Was
It 'The Good War'?
by
Patrick
J. Buchanan
by
Patrick J. Buchanan
DIGG THIS
"Yes,
it was a good war," writes Richard Cohen in his column challenging
the thesis of pacifist Nicholson Baker in his new book, Human
Smoke, that World War II produced more evil than good.
Baker's
compelling work, which uses press clips and quotes of Axis and Allied
leaders as they plunged into the great cataclysm, is a virtual diary
of the days leading up to World War II.
Riveting
to this writer was that Baker uses some of the same episodes, sources
and quotes as this author in my own book out in May, Churchill,
Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War.'
On some
points, Cohen is on sold ground. There are things worth fighting
for: God and country, family and freedom. Martyrs have ever inspired
men. And to some evils pacifism is no answer. Resistance, even unto
death, may be required of a man.
But
when one declares a war that produced Hiroshima and the Holocaust
a "Good War," it raises a question: good for whom?
Britain
declared war on Sept. 3, 1939, to preserve Poland. For six years,
Poland was occupied by Nazi and Soviet armies and SS and NKVD killers.
At war's end, the Polish dead were estimated at 6 million. A third
of Poland had been torn away by Stalin, and Nazis had used the country
for the infamous camps of Treblinka and Auschwitz.
Fifteen
thousand Polish officers had been massacred at places like Katyn.
The Home Army that rose in Warsaw at the urging of the Red Army
in 1944 had been annihilated, as the Red Army watched from the other
side of the Vistula. When the British celebrated V-E day in May
1945, Poland began 44 years of tyranny under the satraps of Stalin,
Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
Was World
War II "a good war" for the Poles?
Was it
a good war for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, overrun by Stalin's
army in June 1940, whose people saw their leaders murdered or deported
to the Gulag never to return? Was it a good war for the Finns who
lost Karelia and thousands of brave men dead in the Winter War?
Was it
a good war for Hungarians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Rumanians and Albanians
who ended up behind the Iron Curtain? In Hungary, it was hard to
find a women or girl over 10 who had not been raped by the "liberators"
of the Red Army. Was it a good war for the 13 million German civilians
ethnically cleansed from Central Europe and the 2 million who died
in the exodus?
Was it
a good war for the French, who surrendered after six weeks of fighting
in 1940 and had to be liberated by the Americans and British after
four years of Vichy collaboration?
And how
good a war was it for the British?
They went
to war for Poland, but Winston Churchill abandoned Poland to Stalin.
Defeated in Norway, France, Greece, Crete and the western desert,
they endured until America came in and joined in the liberation
of Western Europe.
Yet, at
war's end in 1945, Britain was bled and bankrupt, and the great
cause of Churchill's life, preserving his beloved empire, was lost.
Because of the "Good War" Britain would never be great again.
And were
the means used by the Allies, the terror bombing of Japanese and
German cities, killing hundreds of thousands of women and children,
perhaps millions, the marks of a "good war"?
Cohen contends
that the evil of the Holocaust makes it a "good war." But the destruction
of the Jews of Europe was a consequence of this war, not a cause.
As for the Japanese atrocities like the Rape of Nanking, they were
indeed horrific.
But America's
smashing of Japan led not to freedom for China, but four years of
civil war followed by 30 years of Maoist madness in which 30 million
Chinese perished.
For America,
the war was Pearl Harbor and Midway, Anzio and Iwo Jima, Normandy
and Bastogne, days of glory leading to triumph and the American
Century.
But
for Joseph Stalin, it was also a good war. From his pact with Adolf
Hitler he annexed parts of Finland and Rumania, and three Baltic
republics. His armies stood in Berlin, Prague and Vienna; his agents
were vying for power in Rome and Paris; his ally was installed in
North Korea; his protégé, Mao, was about to bring China into his
empire. But it was not so good a war for the inmates of Kolyma or
the Russian POWs returned to Stalin in Truman's Operation Keelhaul.
Is
a war that replaces Hitler's domination of Europe with Stalin's
and Japan's rule in China with Mao's a "good war"? We had to stop
the killers, says Cohen. But who were the greater killers: Hitler
or Stalin, Tojo or Mao Zedong?
Can a war
in which 50 million perished and the Christian continent was destroyed,
half of it enslaved, a war that has advanced the death of Western
civilization, be truly celebrated as a "good war"?
April
4, 2008
Patrick
J. Buchanan [send
him mail] is co-founder and editor of The
American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books,
including Where
the Right Went Wrong, and A
Republic Not An Empire.
Copyright
© 2008 Creators Syndicate
Patrick
J. Buchanan Archives
|