Topic: World War 2

[12C]

I love Alan Clark's myths  'The Donkeys' (about WW1) has more than its fair share too. But there's an essential truth there nonetheless.

I hated him when he played against us though. Constant danger in the box.

His brother Wayne was a bluenose.

[Yorkykopite]

you get my point - it's the popular 'myths' that enter the general consensus and therefore gain an idealistic 'truth'

of course your point is valid - as proof of this is now is how we are dealing today with the historical consequences of the slave trade (even though that 'history' was always there hidden under the covers of imperialist conquest)

but 'we' won ww2 and the 'other stuff' isn't as important as that

I'm not sure I follow mate.

I guess in the immediate aftermath of something as big as the Second World War certain 'narratives' come to the fore, particularly about the honour and the moral virtue of the winners (although I'd be a bit concerned to hear a version of history which discovered that it was the Nazis, not us, who had these things). But that immediate picture has become considerably more nuanced over the decades. And sometimes it has been corrected. To give two obvious examples. Everyone today agrees that Katyn was a Soviet atrocity, not a Nazi one (as the Nazis said it was at the time). Most people today have a far more critical take on the Allied bombing campaign of the Reich, and it's seriously debated as to whether it constituted a war crime.

A parallel argument used to be that the Nuremberg Trials constituted "victors' justice". But that blunt appraisal failed to account for the number of 'not guilty' verdicts which were returned because of a lack of evidence. Despite the presence of Vyshinsky as one of the presiding judges, the trials were conducted with scrupulous legal care. Yes, the judges belonged to the 'winning' side, but the justice they meted out was called 'justice', not 'victors' justice.'

And how about this? In the lead up to the Second World War - indeed one of its prime causes - was a version of history written by the losers of the First World War. Hitler loved this version. It said that the German Army had been "stabbed in the back" by Jews and socialists in 1918 and it argued that the Versailles Treaty had reduced Germany to a peon state. The first claim was completely devoid of truth. The second was a wild exaggeration, not least because the Treaty's potentially ruinous financial clauses were drastically amended over the years by things like the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. Yet, arguably, it is the losers' version of history that still prevails today (Versailles Treaty paved the way for Hitler).   

[Sangria]

you get my point - it's the popular 'myths' that enter the general consensus and therefore gain an idealistic 'truth'

of course your point is valid - as proof of this is now is how we are dealing today with the historical consequences of the slave trade (even though that 'history' was always there hidden under the covers of imperialist conquest)

but 'we' won ww2 and the 'other stuff' isn't as important as that

Much of my earlier understanding of WWII was perpetuated by Franz Halder, one of the losers of the war. Him and the Nazis who followed his example.

[Sangria]

I'm not sure I follow mate.

I guess in the immediate aftermath of something as big as the Second World War certain 'narratives' come to the fore, particularly about the honour and the moral virtue of the winners (although I'd be a bit concerned to hear a version of history which discovered that it was the Nazis, not us, who had these things). But that immediate picture has become considerably more nuanced over the decades. And sometimes it has been corrected. To give two obvious examples. Everyone today agrees that Katyn was a Soviet atrocity, not a Nazi one (as the Nazis said it was at the time). Most people today have a far more critical take on the Allied bombing campaign of the Reich, and it's seriously debated as to whether it constituted a war crime.

A parallel argument used to be that the Nuremberg Trials constituted "victors' justice". But that blunt appraisal failed to account for the number of 'not guilty' verdicts which were returned because of a lack of evidence. Despite the presence of Vyshinsky as one of the presiding judges, the trials were conducted with scrupulous legal care. Yes, the judges belonged to the 'winning' side, but the justice they meted out was called 'justice', not 'victors' justice.'

And how about this? In the lead up to the Second World War - indeed one of its prime causes - was a version of history written by the losers of the First World War. Hitler loved this version. It said that the German Army had been "stabbed in the back" by Jews and socialists in 1918 and it argued that the Versailles Treaty had reduced Germany to a peon state. The first claim was completely devoid of truth. The second was a wild exaggeration, not least because the Treaty's potentially ruinous financial clauses were drastically amended over the years by things like the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. Yet, arguably, it is the losers' version of history that still prevails today (Versailles Treaty paved the way for Hitler).   

The Dolchstosslegende was far more responsible for WWII than the bulk of Versailles was. The one clause which seriously stuck in the Germans' craw wasn't the ruinous financial terms, the rearrangement of territory, etc. It was the clause insisting that Germany had lost WWI. As long as this clause existed, the Dolchstosslegende always had traction. It was why the Allies did it right the second time round and obliterated Germany. Try to argue your way out of that one, Hermann.

[Zeb]

There's always fibs told by people and even whole societies to make themselves feel better or look more impressive. Some people seem to have got very excited by discovering for the first time those told post-war during the efforts to rehabilitate the German armed forces for the Cold War. Others by those told over the fall of France in 1940 to mitigate failures. I remember getting failed (initially) at university in an essay about the French resistance, by a non-historian in that department, for writing about complicity and mythologies rather than hidden radio sets and code words from Verlaine. There's still a minority who wrap themselves in nonsense being called out a century and more ago (eg Conrad's sarcastic "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea — something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to").

Depends what you mean by 'history'. Popular myths do take shifting but are often decades behind what's being discussed between historians. Have mentioned him before but have a look at Kim Wagner's work on Empire for an example of where the vast majority of historians of Empire are at with assessing it. eg his analysis of Imperial counterinsurgency methods, which have been cited for inspiration by armed forces since: https://academic.oup.com/hwj/article/doi/10.1093/hwj/dbx053/4785934

[Yorkykopite]

The Dolchstosslegende was far more responsible for WWII than the bulk of Versailles was. The one clause which seriously stuck in the Germans' craw wasn't the ruinous financial terms, the rearrangement of territory, etc. It was the clause insisting that Germany had lost WWI. As long as this clause existed, the Dolchstosslegende always had traction. It was why the Allies did it right the second time round and obliterated Germany. Try to argue your way out of that one, Hermann.

My name's not Hermann.

It's probably right though. The British cabinet met in late October/early November 1918 to consider what it would mean to reject the German offer of an armistice and keep on pushing the German army all the way back to Berlin. What would the cost be in terms of British lives. General Wilson said "about 70,000 men." You can see why they blenched at that.

Yet, in rejecting it, one member of the Cabinet (I forget who right now) made a very accurate prediction.  He said that if the ordinary German did not see the British cavalry watering its horses by the Spree they would never believe they had lost and would blame the armistice on the Socialist party (SPD) and the Jews. How true, how true!

And yet, of course, the German army was not only beaten on the Western Front by September 1918, it was mutinous, hungry and in headlong retreat. The German sailors were ignoring orders to leave the safety of Kiel and engage the Royal Navy in the open seas, and even the elite Guard divisions were refusing to salute the Kaiser when he left Potsdam (where he was in danger) to be with the Army command in Belgium. They lost and they lost big time.

Hitler (and the Fascists generally) couldn't accept the fact of military defeat and decided to blame the usual suspects. Like you say, that would have been untenable had the Allies pushed on to Berlin. 

[liverbloke]

I'm not sure I follow mate.
...

that's just me being clumsy, but i can see your point regarding losers also writing history and the consequences of that, but my original quote was aimed at churchill (our 'victor') and his version of 'our' or 'his' history/victory

[Yorkykopite]

that's just me being clumsy, but i can see your point regarding losers also writing history and the consequences of that, but my original quote was aimed at churchill (our 'victor') and his version of 'our' or 'his' history/victory

"History will be kind to me, because I intend to write it..." and all that.

And he did. But look at the revisions! One of the more famous biographies published since his death is called 'Churchill - a Study in Failure'. Look at the mounting interest now in Churchill's role (on non-role) in the Bengal Famine. Look at how his statue in Parliament Square is permanently under threat (admittedly from people who've only ever read one history book).

[liverbloke]

"History will be kind to me, because I intend to write it..." and all that.

And he did. But look at the revisions! One of the more famous biographies published since his death is called 'Churchill - a Study in Failure'. Look at the mounting interest now in Churchill's role (on non-role) in the Bengal Famine. Look at how his statue in Parliament Square is permanently under threat (admittedly from people who've only ever read one history book).

so true

i remember watching a bbc documentary on churchill - was it 'a nation's farewell'? - that contained many a surprise and not always a nice one

[kj999]

I agree with this. Anything by Max Hastings on WW2 is worthwhile reading, particularly "Armageddon". The most definitive though is Antony Beevors "The Second World War". Brilliant book.

Agreed. As a general history, that is digestible and won't take years to read, Beevors book is a good starting point.