I had the good fortune to be brought up in a family that lived through the 1st half of the 20th century. Unlike my baby boomer schoolmates, I was able to challenge the propaganda that was fed to them during the Cold War. I have spent almost my entire adult life studying the politics and battles of WW II that clearly contradict the Allies (victors) version of the War. I recently posted about Rev Wright's comment about the inhumane and unnecessary dropping of the A-bomb on Japan, a view shared by Ike of all people.
Today, in the Chicago Tribune there is a piece about Churchill that may also surprise people. It is well known by many outside the U.S., something that my father told me about. Churchill was not the great leader that most Americans have accepted because most journalists like Chris Matthews accept urban myths without doing the research. This same Churchill helped start the Cold War with his famous 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton Missouri. Churchill ultimatly changed his anti-Soviet position after they tested the H-bomb. My dad always said that Churchill had a great mouthpiece, but was a lousy leader.
Below is the Churchill article from today's Chicago Tribune.
www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0318bakermar18,0,4114034.story
chicagotribune.com
A darker view of 'hero' Churchill
Author says negotiation, not bombs, could have saved lives in WW II
By Patrick T. Reardon
Tribune reporter
March 18, 2008
Nicholson Baker's history of the early stages of the Second World War will surprise and even shock many readers.
Baker, a best-selling novelist, takes a radically different narrative approach from most historians for his non-fiction tale, "Human Smoke" (Simon & Schuster): He knits his story together out of hundreds of small vignettes or scenes, most of which aren't longer than three paragraphs, and, like a documentary filmmaker, he doesn't insert his own voice.
Yet it's clear that Baker thinks Allied leaders, particularly Winston Churchill, were misguided -- or worse -- in attempting to stop Adolf Hitler by starving much of Europe and by bombing many German cities.
Negotiations with the Nazis, even after they gained control of the continent, should have been attempted, Baker said in a recent interview from his home in Maine. Here's an edited transcript:
Q: Churchill is normally portrayed as a hero. You show how he was ordering the bombings of civilians extensively, even when there were indications it wasn't doing a whole lot of good.
A: Some of the things he said, and especially some of the things he did, the way he reveled in the war, surprised me. The biggest surprise, for me, was his fascination with the weapon of starvation, because I think that had the greatest consequences early in the war.
Q: If you don't do what Churchill and the other leaders did, what should you do?
A: Some of the pacifists, I thought, were right on when they said that the people who needed help -- which were, at that early stage of the war, Poles and Jews -- had more of a chance in a situation of negotiation than they did in a state of war. An ongoing war just gradually brutalizes everyone.
There's at least some merit to raising the question whether negotiating with Germany early in the war would have saved millions of lives. I think someone who was a pacifist at the time would say: "Look, Hitler is a middle-aged, crazy, sick man who is known to have these tremendous bursts of irrationality. Only a state of war will keep someone like that in power for decades."
Q: The context of the time was that the sort of negotiation you're talking about would likely have been branded as appeasement.
A: The word "appeasement" has an awful ring. It makes me flinch. Even so, I think that, in the very early months of the war, if the United States had convened some kind of summit and the various European powers had talked, and, secondarily, if the various European powers had been willing to open their doors to the refugees, that things would have been different.
The war was an accumulation of decisions by very different people and resulted in an outcome that was catastrophic for Europe -- all those cities ravaged, millions of people dead, London destroyed. It just couldn't have been much worse. If it couldn't have been much worse, what could they have done differently?
Q: It really seems to me that one of the major points of your book is that, by waging an aggressive war as opposed to negotiating, the Allies helped cause the Holocaust.
A: The Holocaust has to be laid at the door of the people who ordered those killings. Hitler and Himmler and all the lieutenants are to blame for the murders of those millions of Jews.
You could say that the war, as waged by the British, which was an attempt to starve and to bomb -- to create terror, subversion and unhappiness -- that that way of waging the war radicalized German anti-Semitism because it enlisted the entire country in a panic state, in a rage state. So restrictions fell away that would not have fallen away otherwise.
----------
preardon@tribune.com
Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune