The Aftermath of World War II

As we get further in time from WWII we gain broader and more nuanced perspectives on it and as we do the simplistic narrative of the "Good War" becomes harder and harder to sustain. R. M. Douglas has a nice piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education on the horrors suffered by Germans living in Eastern Europe in the wake of the war -- atrocities abetted and sometimes instigated by American and British authorities. He writes:

Between 1945 and 1950, Europe witnessed the largest episode of forced migration, and perhaps the single greatest movement of population, in human history. Between 12 million and 14 million German-speaking civilians—the overwhelming majority of whom were women, old people, and children under 16—were forcibly ejected from their places of birth in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and what are today the western districts of Poland.... The number who died as a result of starvation, disease, beatings, or outright execution is unknown, but conservative estimates suggest that at least 500,000 people lost their lives in the course of the operation.

Most disturbingly of all, tens of thousands perished as a result of ill treatment while being used as slave labor (or, in the Allies' cynical formulation, "reparations in kind") in a vast network of camps extending across central and southeastern Europe—many of which, like Auschwitz I and Theresienstadt, were former German concentration camps kept in operation for years after the war.

This is not to say that atrocities effected by the Western Allies are comparable in scope to those committed by Stalin and Hitler, but to note that these were extremely rough times during which nobody's hands were clean. It is with this awareness that we might want to reconsider the rather stark moral judgments that inform our popular understanding of this critical period in modern history.

Rethinking the "Good War"

During our recent trip I had an interesting conversation with a friend regarding revisionist views on World War Two. Coincidentally, the New York Times this weekend published a nice review article by Adam Kirsch on that same subject.

Kirsch, of course, is writing from a Left perspective and his most important objection to the standard World War Two narrative [which emphasizes America's moral commitment to democracy and human rights, the heroic valor of Anglo-American participants, and nourishes the notion that America won the good war] is that it encourages a belief in American exceptionalism. He notes that Anglo-American involvement in the war was little more than a "sideshow" compared to the horrific slaughter that took place on the Eastern front. He also questions Anglo-American claims to moral superiority, noting that our ally Stalin was easily as horrific a figure as was Hitler, that Churchill was motivated by profound racism not much different from that of Hitler, and that the Allies knowingly committed atrocities every bit as nasty as those perpetrated by our enemies.

Leftist myths are just as easily challenged, [For instance it is now quite clear that Fascism is not a creation of capitalism and that Fascism and socialism are far more similar in their origins and values than is generally admitted. Nor is the old Frankford School canard that conservatives are closet Nazis sustainable. Nor can the global catastrophe of the war be attributed simply to an excess of nationalism.] but Kirsch doesn't consider these at all. His only concern is to challenge the idea of American exceptionalism. Still, it is important to note that our common understanding of World War Two and the lessons we draw from it are problematic and that historical revisionism is not just a normal, but a healthy, enterprise. So, despite its biases and blind spots, Kirsch's piece is worth a read.

Check it out here.