creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
17 Feb 2012
The New Blacklist

My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end. After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
On to Tehran -- or Is It Damascus?

Our War Party has been temporarily diverted from its clamor for war on Iran by the insurrection against the … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
Obama's Trampling on God's Turf Now

Yes, Virginia, there is a religious war going on. It is for the soul of America. And traditional Christianity … Read More.

Morality -- Trotskyite vs. Christian

Share Comment

Did Hitler's crimes justify the Allies' terror-bombing of Germany?

Indeed they did, answers Christopher Hitchens in his Newsweek response to my new book, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War": "The stark evidence of the Final Solution has ever since been enough to dispel most doubts about, say, the wisdom or morality of carpet-bombing German cities."

Atheist, Trotskyite and newborn neocon, Hitchens embraces the morality of lex talionis: an eye for an eye. If Germans murdered women and children, the British were morally justified in killing German women and children.

According to British historians, however, Churchill ordered the initial bombing of German cities on his first day in office, the very first day of the Battle of France, on May 10, 1940.

After the fall of France, Churchill wrote Lord Beaverbrook, minister of air production: "When I look round to see how we can win the war, I see that there is only one sure path ... an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland."

"Exterminating attack," said Churchill. By late 1940, writes historian Paul Johnson, "British bombers were being used on a great and increasing scale to kill and frighten the German civilian population in their homes."

"The adoption of terror bombing was a measure of Britain's desperation," writes Johnson. "So far as air strategy was concerned," adds British historian A.J.P. Taylor, "the British outdid German frightfulness first in theory, later in practice, and a nation which claimed to be fighting for a moral cause gloried in the extent of its immoral acts."

The chronology is crucial to Hitchens' case.

Late 1940 was a full year before the mass deportations from the Polish ghettos to Treblinka and Sobibor began. Churchill had ordered the indiscriminate bombing of German cities and civilians before the Nazis had begun to execute the Final Solution.

By Hitchens' morality and logic, Germans at Nuremberg might have asserted a right to kill women and children because that is what the British were doing to their women and children.

After the fire-bombing of Dresden in 1945, Churchill memoed his air chiefs: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed."

Churchill concedes here what the British had been about in Dresden.

Under Christian and just-war theory, the deliberate killing of civilians in wartime is forbidden.

Nazis were hanged for such war crimes.

Did the Allies commit acts of war for which we hanged Germans?

When we recall that Josef Stalin's judges sat beside American and British judges at Nuremberg, and one of the prosecutors there was Andrei Vishinsky, chief prosecutor in Stalin's show trails, the answer has to be yes.

While Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were surely guilty of waging aggressive war in September 1939, Stalin and his comrades had joined the Nazis in the rape of Poland, and had raped Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well. Scores of thousands of civilians in the three Baltic countries were murdered.

Yet, at Nuremberg, Soviets sat in judgment of their Nazi accomplices, and had the temerity to accuse the Nazis of the Katyn Forest massacre of the Polish officer corps that the Soviets themselves had committed.

Americans fought alongside British soldiers in a just and moral war from 1941 to 1945. But we had as allies a Bolshevik monster whose hands dripped with the blood of millions of innocents murdered in peacetime. And to have Stalin's judges sit beside Americans at Nuremberg gave those trials an aspect of hypocrisy that can never be erased.

At Nuremberg, Adm. Erich Raeder was sentenced to prison for life for the invasion of neutral Norway. Yet Raeder's ships arrived 24 hours before British ships and marines of an operation championed by Winston Churchill.

The British had planned to violate Norwegian neutrality first and seize Norwegian ports to deny Germany access to the Swedish iron ore being transshipped through them. For succeeding where Churchill failed, Raeder was condemned as a war criminal and sent to prison.

The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal decided that at Nuremberg only the crimes of Axis powers would be prosecuted and that among those crimes would be a newly invented "crimes against humanity." This decree was issued Aug. 8, 1945, 48 hours after we dropped the first atom bomb on Hiroshima and 24 hours before we dropped the second on Nagasaki.

We and the British judiciously decided not to prosecute the Nazis for the bombing of London and Coventry.

It was an understandable decision, and one that surely Gen. Curtis LeMay concurred in, as LeMay had boasted at war's end, "We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."

After the war, a lone Senate voice arose to decry what was taking place at Nuremberg as "victor's justice." Ten years later, a young colleague would declare the late Robert A. Taft "A Profile in Courage" for having spoken up against ex post facto justice. The young senator was John F. Kennedy.

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
Come ON! Why do so many - mostly American by the way, who never had to endure a firebombing at the hands of the Germans - pick at the bombing of Dresden? Germans themselves, by the way, usually don't.
Let us remember that there was a war on, and who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have flattened London and everyone in it.
Britain also based its decision to attack Dresden (and other German cities) after witnessing German air attacks on Warsaw, Rotterdam, and other places full of noncombatants. Plus, let's remember that it had precious little choice of strategies while it stood completely alone against the Nazis.
Also - don't pick on Churchill, who certainly did not think well of area bombing but began to think it a grim necessity. Churchill is on record rebuking Air Marshal "Bomber" Harris after Dresden, and again, just as strongly for bombing Potsdam shortly thereafter.
As for Japan, ask practically any Asian who had to endure Japanese occupation whether he would have done practically anything to shorten Asia's suffering at their hands by even one day...
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Shaw
Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:37 AM
Sir; in answer to your question; No. No, the allies were not justified in terror bombing Germany. We do that a bunch, and we are threatening it again for Iran. We do not love your government's guts so we are going to attack you people. Do you know what that looks like? To me it seems that no matter what dicatator we are contesting with, he is just the excuse for what we really want to do, and that is to kill the people. We had a problem with Saddam. We could have bombed every hole he popped his head out of until his own people killed him to end the death. We did not. We attacked the whole country, and attack today. It is a war crime. So might be an assasination; but to kill people who are the victims of tyranny because they do not have the ability to end the tyranny that afflicts them is a cruel and unforgivable injustice. Just how would we feel if we were attacked because it was not within our power to control our government? Oh, I guess that already happened.
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:19 PM
James - at the risk of mixing issues, let me say that I completely agree with you! Yes, it is absolutely absurd to use the presence of any dictator and a perceived injustice to any foreign people as an excuse for military aggression in their name. Yes, totally agreed. What I object to is using the example of Britain in the second world war as an example of this. They both: (a) restrained themselves from attacking prematurely under Chamberlain - as I said, to avoid intervention in a foreign country under the excuse of human rights; and (b) went to war all-out when it was obvious that the Germans' ambitions went way beyond their borders. They get beaten up, for doing both, by far too many Americans - especially Mr Buchanan. We are choosing the wrong example here. Remember that we were dragged into the second war kicking and screaming. Why do we now seem to send in the Marines with no more than a few craps of junk intelligence?
Comment: #3
Posted by: David Shaw
Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:23 AM
In our current relativistic world, where that which is moral is allowed to slide according to popular sentiment, it can be hard for people to understand a world in which the existence of Evil - yes, capital E - can be seen as evident and undeniable. Churchill was certainly living in such a world.
The idea that the Final Solution wasn't discernable until 1940 is absurd, as are similar 'chronologies' that Pat puts forward. Those with clear sight knew in the mid 1930s that Hitler's ambition was to 'cleanse' Germany, then Europe, then the world, of all but those who accepted the primacy of what was to become the Reich - man, woman and child.
Just as important, we had reached a place in time when the power of the weapons at our disposal meant that warfare confined to distinct and boundaried battlefields was no longer possible. Imagine the civilian casualties during the Civil War if it had been fought with modern weapons. The prospect of such devastation is precisely the reason that European countries have been much quicker in recent years to band together to quell what otherwise might have smoldered as localized conflicts.
Pat's flirtation with the Reich, given his clear belief that Capital E Evil does exist, is troubling to us who, even though we generally range more than a bit farther to the left on the political scale than he does, otherwise enjoy hearing what he has to say.
Comment: #4
Posted by: MightBeSane
Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:09 PM
It's so easy Pat, to sit in the comfort of your home or office and play armchair quarterback, You research and dissect information which others have gathered and collected. You form an opinion from your armchair, stick on your name as author, then promote the book from your own syndicated column. This is forgivable until you cross the trench from critic to judge. Those wonderful people were the gatekeepers. The great war of 1914-1918 was still fresh in the minds and hearts of that generation. What horror to know that again, war was on the horizon. If they hadn't done their job, would you even be here today, let alone living the life you enjoy? I thank God for the decisions they made with the information they had. I am also thankful to read the thoughtful and well expressed comments of your other readers. They said it all.
Comment: #5
Posted by: liz
Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:09 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

11 Sep 2007 Retreat of the Antiwar Democrats

20 Sep 2011 Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

20 Aug 2010 A Remembrance of Anne