Frankly I found myself quite angry at what I had been taught about the escalation of WWII here in Canada. Churchill is always portrayed as a brave hero. Shocking to read about how the UK & USA provoked Japan & Germany to lead their countries to war.

Germany is always given 100% responsibility for the holocaust and it is refreshing in some ways to know that there is plenty of blame to be shared around. How will we not repeat our history though if we only know half truths about it?

Yes I was being sarcastic.

Obviously world peace should be the goal, Pacifism is a noble and rigteous way to live ones life,and it should be encouraged, BUT there are exceptions and we must acknowledge these exceptions. We must also acknowledge that sometimes only war or military action can bring about peace or a more tolerable situation than that which would exist without military intervention.

For most people it’s not just war vs peace, or, pacifism vs aggression.The question is far more complicated, as is the answer.

I had a hard time swallowing the part about the suggestion that Nazi Germany should have been allowed to achieve it’s goals- especially after listening to that ( Jewish) war veteran in Waterbury Connecticut on Ken Burns’ “The War” series. He recounted a conversation with a German soldier ( officer?) during the war ( captured?) who told that he was trained to administer us (here in the States after they overcame us). He even knew the details of our countryside. So the Nazi’s had gotten that far in their thinking, so heady and confident and hellbent on achieving their supremacy. Hitler was only one man ( as Baker says), but he had a lot of followers and youth to carry on.

One has to put up resistance to that- and to match and more. But it’s a risky thing, especially when you get into preemption/prevention. I was just listening to the BBC news account of the US attack on Somalia today. Our government claims it is after Al Qaeda.We are making a lot of enemies, people that we need for friends.

OTOH look at Tibet. By the time it all may or may not work out, that culture will be gone or moved elsewhere and the landscape will look totally different.

Still I cannot say Bakers observations are not right- they are.

RC21, get some professional help.

To say we don’t know what would have happened if the nations involved in WW2 had played their hands differently is stating the obvious, although I doubt the outcome would have been peace and prosperity for the world.

I also assume people who feel pacifism is the answer also supported the Souths bid for succession. After all a strong case can be made that they had the right to just such an act.

I don’t think that we know what would have happened if the nations involved in WWII played their hands differently, but what’s interesting to me about this interview is the discussion of how those early moves served to strengthen Nazi power rather than challenge it. The tradition of warfare has highlighted the targeting and punishing of civilians for a very long time, but how useful is it? I’ve always felt that leaders could not inspire their own armies without the illusion that it was somehow a battle between “us” and “them” – and on occasion it actually IS – though mostly it’s a matter of the masses sacrificing themselves for the bloodlust of their leaders.

I also found a subtle metaphor in the discussion of reconstruction, that the destruction of bombing is part of the process of rebuilding a new city. It’s a mindset that can be found in many places, when we decide to build a new city it’s easier to level it, kill everyone in it, and start fresh than it is to work with what’s there. Somehow, it seems like we don’t believe that the new can exist without the total destruction of the old.

Very fine interview, I look forward to reading the book.

By the way who needs Australia and New Zealand. I’m sure the Japaneese would have made both those island nations much more productive than they currently are.

Imagine a world where we could be allies with Hammas,Iran,Syria, and a Europe that follows a Nazi doctirine.

The world would be a much nicer place if we didn’t listen to Churchill and his ilk.

As a very old American abroad I remember after the war hearing people voice the opinion that in WWI the German people had not suffered on their own soil, so had no real knowledge of the consequences of war. This was considered a prime reason for the revenge sprit that pushed the German people to rally around Hitler, thus the unconditional surrender that had to be obtained to avoid the mistakes of the neogiations following WWI.

The idea put forward was to destroy the means of war production with the least possible loss of allied forces while “teaching them a lesson.”

Germany, like Japan, was forbidden to rearm. Both disposed of all their subsequent post-war revenus for peaceful construction and thrived much faster than those they invaded.

An extremely interesting interview.

Sorry for the glitch.

Peace to ALL,

Jazzman

ps. Hi nother!!!