creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
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.

7 Feb 2012
Who Wants War With Iran?

Appearing alongside CIA Director David Petraeus before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week, … Read More.

Was It 'The Good War'?

Share Comment

"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 protege, 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"?

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

3 Comments | Post Comment
Pat Buchanan wrote a really stupid column here. The Nazis would have conquered Poland and Eastern Europe and so forth whether Britain declared war on them or not.
The book "Blood and Soil" tells about Nazi plans for the inferior peoples like the Slavs.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Marvin Cohen
Sun Apr 6, 2008 7:15 AM
How was it good?
1. It was relatively good in that we won and didn't tie or lose.
2. It was good that we did not fire the first shot (although FDR did all he could to provoke the Japanese-cutting off scrap iron and getting the Dutch to cut oil from Indonesia). The Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.
3. It was good that we did not first declare war-Hitler declared war on us. I tnink FDR wanted us to get into the European war more than into the Asian one.
4. Most citizens were for the war after Pearl Harblor.
5. Most young men were willing to serve and did serve.
6. The media people were not anti-war or anti-U.S or anti-FDR.
7. We wound up as one of two super-powers and the USSR finally collapsed.
8. I don't think the people writing about WWII being a good war meant that they were in favor of war, but that it was a justifiable and defensive war and got rid of two dangerous and aggessive regimes.
9. Did it solve all the problems? No. Granted the peace was poorly managed at Yalta, but in his defense, FDR was a sick man and many did not understand just how malignant Stalin was.
(I never admired FDR all that much and I never bought into the "Uncle Joe" idea. Stalin was known to be thug then and showed it even more after 1945. And the facts came out about his actions before the war.
So, Pat, you didn't find an acorn this time.
Donald W. Bales
Comment: #2
Posted by: Donald W. Bales
Mon Apr 7, 2008 2:12 PM
I'm not sure what a "good war" would have been. War is by definition an ugly, terrible thing. People die, sometimes by the millions. Property is destroyed, resources are used that might have been put to more productive purposes. The bad guys sometimes win, and even when they don't, it doesn't always mean the best possible outcome even for all stakeholders. Unfortunately, not fighting this war was simply not an option for the Allies. It was either "Go to war and get the Axis stopped" or "do nothing, then wait for them to finish off the civilized world and then come for America." The Allies chose to sacrifice millions of their men and defeat the enemy, and the world is better off for their having made that sacrifice. I am suddenly reminded of John Stuart Mill's famous quote, "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless mad and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." Finally, remember that Buchanan is something of an isolationist and believes that combat (except strictly in self-defense) is bad - he hates pre-emptive strikes of any kind - so take what he says with a very large grain of salt.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Matt
Tue Apr 8, 2008 3:53 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
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Alan Reynolds
Alan ReynoldsUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Terence Jeffrey
Terence JeffreyUpdated 15 Feb 2012

30 Oct 2009 The Fruits of Intervention

18 Apr 2008 Who's Behind the Proxy Wars

2 Mar 2007 Fresh Troops -- or Fresh Thinking?