Friday, June 06, 2014

D-Day anniversary ramble


70 years.

Regular readers know I'm 100% revisionist about the war, harkening back to the common sense of America First (neither Nazi nor pacifist) and "war is a racket," but that doesn't diminish the invasion of northern Europe as an accomplishment of "the Greatest Generation."

A couple of facts:
  • About two million service members were a part of Operation Overlord. This includes Americans, Canadians (fighting under the noble Red Ensign, thank you very much), and the British.
  • There were 6,939 naval ships deployed, holding 195,000 sailors. We don't hear or remember much about the Navy's contribution in theaters of the war other than the Pacific. Even the Battle of the Atlantic against the U-boats (been aboard the U-505 in Chicago). I understand that was by design: the press and the government agreed then to report on Europe as an Army show and the Pacific as a Navy one (other than occasionally hearing about MacArthur you don't hear much about what the Army did in the Pacific). Which sort of made sense considering one theater was mostly water and islands, but anyway. Navy "doctrine" still refights WWII, its last hurrah as a navy, arguably obsolete strategy. (The last time Marines were used as Marines was in Korea.)

The establishment left now usually hates nostalgia for this era but can weirdly stir up some for this, because it was largely a liberal interventionist crusade.

The Cathedral's narrative: we fought to save the Jews, incidentally the rest of Europe, and ourselves from the Nazi menace.

No.

Basically it destroyed the old Europe, the liberal American elite's objective for World War I. (Which created both the Soviets and the Nazis.)

Arguably it was noble of us to try to defend our own people in Britain and Australia (when Britain couldn't anymore) but it wasn't our fight. (Irish-Americans, German-Americans, et al.: "our"? Yes.)

Fact is the USSR won the war, ending up with a European empire (Yalta), and we were dumb enough to help them. FDR's government was riddled with Communists like Henry Wallace; Joe McCarthy was right and the Hollywood Ten were guilty as sin as was that old com-symp Pete Seeger.

The narrative: Whoopsie! Well, Stalin wasn't so bad, because, see, he was an idealist. Hitler was a threat to America because he was, like, um, intolerant.

The Germans had neither plans nor means to invade the United States. Imperial Japan wasn't our problem either.

US government policy had nothing to do with the Jews.

The answer was: let the Soviets and the Nazis destroy each other. Make a deal with Japan as Nixon did with Red China.

As America becomes worse educated I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years the schools are teaching that the Tuskegee Airmen and the 442nd Regiment (nisei, "Go For Broke") singlehandedly won the war and liberated the concentration camps.

Eisenhower's a shadowy New World Order figure, quickly plucked out of obscurity and promoted to five stars and the presidency, presiding over the shift from British to American control of the old empire as that became public. The Rhodes Group may have had the plan all along.

A big reason for the war was the British have never wanted one country to dominate continental Europe. Understandably that's a threat to them. (British agents got us into the war, too.) But with Soviet Russia, that's what they got.

Before America and the rest of the West lost their nerve in the Sixties cultural revolution, arguably its last feat was putting a man on the moon, an expensive government stunt but impressive nonetheless. Also understandable given the Red threat.

1 comment:

  1. The Soviets were going to "win" anyway. There's no particular reason to give credence to any notion that the Nazis and the Soviets would have "destroy[ed] each other"; it's far more likely that eventually they would have made some sort of truce which would have probably left the communists holding less of Eastern Europe but which would have left the Nazis controlling all the rest. In the end the failure of the Nazis to respect neutrality as the US had always defined it would have brought us into the European war, or cut us off from European trade at the least. It would not have been a situation which was likely to end favorably for any sort of conservatism.

    Calling Ike an obscure figure before the war is an enormous stretch. He knew all the major army commanders because he had served directly under most of them.

    This "cathedral" seems to be half a fiction and half an excuse. I read histories of the period, and they do not say these things; nor do they endorse the various revisionisms. In any case someone who doubts that Nazis used gas chambers on their prisoners or that scientists have correctly identified the cause of AIDS is not a credible critic. The evidence in both cases is simply far too strong.

    ReplyDelete

Leave comment