Land of the Frei
October 26, 2014 10:24 PM Subscribe
In the decades after World War II, the C.I.A. and other United States agencies employed at least a thousand Nazis as Cold War spies and informants and, as recently as the 1990s, concealed the government’s ties to some still living in America.US spy agencies employed Nazis of all stripes, including SS officials with the blood of 10s of thousands on their hands, and a man described as Eichmann's mentor. They helped many Nazi war criminals immigrate to America, and protected them from prosecution. Of course they lied to Congress about it. The New York Times's Eric Lichtblau reports. (Lichtblau's reporting partner, James Risen, with whom he shared the Pulitzer Prize, continues to face jail time for refusing to turn over confidential sources to the Obama administration.)
The Catholic Church helped a lot of Nazis escape prosecution too.
no-one came out of WW2 looking too flash.
Concidentally I've just been re-reading Philip Kerr's "Berlin Noir" series. The later books cover the escape of people like Eichmann escaping to Argentina.
posted by awfurby at 10:50 PM on October 26, 2014 [4 favorites]
no-one came out of WW2 looking too flash.
Concidentally I've just been re-reading Philip Kerr's "Berlin Noir" series. The later books cover the escape of people like Eichmann escaping to Argentina.
posted by awfurby at 10:50 PM on October 26, 2014 [4 favorites]
Sometimes you use the bear to stop the wolf,other times you run with a wolfpack to stop the bear. Just be careful not to get eaten.
posted by humanfont at 11:12 PM on October 26, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 11:12 PM on October 26, 2014 [2 favorites]
Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 11:37 PM on October 26, 2014 [19 favorites]
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 11:37 PM on October 26, 2014 [19 favorites]
"Zat's not my department", says Werner Von Braun.
posted by Lemurrhea at 11:52 PM on October 26, 2014 [21 favorites]
posted by Lemurrhea at 11:52 PM on October 26, 2014 [21 favorites]
When I was in school, I learned that the Nazi's were responsible for the Holocaust.
Then I learned that the US turned away Jewish refugees (along with many other countries) during the Holocaust. Later in life I learned the US knew about the Holocaust as it was occurring, and tried to prevent American's from knowing about it. Then I learned that the US employed scientists post WW2 that were working for the Nazis. Then I learned that the US actively protected Nazi's that were not scientist (employing them as spies).
Now I realize that the responsibility for the Holocaust needs to be shared, and blaming the Germans is convenient bullshit.
At least today Germany actively teaches its youth about the horrible things they did in their past. Today the US teaches its children that the US saved Europe, and lies outright or through omission about its role in the Holocaust (and employing and protecting the perpetrators of the Holocaust up until at least the 80s).
I wonder when the rest of the WW2 documents are declassified, and what other horrors of our history awaits us.
And desperately hope that we'll start teaching our children history instead of mythology.
posted by el io at 12:12 AM on October 27, 2014 [61 favorites]
Then I learned that the US turned away Jewish refugees (along with many other countries) during the Holocaust. Later in life I learned the US knew about the Holocaust as it was occurring, and tried to prevent American's from knowing about it. Then I learned that the US employed scientists post WW2 that were working for the Nazis. Then I learned that the US actively protected Nazi's that were not scientist (employing them as spies).
Now I realize that the responsibility for the Holocaust needs to be shared, and blaming the Germans is convenient bullshit.
At least today Germany actively teaches its youth about the horrible things they did in their past. Today the US teaches its children that the US saved Europe, and lies outright or through omission about its role in the Holocaust (and employing and protecting the perpetrators of the Holocaust up until at least the 80s).
I wonder when the rest of the WW2 documents are declassified, and what other horrors of our history awaits us.
And desperately hope that we'll start teaching our children history instead of mythology.
posted by el io at 12:12 AM on October 27, 2014 [61 favorites]
While acknowledging that the Western allies were at times quite monstrous (the mass murder of civilians by aerial bombing) they were an order of magnitude less horrible than either the Soviets or the Nazis. They actually were greeted as liberators as they marched through europe because they actually were liberators. The countries they occupied were rapidly restored to independance and liberal democracy.
America employed 1000 Nazis. Germany employed over eight million of them.
Drawing a false equivalence between the democratic allies and the fascists does not improve our knowledge of history.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:26 AM on October 27, 2014 [49 favorites]
America employed 1000 Nazis. Germany employed over eight million of them.
Drawing a false equivalence between the democratic allies and the fascists does not improve our knowledge of history.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:26 AM on October 27, 2014 [49 favorites]
The Catholic Church helped a lot of Nazis escape prosecution too.
So Nyeah
posted by mattoxic at 12:33 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
So Nyeah
posted by mattoxic at 12:33 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
Drawing a false equivalence between the democratic allies and the fascists does not improve our knowledge of history.
I don't think that anybody's drawing an equivalence.
I was almost going to say something like well of course the U.S. made moral compromises to spy on the Nazis but then I realized that's not what this is about.
posted by atoxyl at 12:44 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't think that anybody's drawing an equivalence.
I was almost going to say something like well of course the U.S. made moral compromises to spy on the Nazis but then I realized that's not what this is about.
posted by atoxyl at 12:44 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
It seems a pretty unfair reading of my comment to suggest that I implied that the US is worse than Nazi Germany.
If a friend of mine kills someone and I know about it, if I try to prevent his guilt from coming out, that makes me a criminal co-conspirator after the fact. If I know about a murder before it happens that makes me a conspirator.
If I help him hide his identity and escape justice that makes me guilty of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting a criminal.
I'm going to stand by my assertion that Germany has a higher moral ground *today* as a country insomuch they clearly impart to their youth the atrocities they were responsible for. Our country lies to its congress to prevent such truths from coming out.
And as the article points out, not all the world war 2 documents have been declassified yet.
posted by el io at 12:46 AM on October 27, 2014 [16 favorites]
If a friend of mine kills someone and I know about it, if I try to prevent his guilt from coming out, that makes me a criminal co-conspirator after the fact. If I know about a murder before it happens that makes me a conspirator.
If I help him hide his identity and escape justice that makes me guilty of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting a criminal.
I'm going to stand by my assertion that Germany has a higher moral ground *today* as a country insomuch they clearly impart to their youth the atrocities they were responsible for. Our country lies to its congress to prevent such truths from coming out.
And as the article points out, not all the world war 2 documents have been declassified yet.
posted by el io at 12:46 AM on October 27, 2014 [16 favorites]
In calling the US a co-conspirator in the holocaust you're implying equivalent guilt which deserves equivalent punishment. If that's not what you intend, choose different analogies.
"If I help him hide his identity and escape justice "
In a word, Nuremberg. The postwar trials did much to expose and condemn what the Nazis had done, and Germany today looks the way it does in part because that condemnation was taken to heart.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:06 AM on October 27, 2014 [7 favorites]
"If I help him hide his identity and escape justice "
In a word, Nuremberg. The postwar trials did much to expose and condemn what the Nazis had done, and Germany today looks the way it does in part because that condemnation was taken to heart.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:06 AM on October 27, 2014 [7 favorites]
In other words, if there were justice, a whole lot of US officials at various high levels of government (including and especially the intelligence services) would be tried as war criminals, Nuremberg.
I was taught that Nuremberg showed that there can be justice to those that commit war crimes. Now I realize that the only people who will ever be convicted of war crimes are non-Americans; see the "Netherlands Invasion Act" (not it's actual name). Yes, the Nuremberg trials did convict the Nazi's that Americans didn't have any use for. For all other Nazis, different fates awaited them.
posted by el io at 1:45 AM on October 27, 2014 [6 favorites]
I was taught that Nuremberg showed that there can be justice to those that commit war crimes. Now I realize that the only people who will ever be convicted of war crimes are non-Americans; see the "Netherlands Invasion Act" (not it's actual name). Yes, the Nuremberg trials did convict the Nazi's that Americans didn't have any use for. For all other Nazis, different fates awaited them.
posted by el io at 1:45 AM on October 27, 2014 [6 favorites]
el io: "I was taught that Nuremberg showed that there can be justice to those that commit war crimes."Yes, well, as long as they're on the losing side of course.
posted by brokkr at 2:01 AM on October 27, 2014 [7 favorites]
Now I realize that the responsibility for the Holocaust needs to be shared, and blaming the Germans is convenient bullshit.
That's nonsense. The US and other countries should rightfully feel bad for doing less for Jewish and other refugees than they could have and certainly you're right that Germans are now very good at recognising the enormity of what they collectively did but sharing the blame for the holocaust is preposterous.
I'm going to stand by my assertion that Germany has a higher moral ground *today* as a country insomuch they clearly impart to their youth the atrocities they were responsible for.
But the atrocities for which they're responsible were far greater. I'm not denying that the US did things that weren't great and certainly hiding people guilty of genocide is bad but the amount of public guilt and atonement should certainly be proportional to the original act, shouldn't it?
Since the act of employing a number of prominent Nazis is hugely less bad than murdering millions of people, the proportionate public guilt should also be far less.
Justice is a very fine thing, but it is inherently post-hoc, and administering a huge swathe of occupied Europe with a potentially hostile ally of convenience sitting right across from you is damn hard. In Iraq the US took a hard line against anyone who had been involved with the Baath party, was that a good idea? I'm obviously not saying that there's a direct moral equivalence between hiring a school teacher who used to belong to the Baath party and someone who was involved with tens of thousands of deaths, but it surely does illustrate that these are not trivial decisions to make.
The idea that using a murderer as a spy or informant (which isn't really the same thing as hiring them as a trusted member of your team!) is even remotely comparable to the commission of the original crime is simply absurd.
posted by atrazine at 2:50 AM on October 27, 2014 [11 favorites]
That's nonsense. The US and other countries should rightfully feel bad for doing less for Jewish and other refugees than they could have and certainly you're right that Germans are now very good at recognising the enormity of what they collectively did but sharing the blame for the holocaust is preposterous.
I'm going to stand by my assertion that Germany has a higher moral ground *today* as a country insomuch they clearly impart to their youth the atrocities they were responsible for.
But the atrocities for which they're responsible were far greater. I'm not denying that the US did things that weren't great and certainly hiding people guilty of genocide is bad but the amount of public guilt and atonement should certainly be proportional to the original act, shouldn't it?
Since the act of employing a number of prominent Nazis is hugely less bad than murdering millions of people, the proportionate public guilt should also be far less.
Justice is a very fine thing, but it is inherently post-hoc, and administering a huge swathe of occupied Europe with a potentially hostile ally of convenience sitting right across from you is damn hard. In Iraq the US took a hard line against anyone who had been involved with the Baath party, was that a good idea? I'm obviously not saying that there's a direct moral equivalence between hiring a school teacher who used to belong to the Baath party and someone who was involved with tens of thousands of deaths, but it surely does illustrate that these are not trivial decisions to make.
The idea that using a murderer as a spy or informant (which isn't really the same thing as hiring them as a trusted member of your team!) is even remotely comparable to the commission of the original crime is simply absurd.
posted by atrazine at 2:50 AM on October 27, 2014 [11 favorites]
I don't know that it's profitable to get into moral-culpability dick measuring contests, and I didn't get the sense that's what el io was trying to say, but rather; trying to say that the way history in general in the US - and WWII in particular - is inculcated into the public consciousness is black-and-white, goodies-and-baddies, simplistic, reductionist narrative, developed with an especial view to buttressing a particular identity of the United States, one that does not easily accommodate mistakes, abuse, wanton slaughter, venality and stupidity, even evil - especially as it pertain to WWII.
I am not an American, and have not spent significant time in America, so I'm not really qualified to say how true this is, or rather, how much more true it is for America's history telling, vs Australia's, versus England's, vs anyone else's. But it's a view I've known more than one American to espouse.
Given that this particular incident involved lying to congress and blatant attempts at cover-ups (as happened with many other incidents involving the US and WWII, (e.g the effects of radiation poisoning in Hiroshima and Nagasaki), I don't think "well, the other guys were worse" is so much a defense but a derail. Someone is always worse.
no-one came out of WW2 looking too flash.
I could not agree more.
posted by smoke at 3:02 AM on October 27, 2014 [18 favorites]
I am not an American, and have not spent significant time in America, so I'm not really qualified to say how true this is, or rather, how much more true it is for America's history telling, vs Australia's, versus England's, vs anyone else's. But it's a view I've known more than one American to espouse.
Given that this particular incident involved lying to congress and blatant attempts at cover-ups (as happened with many other incidents involving the US and WWII, (e.g the effects of radiation poisoning in Hiroshima and Nagasaki), I don't think "well, the other guys were worse" is so much a defense but a derail. Someone is always worse.
no-one came out of WW2 looking too flash.
I could not agree more.
posted by smoke at 3:02 AM on October 27, 2014 [18 favorites]
responsibility for the Holocaust needs to be shared, and blaming the Germans is convenient bullshit.
This itself is BS. Even the Germans themselves would disagree. The great thing about post-war Germany is the way that they have not tried to escape blame, but to examine themselves for their culpability. Something that I'm not sure has ever happened in the Pacific theatre, or elsewhere in Europe for that matter.
Trying to turn absolutely true moral compromises and dubious decisions made by the US into collective guilt for the Holocaust is not really on. If by this, you mean that the anti-semitism that fed the Holocaust was European wide and extended beyond Germans themselves, and that the Germans were aided by conquered native populations who shared their ideology, then yes. True.
history in general in the US - and WWII in particular - is inculcated into the public consciousness is black-and-white, goodies-and-baddies, simplistic, reductionist narrative, developed with an especial view to buttressing a particular identity of the United States, one that does not easily accommodate mistakes, abuse, wanton slaughter, venality and stupidity, even evil - especially as it pertain to WWII.
This.
It is human nature to prefer certain narratives, and certain simpler narratives. The war, and the following Cold War, involved many moral compromises of varying degrees of severity, many of which we haven't fully grappled with. For the US, internment, the final air campaign against Japan, the use of nuclear weapons, the use of the Mafia in Italy and Greece, and yes, the use of ex-Nazis in post-war Germany and the Cold War are all decisions that remain in grey, and will never be black and white.
I don't believe even this ugly and perhaps unjustifiable use of Nazis in the post-war years negates the way the Allies handled de-Nazification. Compared to some of the proposals and even some of the decisions taken in other conflicts, Nuremberg was the Allies taking quite a high road that helped the post-war settlement and set a high bar. The hypocrisy discussed in the linked article does not negate that.
posted by C.A.S. at 3:25 AM on October 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
This itself is BS. Even the Germans themselves would disagree. The great thing about post-war Germany is the way that they have not tried to escape blame, but to examine themselves for their culpability. Something that I'm not sure has ever happened in the Pacific theatre, or elsewhere in Europe for that matter.
Trying to turn absolutely true moral compromises and dubious decisions made by the US into collective guilt for the Holocaust is not really on. If by this, you mean that the anti-semitism that fed the Holocaust was European wide and extended beyond Germans themselves, and that the Germans were aided by conquered native populations who shared their ideology, then yes. True.
history in general in the US - and WWII in particular - is inculcated into the public consciousness is black-and-white, goodies-and-baddies, simplistic, reductionist narrative, developed with an especial view to buttressing a particular identity of the United States, one that does not easily accommodate mistakes, abuse, wanton slaughter, venality and stupidity, even evil - especially as it pertain to WWII.
This.
It is human nature to prefer certain narratives, and certain simpler narratives. The war, and the following Cold War, involved many moral compromises of varying degrees of severity, many of which we haven't fully grappled with. For the US, internment, the final air campaign against Japan, the use of nuclear weapons, the use of the Mafia in Italy and Greece, and yes, the use of ex-Nazis in post-war Germany and the Cold War are all decisions that remain in grey, and will never be black and white.
I don't believe even this ugly and perhaps unjustifiable use of Nazis in the post-war years negates the way the Allies handled de-Nazification. Compared to some of the proposals and even some of the decisions taken in other conflicts, Nuremberg was the Allies taking quite a high road that helped the post-war settlement and set a high bar. The hypocrisy discussed in the linked article does not negate that.
posted by C.A.S. at 3:25 AM on October 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
Little known fact: Patton thought that Jews were subhuman, and kept the camps running for years, in conditions barely better than they were under the nazis.
posted by empath at 3:49 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by empath at 3:49 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
Patton was dead by the end of 1945, empath.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 4:12 AM on October 27, 2014 [17 favorites]
posted by Mr. Yuck at 4:12 AM on October 27, 2014 [17 favorites]
This is a disturbing and interesting issue. I would like to know more about the particulars of what various ex-Nazi spies did. Sometimes, it is necessary to use such people; most of the time, however, it winds up being a bunch of irregular paychecks sent to con men, dimwits, and villains.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:47 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:47 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
the way history in general in the US - and WWII in particular - is inculcated into the public consciousness is black-and-white, goodies-and-baddies, simplistic, reductionist narrative, developed with an especial view to buttressing a particular identity of the United States, one that does not easily accommodate mistakes, abuse, wanton slaughter, venality and stupidity, even evil - especially as it pertain to WWII.
And yet: right there on the Mall in Washington DC, in the core of the group of museums and monuments which makes up the official story the United States tells about itself to visitors from around the country and the world, is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which unflinchingly tells the story both of the Holocaust and of the United States's slow, halting, ambivalent response to it.
Don't underestimate Americans. We are capable of understanding that history is complicated.
posted by escabeche at 5:04 AM on October 27, 2014 [10 favorites]
And yet: right there on the Mall in Washington DC, in the core of the group of museums and monuments which makes up the official story the United States tells about itself to visitors from around the country and the world, is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which unflinchingly tells the story both of the Holocaust and of the United States's slow, halting, ambivalent response to it.
Don't underestimate Americans. We are capable of understanding that history is complicated.
posted by escabeche at 5:04 AM on October 27, 2014 [10 favorites]
it winds up being a bunch of irregular paychecks sent to con men, dimwits, and villains
Whoever could pass themselves off as knowing something.
I see it more as a struggle between the Soviets and the West over the intellectual property of Nazi Germany. Everyone wanted to know what they knew.
"A screaming comes across the sky." The V-2 was an astonishing achievement. The ME-262 was an insanely advanced fighter aircraft.
Plenty of people thought WW3 was going to start soon. Plenty of people wanted to get that going and over with the best advantages.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 5:17 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
Whoever could pass themselves off as knowing something.
I see it more as a struggle between the Soviets and the West over the intellectual property of Nazi Germany. Everyone wanted to know what they knew.
"A screaming comes across the sky." The V-2 was an astonishing achievement. The ME-262 was an insanely advanced fighter aircraft.
Plenty of people thought WW3 was going to start soon. Plenty of people wanted to get that going and over with the best advantages.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 5:17 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
no-one came out of WW2 looking too flash.
Canadians.
But, man, Project Paperclip. The top brass looked at all the neat toys the Germans had, and fell all over themselves to mimic the Third Reich's "technical excellence." Yeah, we get it - rockets (invented in Massachusetts), super-tanks (The Russians' were better and so were the French armor in production and in the pipeline at the beginning of the war) jet fighters and bombers (which could be chased down by hot-rodded piston-prop Jugs) and christ I better stop before I start getting upset over the slavering worship ladled upon crummy Nazi infantry arms.
The non-Fascists meanwhile spent the war building programmable computers, atomic weapons, refining logistical pipelines from foundry to front line and perfecting artillery and ASW. You know, the crap that won the damn war. Clearly worthless, let's get a bunch of defeated and disgraced German war criminals in here to show us how to beat the Russians, considering they had so much success at doing that.
It brought the stink and stain of Fascist authoritarianism into the government that's been lingering way too long.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:18 AM on October 27, 2014 [17 favorites]
Canadians.
But, man, Project Paperclip. The top brass looked at all the neat toys the Germans had, and fell all over themselves to mimic the Third Reich's "technical excellence." Yeah, we get it - rockets (invented in Massachusetts), super-tanks (The Russians' were better and so were the French armor in production and in the pipeline at the beginning of the war) jet fighters and bombers (which could be chased down by hot-rodded piston-prop Jugs) and christ I better stop before I start getting upset over the slavering worship ladled upon crummy Nazi infantry arms.
The non-Fascists meanwhile spent the war building programmable computers, atomic weapons, refining logistical pipelines from foundry to front line and perfecting artillery and ASW. You know, the crap that won the damn war. Clearly worthless, let's get a bunch of defeated and disgraced German war criminals in here to show us how to beat the Russians, considering they had so much success at doing that.
It brought the stink and stain of Fascist authoritarianism into the government that's been lingering way too long.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:18 AM on October 27, 2014 [17 favorites]
Patton was dead by the end of 1945, empath.
And even more so, Patton was relieved as Military Governor of Bavaria for saying that the Nazi were just another political party and if they had the people to get the country running, well, he'd use them.
Everyone is also making the usual mistake of thinking that the US operated as one single solitary being with one mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. The original plan we followed after Germany fell had nothing to do with restoring the economy of Germany. Far from it. It was designed, in the words of its deviser, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morganthau, Jr., to cause the "total destruction of the whole German armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries which are basic to military strength."
The implementation document was JCS 1067. One of the principals of JCS 1067 was "...take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany [or] designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy"
The goal of the Morganthau Plan was to make sure Germany could never wage war again by utterly destroying German Industry. When it was first proposed, Roosevelt disowned it, but he died before the war end and Morganthau convinced Truman to run with it.
Plants that had been used to make military materials and arms were destroyed -- even if they could be converted to nonmilitary uses. With no industry, there was nothing to export for currency, which meant there were no food imports. In 1946, Germany starved -- average daily caloric intake ranged between 1000 and 1500. Saarland were given to France (Saarland didn't rejoin Germany until 1957) and the Ruhr was going to be handed over as well.
Herbert Hoover put it plainly. "There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a "pastoral state". It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it. This would approximately reduce Germany to the density of the population of France"
In early 1947, the US came to realize that not only were we on a plan that would have made the Holocaust look like a nice warmup for the slaughter we were slowly implementing, the fact that Germany, the industrial machine of Europe, was an economic quagmire was in fact drastically holding back the other European economies. Truman finally realized this, rescinded JCS 1067, next followed the Marshall Plan, which realized that a economically destroyed Germany couldn't be allowed if they wanted the rest of Europe to recover. The result of this was the Wirtschaftswunder, the "Economic Miracle.
So, while part of the US is trying to spirit out German workers, another part is trying to explicitly destroy the industrial economy of Germany. As in all things in history, it's complicated.
posted by eriko at 5:26 AM on October 27, 2014 [34 favorites]
And even more so, Patton was relieved as Military Governor of Bavaria for saying that the Nazi were just another political party and if they had the people to get the country running, well, he'd use them.
Everyone is also making the usual mistake of thinking that the US operated as one single solitary being with one mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. The original plan we followed after Germany fell had nothing to do with restoring the economy of Germany. Far from it. It was designed, in the words of its deviser, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morganthau, Jr., to cause the "total destruction of the whole German armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries which are basic to military strength."
The implementation document was JCS 1067. One of the principals of JCS 1067 was "...take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany [or] designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy"
The goal of the Morganthau Plan was to make sure Germany could never wage war again by utterly destroying German Industry. When it was first proposed, Roosevelt disowned it, but he died before the war end and Morganthau convinced Truman to run with it.
Plants that had been used to make military materials and arms were destroyed -- even if they could be converted to nonmilitary uses. With no industry, there was nothing to export for currency, which meant there were no food imports. In 1946, Germany starved -- average daily caloric intake ranged between 1000 and 1500. Saarland were given to France (Saarland didn't rejoin Germany until 1957) and the Ruhr was going to be handed over as well.
Herbert Hoover put it plainly. "There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a "pastoral state". It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it. This would approximately reduce Germany to the density of the population of France"
In early 1947, the US came to realize that not only were we on a plan that would have made the Holocaust look like a nice warmup for the slaughter we were slowly implementing, the fact that Germany, the industrial machine of Europe, was an economic quagmire was in fact drastically holding back the other European economies. Truman finally realized this, rescinded JCS 1067, next followed the Marshall Plan, which realized that a economically destroyed Germany couldn't be allowed if they wanted the rest of Europe to recover. The result of this was the Wirtschaftswunder, the "Economic Miracle.
So, while part of the US is trying to spirit out German workers, another part is trying to explicitly destroy the industrial economy of Germany. As in all things in history, it's complicated.
posted by eriko at 5:26 AM on October 27, 2014 [34 favorites]
You have to remember that in a lot of cases, the American's weren't really fighting the Nazis, they were fighting the communists. Europe was just Vietnam 25 years early, with a "better" outcome.
posted by blue_beetle at 5:27 AM on October 27, 2014
posted by blue_beetle at 5:27 AM on October 27, 2014
As I remember it this is stuff that Mae Brussell was uncovering in the 70's and 80's on her radio show and in her articles in The Realist.
posted by cleroy at 5:32 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by cleroy at 5:32 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
You have to remember that in a lot of cases, the American's weren't really fighting the Nazis, they were fighting the communists. Europe was just Vietnam 25 years early, with a "better" outcome.
This is certainly the impression that I got from my grandfather, who served as an American during the occupation of Germany. Sympathy for German civilians, hatred and disgust for the Soviet occupiers.
posted by indubitable at 5:35 AM on October 27, 2014
This is certainly the impression that I got from my grandfather, who served as an American during the occupation of Germany. Sympathy for German civilians, hatred and disgust for the Soviet occupiers.
posted by indubitable at 5:35 AM on October 27, 2014
Source on patton's anti-semitism and the running of the dp camps.
posted by empath at 5:44 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 5:44 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
no-one came out of WW2 looking too flash.
Canadians.
Uh nope. Proportionately, we allowed in fewer jewish holocaust refugees that the US did.
posted by srboisvert at 5:48 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
Canadians.
Uh nope. Proportionately, we allowed in fewer jewish holocaust refugees that the US did.
posted by srboisvert at 5:48 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
It seems a pretty unfair reading of my comment to suggest that I implied that the US is worse than Nazi Germany.
I'm sure there are many Native Americans who'd argue that both nations are equally guilty of genocide.
posted by ryanshepard at 5:51 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm sure there are many Native Americans who'd argue that both nations are equally guilty of genocide.
posted by ryanshepard at 5:51 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
It is human nature to prefer certain narratives,
I'll conjecture that is part of why Human Smoke, 2008, was met with controversy. I'm glad Mr. Yuck quoted Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow...when I was reading what critical articles existed around 1990, one observation was that for such an extensive and encyclopedic treatment of WWII, no mention of the Holocaust was provocative. This, and a pornographic treatment of the book's puppet masters, was given as a possible reason for its lack of awards. Another speculation (about the absence of a Holocaust) was that the evil of Facism might countenance any convenient chauvinism, but that its worse aspect was its practical adaption in terms of collusion between corporations and government.
Hitler's war economy could only be defeated by a similar control in the west, and to what degree that control would be relinquished after the war was (and still is among some) no small issue in 1972, when Gravity's Rainbow came out.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 6:04 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'll conjecture that is part of why Human Smoke, 2008, was met with controversy. I'm glad Mr. Yuck quoted Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow...when I was reading what critical articles existed around 1990, one observation was that for such an extensive and encyclopedic treatment of WWII, no mention of the Holocaust was provocative. This, and a pornographic treatment of the book's puppet masters, was given as a possible reason for its lack of awards. Another speculation (about the absence of a Holocaust) was that the evil of Facism might countenance any convenient chauvinism, but that its worse aspect was its practical adaption in terms of collusion between corporations and government.
Hitler's war economy could only be defeated by a similar control in the west, and to what degree that control would be relinquished after the war was (and still is among some) no small issue in 1972, when Gravity's Rainbow came out.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 6:04 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
let's get a bunch of defeated and disgraced German war criminals in here to show us how to beat the Russians, considering they had so much success at doing that
Yup. Should teach us about paranoia, but no.
My stepfather was appointed military governor (by Patton) of Dachau after the war was over. He was still there when thousands of ethnic Germans, expelled from Czechoslovakia arrived with nowhere else to go. Meanwhile my Polish dad was rounding up Soviet POWs in France and sending them to the Gulags, per the Yalta agreement, I think. It was a mess. The ironies were not lost on either of them.
My dad's oldest brother, who fought the Wermacht all the way from Poznan to the Romanian border in '39, became an USian paratrooper and was captured near Aachen in '44. A German family hid him from the SS after he escaped.
Trying to make any of this black and white just won't work.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 6:08 AM on October 27, 2014 [8 favorites]
Yup. Should teach us about paranoia, but no.
My stepfather was appointed military governor (by Patton) of Dachau after the war was over. He was still there when thousands of ethnic Germans, expelled from Czechoslovakia arrived with nowhere else to go. Meanwhile my Polish dad was rounding up Soviet POWs in France and sending them to the Gulags, per the Yalta agreement, I think. It was a mess. The ironies were not lost on either of them.
My dad's oldest brother, who fought the Wermacht all the way from Poznan to the Romanian border in '39, became an USian paratrooper and was captured near Aachen in '44. A German family hid him from the SS after he escaped.
Trying to make any of this black and white just won't work.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 6:08 AM on October 27, 2014 [8 favorites]
Little known fact: Patton thought that Jews were subhuman, and kept the camps running for years, in conditions barely better than they were under the nazis.
Yes, camps run just like the Nazis ran them, minus the mass industrial gassing and cremation. Other than that, the same.
I will give you that Patton was an anti-semite, but we're going to have to try harder
posted by C.A.S. at 6:19 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yes, camps run just like the Nazis ran them, minus the mass industrial gassing and cremation. Other than that, the same.
I will give you that Patton was an anti-semite, but we're going to have to try harder
posted by C.A.S. at 6:19 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't believe even this ugly and perhaps unjustifiable use of Nazis in the post-war years negates the way the Allies handled de-Nazification.
But you don't really have to in order to find it ugly and unjustifiable. More broadly, maybe it's a good thing, now that neither the Soviets nor the Nazis are still around, to be able to examine our own actions. What have we got to lose, exactly?
posted by kewb at 6:39 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
But you don't really have to in order to find it ugly and unjustifiable. More broadly, maybe it's a good thing, now that neither the Soviets nor the Nazis are still around, to be able to examine our own actions. What have we got to lose, exactly?
posted by kewb at 6:39 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
the way history in general in the US - and WWII in particular - is inculcated into the public consciousness is black-and-white, goodies-and-baddies, simplistic, reductionist narrative, developed with an especial view to buttressing a particular identity of the United States, one that does not easily accommodate mistakes, abuse, wanton slaughter, venality and stupidity, even evil - especially as it pertain to WWII.
This is just a wordy version of the "hurf durf Americans are dumb" trope that's really, really tired. Many Americans are informed their history and are still able to appreciate, say, the horror of Dresden while being able to see a difference between that the Holocaust.
I've basically never seen any discussion of the Holocaust more than a snippet that didn't mention the refusal of Jewish refugees, or questioning the necessity of the atomic bombings, etc. Every textbook I ever had in school mentioned these things. American historiography is not as "reductionist" as you assert.
There's certainly a triumphalism to a lot of WWII history, but to be fair, America was pretty triumphant. I'm still willing to put American chauvinism up against most major powers.
posted by spaltavian at 6:46 AM on October 27, 2014 [10 favorites]
This is just a wordy version of the "hurf durf Americans are dumb" trope that's really, really tired. Many Americans are informed their history and are still able to appreciate, say, the horror of Dresden while being able to see a difference between that the Holocaust.
I've basically never seen any discussion of the Holocaust more than a snippet that didn't mention the refusal of Jewish refugees, or questioning the necessity of the atomic bombings, etc. Every textbook I ever had in school mentioned these things. American historiography is not as "reductionist" as you assert.
There's certainly a triumphalism to a lot of WWII history, but to be fair, America was pretty triumphant. I'm still willing to put American chauvinism up against most major powers.
posted by spaltavian at 6:46 AM on October 27, 2014 [10 favorites]
More broadly, maybe it's a good thing, now that neither the Soviets nor the Nazis are still around, to be able to examine our own actions.
There's still Soviets and Nazis around. The proof is merely an exercise of Google Search. Feel free to ask them their view of history.
posted by happyroach at 6:55 AM on October 27, 2014
There's still Soviets and Nazis around. The proof is merely an exercise of Google Search. Feel free to ask them their view of history.
posted by happyroach at 6:55 AM on October 27, 2014
In the decades after World War II, the C.I.A. and other United States agencies employed at least a thousand Nazis as Cold War spies and informants and, as recently as the 1990s, concealed the government’s ties to some still living in America.
Spies and informants usually are, by definition, secret employees and former enemies. There are probably a lot of mistakes to regret, but gaining expert knowledge and intelligence during the cold war isn't one of them.
posted by Brian B. at 7:01 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
Spies and informants usually are, by definition, secret employees and former enemies. There are probably a lot of mistakes to regret, but gaining expert knowledge and intelligence during the cold war isn't one of them.
posted by Brian B. at 7:01 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-bill-oreilly-ignored-george-pattons-anti-semitism/2014/09/29/afe3e3ea-4806-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story.html
It's not a source if it's in the Opinion Section, doubly so when those two names are involved.
(DNRTFA. WNRTFA.)
posted by eriko at 7:12 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's not a source if it's in the Opinion Section, doubly so when those two names are involved.
(DNRTFA. WNRTFA.)
posted by eriko at 7:12 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
There's still Soviets and Nazis around. The proof is merely an exercise of Google Search. Feel free to ask them their view of history.
I was using the terms metonymically to refer to "the Soviet Union" and "Nazi Germany," neither of which seems to be extant at present.
But I assume you're suggesting that there is some danger today that pro-Soviet ideologues or pro-Nazi ideologues might make concrete political gains if people in the United States take a dim view of the use of former Nazis during the Cold War?
I'd be interested to read a detailed, well-supported case for that, since it would suggest a rather terrifying and underreported existential threat.
Spies and informants usually are, by definition, secret employees and former enemies. There are probably a lot of mistakes to regret, but gaining expert knowledge and intelligence during a cold war isn't one of them.
Sure, and criminal informants are usually criminals. That doesn't mean protecting Whitey Bulger for years was a good idea, even if he did help the authorities put away Howie Winter and the Mullen Gang.
Protecting war criminals because you need the intel is arguably good tactics and very bad strategy, because it helps normalize that and makes it much harder, down the line, to claim any kind of moral or even tactical justification for going after war crimes and war criminals. In short, it normalizes the idea that one can commit war crimes without facing any kind of justice. That's not only grossly immoral, it also eventually screws up realpolitik as well because when it (inevitably) comes out it diminishes your ability to claim moral high ground.
posted by kewb at 7:20 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
I was using the terms metonymically to refer to "the Soviet Union" and "Nazi Germany," neither of which seems to be extant at present.
But I assume you're suggesting that there is some danger today that pro-Soviet ideologues or pro-Nazi ideologues might make concrete political gains if people in the United States take a dim view of the use of former Nazis during the Cold War?
I'd be interested to read a detailed, well-supported case for that, since it would suggest a rather terrifying and underreported existential threat.
Spies and informants usually are, by definition, secret employees and former enemies. There are probably a lot of mistakes to regret, but gaining expert knowledge and intelligence during a cold war isn't one of them.
Sure, and criminal informants are usually criminals. That doesn't mean protecting Whitey Bulger for years was a good idea, even if he did help the authorities put away Howie Winter and the Mullen Gang.
Protecting war criminals because you need the intel is arguably good tactics and very bad strategy, because it helps normalize that and makes it much harder, down the line, to claim any kind of moral or even tactical justification for going after war crimes and war criminals. In short, it normalizes the idea that one can commit war crimes without facing any kind of justice. That's not only grossly immoral, it also eventually screws up realpolitik as well because when it (inevitably) comes out it diminishes your ability to claim moral high ground.
posted by kewb at 7:20 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
In short, it normalizes the idea that one can commit war crimes without facing any kind of justice. That's not only grossly immoral, it also eventually screws up realpolitik as well because when it (inevitably) comes out it diminishes your ability to claim moral high ground.
Redemption on a case by case basis is allowed, perhaps necessary, to be just and moral. Also, the moral high ground is not completely separate from the actual high ground, as in winning the cold war first.
posted by Brian B. at 7:33 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Redemption on a case by case basis is allowed, perhaps necessary, to be just and moral. Also, the moral high ground is not completely separate from the actual high ground, as in winning the cold war first.
posted by Brian B. at 7:33 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think you will find that many, many people in the West actually do see the US (and the Allies in general) as still very much having the moral high ground over the Third Reich, even accounting for all the many sins of the US (and the Allies in general). Perhaps you disagree, which is certainly your opinion, but this opinion does not appear to be shared by a critical mass of people. When you talk about not the US not being able to claim the moral high ground, I don't know who or what you are saying would prevent the US from claiming the moral high ground. Is it just sort of an intangible thing, not connected with global power or public opinion?
Sometimes it is wise to cooperate with enemy intelligence; sometimes it is not; it depends. For example, a crucial aspect of British intelligence's success in WWII was due to the fact that they intentionally did not disrupt old German intelligence networks within the UK, and then they made it their strategy to "turn" spies into double agents. This helped win the war. They no doubt rewarded some individual bad guys in the process. Does this disturb you?
I mean, assuming you've seen Inglourious Basterds...what did you think of what the US government did at the end?
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:34 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
Sometimes it is wise to cooperate with enemy intelligence; sometimes it is not; it depends. For example, a crucial aspect of British intelligence's success in WWII was due to the fact that they intentionally did not disrupt old German intelligence networks within the UK, and then they made it their strategy to "turn" spies into double agents. This helped win the war. They no doubt rewarded some individual bad guys in the process. Does this disturb you?
I mean, assuming you've seen Inglourious Basterds...what did you think of what the US government did at the end?
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:34 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
The only crime in war is LOSING. That is ultimately what the trial signifies.
posted by Renoroc at 7:47 AM on October 27, 2014
posted by Renoroc at 7:47 AM on October 27, 2014
My understanding is that there were immigration quotas for each country and the one for Germany was kind of full after Hitler, so my Jewish in laws traded everything they owned in Hamburg for Czech passports and got their asses over here after Kristallnacht.
Fluent in German, the boys were picked for intelligence work when they enlisted. They were eager. Only one of them came back. He put a gun his mouth in the mid-fifties and the family discovered that his privates had been shot off 12 years prior. "That's why Aaron never married."
You have to think about the fact that many of the USian soldiers in the European Theatre were angry Europeans going home with revenge in mind. They got that job done. The brutality they inflicted was just a reflection of what was visited upon them earlier in life.
My ex's British G'pa was so terrorized by the WW1 Zeppelin bombings that he drank himself to death during The Blitz.
Context, context, context.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 7:48 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
Fluent in German, the boys were picked for intelligence work when they enlisted. They were eager. Only one of them came back. He put a gun his mouth in the mid-fifties and the family discovered that his privates had been shot off 12 years prior. "That's why Aaron never married."
You have to think about the fact that many of the USian soldiers in the European Theatre were angry Europeans going home with revenge in mind. They got that job done. The brutality they inflicted was just a reflection of what was visited upon them earlier in life.
My ex's British G'pa was so terrorized by the WW1 Zeppelin bombings that he drank himself to death during The Blitz.
Context, context, context.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 7:48 AM on October 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
I was using the terms metonymically to refer to "the Soviet Union" and "Nazi Germany," neither of which seems to be extant at present.
Actually, I think it was meant there are actual, living people who were Soviet or Nazi at the time, or people who are one generation removed from same with a clear understanding of their forebears perceptions and perspectives.
There was an amazing post here a while back by someone who was a student in post-war Germany, when the kids in class asked, "Why would anyone follow the Nazis?" The teacher closed the drapes, shut off the lights, and played recordings of some of Hitler's most famous speeches, with the full force of his rhetorical might. The teacher understood, from the perspective of being there, and used this experience to teach.
There are neo-Nazis and neo-Soviets, but they're basically echoes of imaginary fairy kingdoms that only exist in the fantasies of the modern day adherents - they lack the base perspective gained from direct experience.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:03 AM on October 27, 2014 [4 favorites]
Actually, I think it was meant there are actual, living people who were Soviet or Nazi at the time, or people who are one generation removed from same with a clear understanding of their forebears perceptions and perspectives.
There was an amazing post here a while back by someone who was a student in post-war Germany, when the kids in class asked, "Why would anyone follow the Nazis?" The teacher closed the drapes, shut off the lights, and played recordings of some of Hitler's most famous speeches, with the full force of his rhetorical might. The teacher understood, from the perspective of being there, and used this experience to teach.
There are neo-Nazis and neo-Soviets, but they're basically echoes of imaginary fairy kingdoms that only exist in the fantasies of the modern day adherents - they lack the base perspective gained from direct experience.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:03 AM on October 27, 2014 [4 favorites]
This is just a wordy version of the "hurf durf Americans are dumb" trope that's really, really tired. Many Americans are informed their history and are still able to appreciate, say, the horror of Dresden while being able to see a difference between that the Holocaust.
I've basically never seen any discussion of the Holocaust more than a snippet that didn't mention the refusal of Jewish refugees, or questioning the necessity of the atomic bombings, etc. Every textbook I ever had in school mentioned these things. American historiography is not as "reductionist" as you assert.
And there are ongoing concerted attacks on the teaching of nuanced, complex histories, all in the name of "patriotism." So, we can't just take it for granted that everyone in the US knows this stuff, or that people will continue to know and learn about it. It is crucial that we take an active role in investigating our history and asking difficult questions of ourselves, instead of accepting unthinkingly the rhetoric of "The Greatest Generation!" 1 2 3 4 5
posted by Saxon Kane at 8:04 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
I've basically never seen any discussion of the Holocaust more than a snippet that didn't mention the refusal of Jewish refugees, or questioning the necessity of the atomic bombings, etc. Every textbook I ever had in school mentioned these things. American historiography is not as "reductionist" as you assert.
And there are ongoing concerted attacks on the teaching of nuanced, complex histories, all in the name of "patriotism." So, we can't just take it for granted that everyone in the US knows this stuff, or that people will continue to know and learn about it. It is crucial that we take an active role in investigating our history and asking difficult questions of ourselves, instead of accepting unthinkingly the rhetoric of "The Greatest Generation!" 1 2 3 4 5
posted by Saxon Kane at 8:04 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Not to derail into a maple leaf bash, but in addition to pushing back Jewish refugees, Canada also did its share of interning Japanese Canadians.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:12 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 8:12 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
Perhaps you disagree, which is certainly your opinion, but this opinion does not appear to be shared by a critical mass of people. When you talk about not the US not being able to claim the moral high ground, I don't know who or what you are saying would prevent the US from claiming the moral high ground. Is it just sort of an intangible thing, not connected with global power or public opinion?
First, you're turning "diminishes" into "prevents." Second, I'm referring to the way it limits your ability to claim high ground down the line when that would be tactically useful. Yes, we can still claim high ground over the Nazis; but it's a lot harder to call for vigorous prosecution of that war criminal over there when people can retort, "You protected war criminals from prosecution, so why shouldn't we?"
Hell, look at this very post: look at how many people skeptical of U.S. claims to the "high ground" in present-day conflicts because of stuff like this coming out. That's the price paid. You win the battle and the peace this time, but you weaken your ability to win the peace next time or set the terms of international law. You even lose some internal solidarity.
posted by kewb at 8:16 AM on October 27, 2014
First, you're turning "diminishes" into "prevents." Second, I'm referring to the way it limits your ability to claim high ground down the line when that would be tactically useful. Yes, we can still claim high ground over the Nazis; but it's a lot harder to call for vigorous prosecution of that war criminal over there when people can retort, "You protected war criminals from prosecution, so why shouldn't we?"
Hell, look at this very post: look at how many people skeptical of U.S. claims to the "high ground" in present-day conflicts because of stuff like this coming out. That's the price paid. You win the battle and the peace this time, but you weaken your ability to win the peace next time or set the terms of international law. You even lose some internal solidarity.
posted by kewb at 8:16 AM on October 27, 2014
Was there any such thing as an intelligence asset in the Bloodlands in 1945 who had not committed multiple war crimes? Most feds probably didn't like these guys much but the only alternative was seen as akin to unilateral disarmament.
I totally agree with Slap*Happy above but the search term you want to use is Operation Paperclip.
posted by bukvich at 8:52 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
I totally agree with Slap*Happy above but the search term you want to use is Operation Paperclip.
posted by bukvich at 8:52 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
spaltavian: "I've basically never seen any discussion of the Holocaust more than a snippet that didn't mention the refusal of Jewish refugees, or questioning the necessity of the atomic bombings, etc. Every textbook I ever had in school mentioned these things."
I'm glad you had that experience. I distinctly remember being appalled the first time I heard the necessity of the atomic bombings being questioned (in a high school world history class in Spain); the prospect that they were anything other than a justified and rational response to the insane militarism of the Japanese had never come up in the previous 17 years of my life. I grew up in the South, but I had a pretty eclectic and at times quite liberal education.
posted by dendrochronologizer at 9:05 AM on October 27, 2014
I'm glad you had that experience. I distinctly remember being appalled the first time I heard the necessity of the atomic bombings being questioned (in a high school world history class in Spain); the prospect that they were anything other than a justified and rational response to the insane militarism of the Japanese had never come up in the previous 17 years of my life. I grew up in the South, but I had a pretty eclectic and at times quite liberal education.
posted by dendrochronologizer at 9:05 AM on October 27, 2014
Two of my grandparents came from Vilna, and relatives of mine who did not leave were among the 60,000 killed in machine gun massacres to which one of these American-protected Nazi spies, Aleksandras Lileikis, is linked. I was hoping that comments in this thread might focus on matters such as the foolishness and moral reprehensibility of the CIA thinking that four years of Lileikis providing information from Soviet East Germany (the quality of which seems unlikely to have been that high) was more valuable than his being prosecuted for his war crimes.
Instead, we seem to have gotten into some debate over the degree to which America of the 1940s or today should be preferred over Nazi or contemporary Germany, which seems not to be the point at all to me, with a subfocus on how sophisticated Americans' understanding of history is. Huh. Well, if that's what people prefer to speak about:
I've basically never seen any discussion of the Holocaust more than a snippet that didn't mention the refusal of Jewish refugees, or questioning the necessity of the atomic bombings, etc. Every textbook I ever had in school mentioned these things. American historiography is not as "reductionist" as you assert.
American academic historiography is sophisticated, to be sure, but American public knowledge, based on American public education? I went to a good public high school, and my American history textbook mentioned nothing about the U.S. refusal to admit Jewish refugees during WW II. My daughter went to a good public high school, and her textbook failed to mention this either. Go ahead and check out the American history textbook that UShistory.org has online: nothing there about Jews in WW II except mention of the Diary of Anne Frank, a photo of concentration camp survivors labeled as liberated by Allied troops, and this:
"Along the way they encountered the depths of Nazi horrors when they discovered concentration camps. American soldiers saw humans that looked more like skeletons, gas chambers, crematoriums, and countless victims. Although American government officials were aware of atrocities against Jews, the sheer horror of the Holocaust of 12 million Jews, homosexuals, and anyone else Hitler had deemed deviant was unknown to its fullest extent."
I'm a college professor at a large midwestern state university, and I'm all too familiar with the lack of historical literacy produced by American K-12 public education. My students have briefly memorized, spewed out on multiple-choice exams, and promptly forgotten endless lists of dates and names, little of which told a coherent story in their minds. World War II is one of the few wars they have any recollection of at all (those being the Revolutionary War ("we beat the British"), the Civil War ("the North beat the South") and WW II ("we beat the Nazis")). More than half are under the impression the Russians were our enemies in WW II. A third report never having seen a photograph of a Holocaust mass grave, or of relics such as piles of glasses. But one thing that almost all can agree on is this: the Nazis were evil, and were exterminating Jews, so America entered a just war to stop them. This is hardly a sophisticated understanding, or one compatible with antiSemitic U.S. actions or postWar collaborations with Nazi war criminals.
The frustrating combination of overloading students with arbitrary dates and facts, knitted together loosely with a few overbroad myths, makes for exactly the hurf, durf level of historical understanding that some here seem to consider an insulting stereotype, but which I encounter constantly. And it means we really, really need American public engagement with stories like that revealed in this NY Times article.
posted by DrMew at 9:11 AM on October 27, 2014 [9 favorites]
Instead, we seem to have gotten into some debate over the degree to which America of the 1940s or today should be preferred over Nazi or contemporary Germany, which seems not to be the point at all to me, with a subfocus on how sophisticated Americans' understanding of history is. Huh. Well, if that's what people prefer to speak about:
I've basically never seen any discussion of the Holocaust more than a snippet that didn't mention the refusal of Jewish refugees, or questioning the necessity of the atomic bombings, etc. Every textbook I ever had in school mentioned these things. American historiography is not as "reductionist" as you assert.
American academic historiography is sophisticated, to be sure, but American public knowledge, based on American public education? I went to a good public high school, and my American history textbook mentioned nothing about the U.S. refusal to admit Jewish refugees during WW II. My daughter went to a good public high school, and her textbook failed to mention this either. Go ahead and check out the American history textbook that UShistory.org has online: nothing there about Jews in WW II except mention of the Diary of Anne Frank, a photo of concentration camp survivors labeled as liberated by Allied troops, and this:
"Along the way they encountered the depths of Nazi horrors when they discovered concentration camps. American soldiers saw humans that looked more like skeletons, gas chambers, crematoriums, and countless victims. Although American government officials were aware of atrocities against Jews, the sheer horror of the Holocaust of 12 million Jews, homosexuals, and anyone else Hitler had deemed deviant was unknown to its fullest extent."
I'm a college professor at a large midwestern state university, and I'm all too familiar with the lack of historical literacy produced by American K-12 public education. My students have briefly memorized, spewed out on multiple-choice exams, and promptly forgotten endless lists of dates and names, little of which told a coherent story in their minds. World War II is one of the few wars they have any recollection of at all (those being the Revolutionary War ("we beat the British"), the Civil War ("the North beat the South") and WW II ("we beat the Nazis")). More than half are under the impression the Russians were our enemies in WW II. A third report never having seen a photograph of a Holocaust mass grave, or of relics such as piles of glasses. But one thing that almost all can agree on is this: the Nazis were evil, and were exterminating Jews, so America entered a just war to stop them. This is hardly a sophisticated understanding, or one compatible with antiSemitic U.S. actions or postWar collaborations with Nazi war criminals.
The frustrating combination of overloading students with arbitrary dates and facts, knitted together loosely with a few overbroad myths, makes for exactly the hurf, durf level of historical understanding that some here seem to consider an insulting stereotype, but which I encounter constantly. And it means we really, really need American public engagement with stories like that revealed in this NY Times article.
posted by DrMew at 9:11 AM on October 27, 2014 [9 favorites]
Yes, we can still claim high ground over the Nazis; but it's a lot harder to call for vigorous prosecution of that war criminal over there when people can retort, "You protected war criminals from prosecution, so why shouldn't we?"
I'm not seeing where these lines meet. The US typically tries to stay out of international war crime courts, such as the ICC, much to the consternation of other Western powers. It's not as if the US wants to join the ICC, but the other countries are blocking this on the basis of the US having hired (ex-)Nazi sources.
If anything, the US seems to have had quite a bit of luck in having it both ways. Sometimes, the US simply acts unilaterally, even in secret; but then, at other times, the international community is more than happy to accept the US's help even in a fully UN/NATO/etc.-approved adventure.
Hell, look at this very post: look at how many people skeptical of U.S. claims to the "high ground" in present-day conflicts because of stuff like this coming out. That's the price paid.
I'm pretty sure that things like Vietnam, Reagan-era geopolitics, W-era geopolitics, etc. are much, much bigger reasons why people on the international scene would doubt the US's moral authority. I have never seen anybody say anything like, "well, I used to think the US were the good guys, but then I found out that they had brought on a bunch of ex-Nazis as rocket scientists and spies". People who are informed enough to know that this happened, and that this kind of thing happens, are also typically informed enough to know the other sins of the US, just as they also typically informed enough to know that no major power is innocent, and that all use of enemy intelligence sources requires its own difficult examination of what we're doing, and why, and whether it's worth it.
I'm still not clear if you actually have a categorical objection to the US, etc. incentivizing enemy intelligence sources.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:13 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm not seeing where these lines meet. The US typically tries to stay out of international war crime courts, such as the ICC, much to the consternation of other Western powers. It's not as if the US wants to join the ICC, but the other countries are blocking this on the basis of the US having hired (ex-)Nazi sources.
If anything, the US seems to have had quite a bit of luck in having it both ways. Sometimes, the US simply acts unilaterally, even in secret; but then, at other times, the international community is more than happy to accept the US's help even in a fully UN/NATO/etc.-approved adventure.
Hell, look at this very post: look at how many people skeptical of U.S. claims to the "high ground" in present-day conflicts because of stuff like this coming out. That's the price paid.
I'm pretty sure that things like Vietnam, Reagan-era geopolitics, W-era geopolitics, etc. are much, much bigger reasons why people on the international scene would doubt the US's moral authority. I have never seen anybody say anything like, "well, I used to think the US were the good guys, but then I found out that they had brought on a bunch of ex-Nazis as rocket scientists and spies". People who are informed enough to know that this happened, and that this kind of thing happens, are also typically informed enough to know the other sins of the US, just as they also typically informed enough to know that no major power is innocent, and that all use of enemy intelligence sources requires its own difficult examination of what we're doing, and why, and whether it's worth it.
I'm still not clear if you actually have a categorical objection to the US, etc. incentivizing enemy intelligence sources.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:13 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Whether or not you feel the U.S. was more, less, or similarly morally-culpable concerning the Holocaust, can we at least all agree that the way the history surrounding World War II is imparted to the average high schooler is something that sucks dingo kidneys?
My two high school BFF's and I were stuck with a lesser-advanced history course than we could have done, due to some complete stupidity with our schedules. We were stuck with a dotty old teacher who was classically inept as a teacher already, but also was from an old-school "American history must be rah-rah flag waving" perspective. When we got up to World War II in the class, he spent the entire class period showing us a 45-minute black-and-white newsreel-style movie about "the history of the Second World War," which was just an endless series of newsreel footage of battles and marching US soldiers set to thrilling music and patriotic narration - and then, towards the end, there were thirty seconds of acknowledgement of the Holocaust and thirty seconds acknowledging Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My friends and I were utterly disgusted after the class was over, but all we could do is sigh and say "at least school's over in three weeks".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:14 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
My two high school BFF's and I were stuck with a lesser-advanced history course than we could have done, due to some complete stupidity with our schedules. We were stuck with a dotty old teacher who was classically inept as a teacher already, but also was from an old-school "American history must be rah-rah flag waving" perspective. When we got up to World War II in the class, he spent the entire class period showing us a 45-minute black-and-white newsreel-style movie about "the history of the Second World War," which was just an endless series of newsreel footage of battles and marching US soldiers set to thrilling music and patriotic narration - and then, towards the end, there were thirty seconds of acknowledgement of the Holocaust and thirty seconds acknowledging Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My friends and I were utterly disgusted after the class was over, but all we could do is sigh and say "at least school's over in three weeks".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:14 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
Much of this was somewhat well known, hinted at by various muckrackers; remember the movie "Music Box" directed by Costa Gravas?
I do wonder what the impact was in our dirty wars, especially in Central America. Certainly the US learned a lot about propaganda from the Third Reich.
posted by john wilkins at 9:15 AM on October 27, 2014
I do wonder what the impact was in our dirty wars, especially in Central America. Certainly the US learned a lot about propaganda from the Third Reich.
posted by john wilkins at 9:15 AM on October 27, 2014
I feel like I sort of lucked out in grade school history. Late 90s Rockefeller Republican Upstate New York. The main textbook in AP History was A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. In 8th grade, we covered the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by holding a debate over whether or not they were justified. I don't remember if we covered the US not accepting Holocaust refugees - as a Jew myself, I would have learned that much earlier, of course - but in general, history and social studies were as non-rah-rah as one could reasonably expect in the US.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:21 AM on October 27, 2014
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:21 AM on October 27, 2014
As I remember it this is stuff that Mae Brussell was uncovering in the 70's and 80's on her radio show and in her articles in The Realist.
I've certainly been paying closer attention to Mae, it's a shame this stuff is only commonly acknowledged decades after the fact.
I still can't believe there's a Gary Webb film, in ten years we'll get Operation Gladio starring Tom Hanks. Hollywood, by the way, is a key to understanding America's historical dementia.
posted by gorbweaver at 9:22 AM on October 27, 2014
I've certainly been paying closer attention to Mae, it's a shame this stuff is only commonly acknowledged decades after the fact.
I still can't believe there's a Gary Webb film, in ten years we'll get Operation Gladio starring Tom Hanks. Hollywood, by the way, is a key to understanding America's historical dementia.
posted by gorbweaver at 9:22 AM on October 27, 2014
Little known fact: Patton thought that Jews were subhuman, and kept the camps running for years, in conditions barely better than they were under the nazis.
Yes, camps run just like the Nazis ran them, minus the mass industrial gassing and cremation. Other than that, the same.
The inmates were still prevented from leaving, still starved, and still guilty of nothing.
If you ever wondered why the Zionist militias were going fucking bonkers around that time, wonder no more.
posted by ocschwar at 11:00 AM on October 27, 2014
Yes, camps run just like the Nazis ran them, minus the mass industrial gassing and cremation. Other than that, the same.
The inmates were still prevented from leaving, still starved, and still guilty of nothing.
If you ever wondered why the Zionist militias were going fucking bonkers around that time, wonder no more.
posted by ocschwar at 11:00 AM on October 27, 2014
I've basically never seen any discussion of the Holocaust more than a snippet that didn't mention the refusal of Jewish refugees, or questioning the necessity of the atomic bombings, etc. Every textbook I ever had in school mentioned these things. American historiography is not as "reductionist" as you assert.
American academic historiography is sophisticated, to be sure, but American public knowledge, based on American public education?
Yeah, I'm saying that American public knowledge is better than is being portrayed by the "lol Americans" tone. Some of the stuff that Americans apparently "never" talk about is readily debated on the History Channel.
posted by spaltavian at 11:01 AM on October 27, 2014
American academic historiography is sophisticated, to be sure, but American public knowledge, based on American public education?
Yeah, I'm saying that American public knowledge is better than is being portrayed by the "lol Americans" tone. Some of the stuff that Americans apparently "never" talk about is readily debated on the History Channel.
posted by spaltavian at 11:01 AM on October 27, 2014
spaltavian: Those guys on Pawn Stars are better informed than I'd give them credit for.
posted by el io at 11:10 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by el io at 11:10 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Protecting war criminals because you need the intel is arguably good tactics and very bad strategy, because it helps normalize that and makes it much harder, down the line, to claim any kind of moral or even tactical justification for going after war crimes and war criminals. In short, it normalizes the idea that one can commit war crimes without facing any kind of justice. That's not only grossly immoral, it also eventually screws up realpolitik as well because when it (inevitably) comes out it diminishes your ability to claim moral high ground.
Your argument would carry far more weight if we weren't talking abotu a time when the Nuremberg trials weren't novel. The prospect for a consistently applied law to punish crimes against humanity was not established. It still isn't.
posted by ocschwar at 11:11 AM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm still not clear if you actually have a categorical objection to the US, etc. incentivizing enemy intelligence sources.
In cases where such people have been involved in genocide or human medical experimentation on unwilling subjects, I certainly do. Additionally, I would argue that even when it is ostensibly tactically necessary to do so, that it should be treated as conditional and not kept up. Past a certain point, continuing to protect or shelter such people simply becomes indefensible in my opinion.
Your argument would carry far more weight if we weren't talking abotu a time when the Nuremberg trials weren't novel. The prospect for a consistently applied law to punish crimes against humanity was not established. It still isn't.
I'm arguing that the reason we don't have that consistently applied law is precisely because we keep finding amoral, utilitarian justifications to do exactly the sorts of things said laws would prevent.
I'll grant you that governments do what they will do. I am arguing that this isn't right.
posted by kewb at 11:16 AM on October 27, 2014
In cases where such people have been involved in genocide or human medical experimentation on unwilling subjects, I certainly do. Additionally, I would argue that even when it is ostensibly tactically necessary to do so, that it should be treated as conditional and not kept up. Past a certain point, continuing to protect or shelter such people simply becomes indefensible in my opinion.
Your argument would carry far more weight if we weren't talking abotu a time when the Nuremberg trials weren't novel. The prospect for a consistently applied law to punish crimes against humanity was not established. It still isn't.
I'm arguing that the reason we don't have that consistently applied law is precisely because we keep finding amoral, utilitarian justifications to do exactly the sorts of things said laws would prevent.
I'll grant you that governments do what they will do. I am arguing that this isn't right.
posted by kewb at 11:16 AM on October 27, 2014
The prospect for a consistently applied law to punish crimes against humanity was not established. It still isn't.
"We must look forward, not backward."
posted by el io at 11:16 AM on October 27, 2014
"We must look forward, not backward."
posted by el io at 11:16 AM on October 27, 2014
I'm arguing that the reason we don't have that consistently applied law is precisely because we keep finding amoral, utilitarian justifications to do exactly the sorts of things said laws would prevent.
THE reason?
Not merely A reason?
Are we that all-powerful?
posted by ocschwar at 11:20 AM on October 27, 2014
In cases where such people have been involved in genocide or human medical experimentation on unwilling subjects, I certainly do.
It's spring 1944. You are high up in the US Army. You receive a radio transmission. SS Colonel Hans Landa offers to effectively end WWII a year early, in exchange for amnesty and a house on Nantucket. This would literally save millions of lives.
Are you seriously saying that you would not accept this deal? Or, is it more complicated than it being categorically off-limits?
Much of the Allied victory hinged upon the use of enemy intelligence sources. It is extremely convenient to enjoy a world in which the Axis lost WWII, while also pretending that we are above cooperating with useful people who might also be evil.
Additionally, I would argue that even when it is ostensibly tactically necessary to do so, that it should be treated as conditional and not kept up. Past a certain point, continuing to protect or shelter such people simply becomes indefensible in my opinion.
If a future Hans Landa knows that the US will not honor its agreements with bad guys like himself, then he will never have any reason to cooperate.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:31 AM on October 27, 2014
It's spring 1944. You are high up in the US Army. You receive a radio transmission. SS Colonel Hans Landa offers to effectively end WWII a year early, in exchange for amnesty and a house on Nantucket. This would literally save millions of lives.
Are you seriously saying that you would not accept this deal? Or, is it more complicated than it being categorically off-limits?
Much of the Allied victory hinged upon the use of enemy intelligence sources. It is extremely convenient to enjoy a world in which the Axis lost WWII, while also pretending that we are above cooperating with useful people who might also be evil.
Additionally, I would argue that even when it is ostensibly tactically necessary to do so, that it should be treated as conditional and not kept up. Past a certain point, continuing to protect or shelter such people simply becomes indefensible in my opinion.
If a future Hans Landa knows that the US will not honor its agreements with bad guys like himself, then he will never have any reason to cooperate.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:31 AM on October 27, 2014
Two points, and then I need to take a break from this thread: First, we don't retrospectively lose World War II if we criticize the means by which it was won. As I asked earlier, what exactly do we lose by doing so? Second, there never was a Hans Landa, a person who was both steeped to the gills in genocide and whose work or information was so valuable that without it the World War or the Cold War was immediately, irrevocably lost or inevitably, predictably extended.
posted by kewb at 11:39 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by kewb at 11:39 AM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Also, you realize that the film you cite sets things up so that Landa's work is moot, right? Shoshanna's trap would have killed the Nazi high command even if the Basterds' dynamite were disposed of. So in that particular scenario, there's no actual cost of any kind to throwing Landa over at the end of the movie. No one else would even know he'd made a deal in the first place.
posted by kewb at 11:41 AM on October 27, 2014
posted by kewb at 11:41 AM on October 27, 2014
First, we don't retrospectively lose World War II if we criticize the means by which it was won.
You don't actually want your criticisms to be followed? We're just supposed to say that it was wrong with cooperate with these sources, but we are not supposed to change our behavior going forward?
Second, there never was a Hans Landa, a person who was both steeped to the gills in genocide and whose work or information was so valuable that without it the World War or the Cold War was immediately, irrevocably lost or inevitably, predictably extended.
Landa is a cinematically extreme example, condensed into one figure to make a point. It is not relevant that there was no real Hans Landa. If you would accept a deal from Landa, then you are opening the door to accepting other necessary deals. In for a penny, in for a pound. And you can never know ahead of time what will be necessary: you will necessarily have to make more deals than you need to, because to do otherwise would be to miss out on valuable opportunities. In the real world, there is of course almost never a single keystone figure: instead, you have webs of sources. To take just one example, D-Day's success was predicated on, among other things, the deception campaign coordinated by the Double-Cross System, which often employed bad guys. We can't just say that D-Day ought to have succeeded anyway, without the deception campaign, simply because we would find that more pleasant.
Also, you realize that the film you cite sets things up so that Landa's work is moot, right?
True in the movie, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothetical I presented. If it makes you feel better, let's say the useful Nazi is named Günther, and that there is no Shoshanna.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:53 AM on October 27, 2014
You don't actually want your criticisms to be followed? We're just supposed to say that it was wrong with cooperate with these sources, but we are not supposed to change our behavior going forward?
Second, there never was a Hans Landa, a person who was both steeped to the gills in genocide and whose work or information was so valuable that without it the World War or the Cold War was immediately, irrevocably lost or inevitably, predictably extended.
Landa is a cinematically extreme example, condensed into one figure to make a point. It is not relevant that there was no real Hans Landa. If you would accept a deal from Landa, then you are opening the door to accepting other necessary deals. In for a penny, in for a pound. And you can never know ahead of time what will be necessary: you will necessarily have to make more deals than you need to, because to do otherwise would be to miss out on valuable opportunities. In the real world, there is of course almost never a single keystone figure: instead, you have webs of sources. To take just one example, D-Day's success was predicated on, among other things, the deception campaign coordinated by the Double-Cross System, which often employed bad guys. We can't just say that D-Day ought to have succeeded anyway, without the deception campaign, simply because we would find that more pleasant.
Also, you realize that the film you cite sets things up so that Landa's work is moot, right?
True in the movie, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothetical I presented. If it makes you feel better, let's say the useful Nazi is named Günther, and that there is no Shoshanna.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:53 AM on October 27, 2014
Late to the thread, but the debate about the ambiguities herein make me want to suggest two very good (imo) French documentaries that also grapple with gray areas: The Sorrow and the Pity and Hotel Terminus.
posted by CincyBlues at 12:06 PM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by CincyBlues at 12:06 PM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
If you would accept a deal from Landa, then you are opening the door to accepting other necessary deals. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Next thing you know it, you're running seminars on how to torture effectively and helping brutal dictatorships around the world.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
But tell us more about these necessary deals. The linked article was somewhat short on details on that point.
posted by el io at 12:10 PM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
Next thing you know it, you're running seminars on how to torture effectively and helping brutal dictatorships around the world.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
But tell us more about these necessary deals. The linked article was somewhat short on details on that point.
posted by el io at 12:10 PM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
Next thing you know it, you're running seminars on how to torture effectively and helping brutal dictatorships around the world.
Terrible, to be sure, but that wasn't what we were talking about. My point from the beginning has been that sometimes we must cooperate with bad guys. Definitionally, "sometimes" does not mean "all of the time". It is facile to say that we should never, or almost never, cooperate with bad guys.
But tell us more about these necessary deals. The linked article was somewhat short on details on that point.
Are you asking about Nazis qua Nazis, or comparably nasty bad guys?
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:25 PM on October 27, 2014
Terrible, to be sure, but that wasn't what we were talking about. My point from the beginning has been that sometimes we must cooperate with bad guys. Definitionally, "sometimes" does not mean "all of the time". It is facile to say that we should never, or almost never, cooperate with bad guys.
But tell us more about these necessary deals. The linked article was somewhat short on details on that point.
Are you asking about Nazis qua Nazis, or comparably nasty bad guys?
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:25 PM on October 27, 2014
If you would accept a deal from Landa, then you are opening the door to accepting other necessary deals. In for a penny, in for a pound.
But you don't need to invent imaginary spies and imaginary moral conundrums. It's pretty much a given that WWII (in the West) could have ended early in 1944) if the US had been willing to march East and start WWIII against the Soviet Union.
The question we should be asking is: why exactly did we give asylum to Nazis like Lileikis? It wasn't to advise on torture strategies for penny-ante operations in places like the Republic of United Fruit. The answer is that there was a considerable constituency that hated "containement' and wanted to "roll back" the Soviet Union in Europe i.e. start WWIII.
Here's an outline:
posted by ennui.bz at 12:28 PM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
But you don't need to invent imaginary spies and imaginary moral conundrums. It's pretty much a given that WWII (in the West) could have ended early in 1944) if the US had been willing to march East and start WWIII against the Soviet Union.
The question we should be asking is: why exactly did we give asylum to Nazis like Lileikis? It wasn't to advise on torture strategies for penny-ante operations in places like the Republic of United Fruit. The answer is that there was a considerable constituency that hated "containement' and wanted to "roll back" the Soviet Union in Europe i.e. start WWIII.
Here's an outline:
For Rollback to work, USA needed a reserve of military men with experience on Eastern front: Nazis and East European Nazi collaborators. The chief theorist of Rollback was James Burnham, CIA agent and later (in 1955) a founding editor of National Review.Burnham was the original "neoconservative" swinging from Trotskyist circles to the hard right, eventually getting the medal of freedom from Reagan.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:28 PM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
El io. I suggest you read "The Cunning of History" by Rubenstien. You realize the Americans bombed rail lines at Aushwitz...see FDR on that score. The amount of literature from the 30's decrying nazi actions is abundant. Your view of history is specious at best. Oh, and study the Katyn massacre and watch those nazis' just squeal over that one.
posted by clavdivs at 12:46 PM on October 27, 2014
posted by clavdivs at 12:46 PM on October 27, 2014
The amount of literature from the 30's decrying nazi actions is abundant.
So is the amount of anti-semitic literature.
posted by el io at 12:52 PM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
So is the amount of anti-semitic literature.
posted by el io at 12:52 PM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Why the U.S. Won the war: Because we had the bomb, we didn't drop it on the Russians ...now why is that...forget moral reasons, why? If we had, no one would be around to complain except us.
posted by clavdivs at 12:53 PM on October 27, 2014
posted by clavdivs at 12:53 PM on October 27, 2014
But you don't need to invent imaginary spies and imaginary moral conundrums.
Of course I don't have to. I've already brought up the Double-Cross System, which is a very successful example of how cooperation with bad guys can strongly benefit the greater good.
It's pretty much a given that WWII (in the West) could have ended early in 1944) if the US had been willing to march East and start WWIII against the Soviet Union.
That wouldn't end WWII at all. If WWII had escalated as such, we wouldn't even call it WWIII.
I am aware that some people had eagerly wanted to start WWIII. Famously, they did not get their way, despite other violent events they may have engineered. I am aware that these saber-rattlers recruited from the ranks of the nasty, but so did other, more powerful figures, who had more small-c conservative goals.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:58 PM on October 27, 2014
Of course I don't have to. I've already brought up the Double-Cross System, which is a very successful example of how cooperation with bad guys can strongly benefit the greater good.
It's pretty much a given that WWII (in the West) could have ended early in 1944) if the US had been willing to march East and start WWIII against the Soviet Union.
That wouldn't end WWII at all. If WWII had escalated as such, we wouldn't even call it WWIII.
I am aware that some people had eagerly wanted to start WWIII. Famously, they did not get their way, despite other violent events they may have engineered. I am aware that these saber-rattlers recruited from the ranks of the nasty, but so did other, more powerful figures, who had more small-c conservative goals.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:58 PM on October 27, 2014
So, did you read the anti nazi lot or the antisemetic
stuff
posted by clavdivs at 12:58 PM on October 27, 2014
stuff
posted by clavdivs at 12:58 PM on October 27, 2014
I wanted to mention the Gehlen Organisation. Wisner the First ran this group in eastern Europe. One op was to recruit joes for when they go home. Mostly from DP camps. The OPC had a string of bad luck with these OPs. Even Albania was washed out because of Philby. Let's say Sterling Hayden was not happy. The OPC was successful in S.E. Asia but not so much in Europe...and that's Landsdale tale. Imo, it was short sighted to hire these guys on.
Someone mentioned theXX system. This was a very successful program.
My uncle was POW. The Germans had their version but it failed. Duh...when all you have to barter with is black bread, soup,and swarthy promises sans greasy smiles.
El up. We have our German POWs beer and heat so you do understand if your view of history is...singular. Well I've done my skit...interesting thread.
posted by clavdivs at 1:32 PM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Someone mentioned theXX system. This was a very successful program.
My uncle was POW. The Germans had their version but it failed. Duh...when all you have to barter with is black bread, soup,and swarthy promises sans greasy smiles.
El up. We have our German POWs beer and heat so you do understand if your view of history is...singular. Well I've done my skit...interesting thread.
posted by clavdivs at 1:32 PM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is just a wordy version of the "hurf durf Americans are dumb" trope that's really, really tired.
If you had, you know, read my second and third paragraphs with the attention you gave my first, you would have noticed that I was not espousing this view, just articulating it. I am in no position to judge its merits, though it does seem common.
posted by smoke at 1:45 PM on October 27, 2014
If you had, you know, read my second and third paragraphs with the attention you gave my first, you would have noticed that I was not espousing this view, just articulating it. I am in no position to judge its merits, though it does seem common.
posted by smoke at 1:45 PM on October 27, 2014
Why the U.S. Won the war: Because we had the bomb, we didn't drop it on the Russians ...now why is that...forget moral reasons, why? If we had, no one would be around to complain except us.
IIRC, according to the historians I read, because we would have lost, for a start. The Soviet military in 1945-46 would have crushed the Allied forces, and we simply didn't have the ability to manufacture enough atom bombs to make a difference.
It's basically an Alien Space Bats scenario in any case- it was a total non-starter.
posted by happyroach at 3:47 PM on October 27, 2014
IIRC, according to the historians I read, because we would have lost, for a start. The Soviet military in 1945-46 would have crushed the Allied forces, and we simply didn't have the ability to manufacture enough atom bombs to make a difference.
It's basically an Alien Space Bats scenario in any case- it was a total non-starter.
posted by happyroach at 3:47 PM on October 27, 2014
Says you. Had enough bombs...hmm YUP...wait how many did we need in 46' to destroy a few capitals. 3 do it... We had that and refer to my ask me concerning stockpiles in 47' the problem was long range bombers. Soviets may have had the power to over run europe but the US had the bomb and once Moscow is gone what then...chaos and a reviled US....oh we are already reviled...so why bother? Do you think the soviets ever thought about nuking us? You bet
posted by clavdivs at 4:18 PM on October 27, 2014
posted by clavdivs at 4:18 PM on October 27, 2014
smoke: This is just a wordy version of the "hurf durf Americans are dumb" trope that's really, really tired.
If you had, you know, read my second and third paragraphs with the attention you gave my first, you would have noticed that I was not espousing this view, just articulating it.
I did read your second and third paragraphs, and I find that view to be a longer version of "hurf durf Americans are dumb". I didn't say you were necessarily an adherent. ]
clavdivs:Why the U.S. Won the war: Because we had the bomb
The Allies won the war because of Russia's vast manpower, American industrial might, and superior British intelligence. Atrocious generalship and daft diplomacy on Hitler's part probably would have won it for the Allies even without that. The atomic bomb did not win the war.
posted by spaltavian at 4:20 PM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
If you had, you know, read my second and third paragraphs with the attention you gave my first, you would have noticed that I was not espousing this view, just articulating it.
I did read your second and third paragraphs, and I find that view to be a longer version of "hurf durf Americans are dumb". I didn't say you were necessarily an adherent. ]
clavdivs:Why the U.S. Won the war: Because we had the bomb
The Allies won the war because of Russia's vast manpower, American industrial might, and superior British intelligence. Atrocious generalship and daft diplomacy on Hitler's part probably would have won it for the Allies even without that. The atomic bomb did not win the war.
posted by spaltavian at 4:20 PM on October 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
clavdivs: Says you. Had enough bombs...hmm YUP...wait how many did we need in 46' to destroy a few capitals. 3 do it... We had that and refer to my ask me concerning stockpiles in 47' the problem was long range bombers. Soviets may have had the power to over run europe but the US had the bomb and once Moscow is gone what then.
The Russians weren't very afraid of the bomb, and with good reason. It wouldn't have defeated them. Their industrial power was not centered in the big cities (it was built mostly behind the Urals at a massive cost of lives). Russia was able to continue the Second World War with Nazis reaching the Moscow metro- destroying a capital isn't as effective as you might think.
Also, after the second atomic attack on Japan, the US had zero bombs. America didn't have a massive stockpile really until the end of the decade.
Any WWIII in the 40s would have become a conventional war sooner rather than later. The Russians would have been at the Channel in months. Contrary to the remarks above, I think the United States would have inevitably won such a war but at a staggering, ruinous cost that would have impoverished the world and especially the West.
posted by spaltavian at 4:27 PM on October 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
The Russians weren't very afraid of the bomb, and with good reason. It wouldn't have defeated them. Their industrial power was not centered in the big cities (it was built mostly behind the Urals at a massive cost of lives). Russia was able to continue the Second World War with Nazis reaching the Moscow metro- destroying a capital isn't as effective as you might think.
Also, after the second atomic attack on Japan, the US had zero bombs. America didn't have a massive stockpile really until the end of the decade.
Any WWIII in the 40s would have become a conventional war sooner rather than later. The Russians would have been at the Channel in months. Contrary to the remarks above, I think the United States would have inevitably won such a war but at a staggering, ruinous cost that would have impoverished the world and especially the West.
posted by spaltavian at 4:27 PM on October 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
Your right, it was an allied win. I do recall Japan surrendered not long after the bomb was dropped.
I will re-state. The bomb helped win the war and keep "the peace"
Also remember that Stalin killed most of his generals and almost all his original corp. commanders, thanks to hitlers' little ploy, which prolonged the war.
posted by clavdivs at 4:37 PM on October 27, 2014
I will re-state. The bomb helped win the war and keep "the peace"
Also remember that Stalin killed most of his generals and almost all his original corp. commanders, thanks to hitlers' little ploy, which prolonged the war.
posted by clavdivs at 4:37 PM on October 27, 2014
Spelt. We had 9 in 46' 50 by 1948. That is not enough? but you got my point...being that the cost would have been horrendous.
posted by clavdivs at 4:48 PM on October 27, 2014
posted by clavdivs at 4:48 PM on October 27, 2014
the Nazis were evil, and were exterminating Jews, so America entered a just war to stop them.
In my experience, this is a shockingly common narrative. The importance of the attacks on the USS Greer and later Pearl Harbor are often overlooked (even as it is often overstated elsewhere).
posted by Dysk at 5:12 AM on October 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
In my experience, this is a shockingly common narrative. The importance of the attacks on the USS Greer and later Pearl Harbor are often overlooked (even as it is often overstated elsewhere).
posted by Dysk at 5:12 AM on October 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
The importance of the attacks on the USS Greer and later Pearl Harbor are often overlooked
Mostly because the US was already waist-deep into the war by that point, propping up the UK and Russia with its financial and industrial capacity and putting the economic screws to Japan over their invasion of China and SE Asia. Neither the Lusitania nor Pearl Harbor brought America into the First and Second World War - they were simply symbolic events that allowed internal political opposition to step aside and allow the US to do what it was gonna do anyway, and was already doing informally.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:37 AM on October 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
Mostly because the US was already waist-deep into the war by that point, propping up the UK and Russia with its financial and industrial capacity and putting the economic screws to Japan over their invasion of China and SE Asia. Neither the Lusitania nor Pearl Harbor brought America into the First and Second World War - they were simply symbolic events that allowed internal political opposition to step aside and allow the US to do what it was gonna do anyway, and was already doing informally.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:37 AM on October 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
Lend-Lease was pretty controversial at the time, though, and the effect on internal political opposition of the two symbolic events are not insignificant, even if they weren't completely pivotal in more direct US involvement.
As I said, often completely overlooked, often completely overstated. But not insignificant nevertheless.
posted by Dysk at 6:00 AM on October 28, 2014
As I said, often completely overlooked, often completely overstated. But not insignificant nevertheless.
posted by Dysk at 6:00 AM on October 28, 2014
(And the USS Greer incident was the first exchange of fire between Axis forces and the US, and was widely talked about by both Hitler and Roosevelt in the gearing up to war being declared between the two - not sure where the Lusitania thing in a completely different war is coming from?)
posted by Dysk at 6:03 AM on October 28, 2014
posted by Dysk at 6:03 AM on October 28, 2014
clavdivs: Your right, it was an allied win. I do recall Japan surrendered not long after the bomb was dropped.
Japan had already lost the war. The bombs were used to force a surrender without having to invade the islands, (and some question how much that even factored into Japan's decision) but it didn't effect the outcome of the war.
Dysk: the Nazis were evil, and were exterminating Jews, so America entered a just war to stop them.
In my experience, this is a shockingly common narrative. The importance of the attacks on the USS Greer and later Pearl Harbor are often overlooked (even as it is often overstated elsewhere).
Peal Harbor was a recognition of a fait accompli- America was already at war with the Axis. Roosevelt's concern was with Germany and his administration pursued a war with the Nazis since '39. FDR violated what so-called neutrals were supposed to do in wartime, such as we did in the First World War. As long as FDR was president, we were going to fight the Germans sooner or later.
Nazi aggression was actually an extremely important factor in America's entry into the war; quite simply because Roosevelt was president. Despite limited success in helping European Jews that certainly factored into his calculations.
I forget the exact proportions, but after Peal Harbor American strategy was something like 1:10 for the Pacific and Atlantic theaters. American thinking was to pursue a holding strategy against Japan (despite having actually attacked us) while fighting to defeat Germany- Roosevelt's main target regardless of Pearl Harbor. As it happened, American strength allowed them to defeat Japan with this "holding" action.
Balance of power and other considerations of course factored into it, but it's actually reductionist to discount the fact that American policy aims were also to stop Nazi aggression, including slaughter of civilians. Maybe that was more Roosevelt than the nation as a whole, but the last 15 years should show us that popular sentiment is not the same as actual policy.
posted by spaltavian at 6:13 AM on October 28, 2014 [3 favorites]
Japan had already lost the war. The bombs were used to force a surrender without having to invade the islands, (and some question how much that even factored into Japan's decision) but it didn't effect the outcome of the war.
Dysk: the Nazis were evil, and were exterminating Jews, so America entered a just war to stop them.
In my experience, this is a shockingly common narrative. The importance of the attacks on the USS Greer and later Pearl Harbor are often overlooked (even as it is often overstated elsewhere).
Peal Harbor was a recognition of a fait accompli- America was already at war with the Axis. Roosevelt's concern was with Germany and his administration pursued a war with the Nazis since '39. FDR violated what so-called neutrals were supposed to do in wartime, such as we did in the First World War. As long as FDR was president, we were going to fight the Germans sooner or later.
Nazi aggression was actually an extremely important factor in America's entry into the war; quite simply because Roosevelt was president. Despite limited success in helping European Jews that certainly factored into his calculations.
I forget the exact proportions, but after Peal Harbor American strategy was something like 1:10 for the Pacific and Atlantic theaters. American thinking was to pursue a holding strategy against Japan (despite having actually attacked us) while fighting to defeat Germany- Roosevelt's main target regardless of Pearl Harbor. As it happened, American strength allowed them to defeat Japan with this "holding" action.
Balance of power and other considerations of course factored into it, but it's actually reductionist to discount the fact that American policy aims were also to stop Nazi aggression, including slaughter of civilians. Maybe that was more Roosevelt than the nation as a whole, but the last 15 years should show us that popular sentiment is not the same as actual policy.
posted by spaltavian at 6:13 AM on October 28, 2014 [3 favorites]
Sorry, but the bombs did shorten the war, forcing a surrender was one way of doing that. I get what you mean, but I disagree. IMO, we never should have dropped those things.
posted by clavdivs at 6:42 AM on October 28, 2014
posted by clavdivs at 6:42 AM on October 28, 2014
I just don't see how "shortening" the war is anything at all like winning the war. It's not like there was any chance of Operation Downfall failing. We're not even talking shortening the war by a lot, probably Spring 1946 instead of Summer 1945.
The imperial cabinet had even agreed to surrender in June 1945, however, the plan was to repulse the mainland invasion first to improve their bargaining position and then approach the Soviet Union as a mediator for a conditional surrender to the Allies. So even if Downfall failed, Japan was going to give up the ghost. In fact, the failure of Downfall would have ended the war sooner than its success, provided the Allies were willing to accept a conditional surrender.
If the bombs did indeed convince the Emperor to surrender*, than the biggest impact was likely preventing a post-war insurgency.
*Quite a bit of debate about that. The Russian entry into the war and the sweep through Manchuria has been argued to weigh more heavily on the decision. Primarily, it made the "repulse Downfall than negotiate an honorable surrender through the Russians" strategy impossible.
posted by spaltavian at 8:06 AM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
The imperial cabinet had even agreed to surrender in June 1945, however, the plan was to repulse the mainland invasion first to improve their bargaining position and then approach the Soviet Union as a mediator for a conditional surrender to the Allies. So even if Downfall failed, Japan was going to give up the ghost. In fact, the failure of Downfall would have ended the war sooner than its success, provided the Allies were willing to accept a conditional surrender.
If the bombs did indeed convince the Emperor to surrender*, than the biggest impact was likely preventing a post-war insurgency.
*Quite a bit of debate about that. The Russian entry into the war and the sweep through Manchuria has been argued to weigh more heavily on the decision. Primarily, it made the "repulse Downfall than negotiate an honorable surrender through the Russians" strategy impossible.
posted by spaltavian at 8:06 AM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
First off, the Emperor wanted a truce but the high command nixt that.
Shorten war=fewer deaths.
Is not that something to do in war or are you in favor of the blockade route? Because that is valid but at what cost. I have found that big questions like this have no real answer. I believe it was April that HM wished for an end of hostilities.
posted by clavdivs at 9:59 AM on October 28, 2014
Shorten war=fewer deaths.
Is not that something to do in war or are you in favor of the blockade route? Because that is valid but at what cost. I have found that big questions like this have no real answer. I believe it was April that HM wished for an end of hostilities.
posted by clavdivs at 9:59 AM on October 28, 2014
Also, Olympic was scheduled for October 45' and Coronet was scheduled for spring of 46 so your assertion of spring/war won is a bit ambitious
posted by clavdivs at 10:14 AM on October 28, 2014
posted by clavdivs at 10:14 AM on October 28, 2014
That's fair enough. My understanding is that Japan's plan was to throw everything at repelling the initial invasions, so there would be nothing left in reserve inland if the Allies broke through. But we can't really know how messy it would have been.
posted by spaltavian at 11:16 AM on October 28, 2014
posted by spaltavian at 11:16 AM on October 28, 2014
Yes. I remember my history teacher asking us what it meant that the Japanese were using pine needles for aviation fuel.
Determination.
posted by clavdivs at 11:33 AM on October 28, 2014
Determination.
posted by clavdivs at 11:33 AM on October 28, 2014
I was curious about the pine needle story and looked it up. It turns out the Japanese did start a program to make fuel from resinous pine tree roots, not needles.
posted by notmtwain at 5:02 PM on October 28, 2014
posted by notmtwain at 5:02 PM on October 28, 2014
Your correct.' Matsu no ne'... I wrote Matsuba in my notes.
Bonus time! What happened on Sept. 26,1945 at the Riverside Skating Rink in wash. D.C.
posted by clavdivs at 6:08 PM on October 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
Bonus time! What happened on Sept. 26,1945 at the Riverside Skating Rink in wash. D.C.
posted by clavdivs at 6:08 PM on October 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm a little more concerned about Unit 731 pardons than Operation Paperclip
posted by Jacen at 1:59 PM on November 3, 2014
posted by Jacen at 1:59 PM on November 3, 2014
« Older Menagerie Phantasmagoria | "At least, boobs should be able to fire lasers... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chainlinkspiral at 10:33 PM on October 26, 2014 [14 favorites]