before the bombs were dropped.(16)
Moreover, Japan 's emperor
had telegraphed Truman in July 1945 (by which time sixty-six of Japan 's largest
cities had been extensively firebombed) asking for peace discussions.(17)
American military leaders from all
branches of the armed forces, among them Generals Eisenhower, Arnold, Marshall
and MacArthur; and Admirals Leahy, Nimitz and Halsey strongly dissented from
the decision to use the bombs - some prior to August 1945, some in retrospect -
for the following military and moral reasons. Japan
was already defeated and in peace negotiations with Russia ; surrender was imminent.
Moreover, Russia was willing
to enter the war against Japan ,
if necessary. Bombing dense human settlements was barbarous, immoral and would
shock world opinion; and a demonstration bombing away from residential areas
(also suggested by some atomic bomb scientists) could be used instead to force
immediate surrender. The top military commanders concurred that the decision to
use the atomic bomb was political, not military.(18)
The 1946 United States Strategic
Bombing Survey drew the same conclusion, adding that Allied bombing of cities
in Germany and American
bombing in Japan
did not appreciably shorten or win the war. In his 1994 memoir, John Kenneth
Galbraith, who had conducted the 1946 US Strategic Bombing Survey, observes
that in all subsequent US
wars in which air warfare dominated, it did not win or affect the war's outcome
because of the "extensively random destructiveness of air warfare."(19)
Aftermath
The remarkable goodwill and
credibility enjoyed by the United
States at the close of the Second World War
was dissipated country by country, intervention by intervention. -"Killing
Hope"(20) MORE:
HITLER, THE JEWS, AND
PACIFISM
Nicholson
Baker in "Why I'm a Pacifist: The
Dangerous Myth of the Good War," Harper's
(May 2011) argues that Hitler was foremost a hostage-taker, and that the allies early
in the war at least should have tried to negotiate with
Hitler to
rescue Jews, as the pacifists at the time
urged (Abraham Kaufman, Dorothy Day, Jessie Wallace Hughan, Rabbi Abraham
Cronbach, Vera Brittain, Arthur Ponsonby, Clarence Pickett, Bertha Bracey,
Runham Brown, Grace Beaton, Victor Gollancz, to name a few). Instead, the
allies chose retribution, air war, firebombing, while the Jewish Holocaust
continued. The pacifists were practical (there were numerous smaller
examples of saving victims of Hitler's enmity); they sought to save
lives. --Dick
ICE
Case Studies
Number 118, December, 2003 |
The
Way to
Yuichi Arima
|
I. Case Background II. Environment Aspect III. Conflict Aspect IV. Env. - Conflict Overlap V. Related Information |
I. CASE
BACKGROUND
1. Abstract
2. Description
The Era of Imperialism and the Wake of Japan
Japan , under the rule of the Tokugawa shogunate, closed
its doors to the outside-world in the early 17th century with an only exception
of Deshima in Nagasaki , a small restricted port-area, where
only the Portuguese and Dutch were allowed to put in at. During this period, it
was strictly prohibited for any general Japanese people to make contact with
the outside-world; anyone who did was very much likely to be sentenced to death [1]. The
situation remained so for more than 200 years. Since Japan was an islands-nation
surrounded by the ocean it was relatively easy for the Japanese to maintain
national isolation policy. In fact, it was a very peaceful 200-year-period
without any huge war. However, this peaceful time was about to end as four
American battleships, including two with steam-engine that the Japanese had
never seen before, led by Commodore Matthew Perry of the US Navy appeared in
the Edo (Tokyo) Bay in 1853 [2].
While It was a very shocking fact for the Japanese that even the Qin Dynasty of China, which had probably been the strong power in Asia and considered as the sleeping lion, could do only a little against the British and their weapons with the latest technologies. Now
The leaders of the Meiji government were well-aware that if they would want to defend their national dignity and be treated equally with other western imperial powers,
When
War with
In 1937,
However, the World War II began in 1939 as Hitler and Nazi Germany invaded
Economic Sanctions, Negotiations, and War
From 1939 to 1941, the
Japanese
Reliance Upon US Scrap-Metal [t-1]
|
|
Year
|
Percentage
|
1936
|
70.0
|
1937
|
70.0
|
1938
|
55.3
|
1939
|
75.0
|
At the time there were mainly three issues between the
(1) Tripartite Pact of
(2) Southern Indo-
(3)
Among these points, there was a room for both countries to come up with compromising plans about the first two issues. However, Cordell Hull, the
As mentioned above, one of the demands that the
(1) Face-saving
The withdrawal from
(2) National security
The withdrawal from
Oil
The US imposed the oil embargo on
Main Oil
Exporters in 1935
|
Main Oil
Importers in 1935
|
|||
6,958 kt
|
10,487 kt
|
|||
6,860 kt
|
6,390 kt
|
|||
6,221 kt
|
4,509 kt
|
|||
Dutch East India(
|
5,139 kt
|
4,366 kt
|
||
3,369 kt
|
3,863 kt
|
|||
2,279 kt
|
3,680 kt
|
Country From
|
Amount
|
Percentage
|
btw 3,820 - 4,366 kt
|
80
|
|
Dutch East India (
|
btw 621 - 709 kt
|
13
|
Dependence of Japanese
Economy on Foreign Import Other Than Oil in 1941 [t-4]
|
|
Steel
industry raw materials
|
88%
|
Zinc
|
50%
|
Tin
|
80%
|
Cotton
|
100%
|
Wool
|
99%
|
Rubber
|
100%
|
3. Duration
1937 - 1945It was the 1937 Japanese invasion of
No comments:
Post a Comment