Nazi Evil

I read something interesting about US views on war:

Neither of the two serious American war experience before WW2 (the Civil War and the First World War) were perceived by Americans as wars in the Clauswitzian sense to 'promote national interest'. On the contrary, the First World War (whatever may have been it's actual underpinings) was seen by most Americans as an ideological war, fought for principles, not power. The entry of the United States into WW2 appeared to Americans even more devoid of 'Clauswitzian' motives (reasons of state). It is this perception, rather than the actual determinants of the participation, which is relevant to the argument that follows.

In view of the very real threat which Nazi Germany offered to whole populations, not just to states, the moral justification of WW2 (irrelevant in the political philosophy of war) appeared unchallengeable. The crowning victory over the Axis strengthened American convictions that the forces of righteousness triumphed over evil.

...War became fixed in the American imagination as an extreme effort which one only undertakes when provoked, hence only when one is in the right. Such an effort, to the Americans way of thinking, was bound to be victorious. In other words, identification with the protagonists of good (as in mass-entertainment dramas) and a confident expectation of vistory became the context in which the majority of Americans thought about war.'

Anatol Rapoport, in his introduction to Clauswitz 'On War', 1967.

Thanks for reading the catechism closely.

Yes, I agree there is a mix of elements re our notions of "evil", be it Nazis (this thread) Evil Empire (Ronald Reagan's designation of the late Soviet system so familiar to the Romanians) or G.W. Bush's "Axis of Evil". And it's a complex mix, of which the "just war" argument is only one underpinning.

To your point: that quote may be interesting, but imo it's blatantly incorrect to say Americans did not experience our two earliest wars as in the "national interest". The Revoultionary war was fought exactly to establish a nation, and the Civil War was fought (by the North) to preserve a nation. There was no shortage of true beleivers for both these causes.

I don't know of Rappaport, but he is supremely ignorant or else confused about American history.

Curiously, however, imo, his conclusion is correct (another great example of being right for the wrong reason). Americans, by and large, did and do view war as ideological, a pursuit of "righteousness over evil", or good guys (us) vs bad guys (them).

This is one reason that the Vietnam War, which was of course raging in 1967 (when Rappaport was writing that piece), was so profoundly confusing and traumatic to many Americans. If ever there was a morally ambiguous war, that was it, and there was hell to pay, politically here, as we all know.

More importantly, for this discussion, this self justifying ideology is also one reason why a version of that history is being repeated in Iraq today. We are supposed to be the good guys (we think). Obviously some of the rest of the world disagrees with that view. (Tony Blair excepted, thank you very much).


Rappaport is also off the mark (or at least superficial) in identifying mass-entertainment as the source of "protagonists of good". Mass entertainment, particularly during the 1940's, usually took conventional (read traditional Judeo/Christian) morality as its unswerving compass.

cheers, anyway.

Hi cnflyboy,

I am not sure that US aims in the Vietnam War were morally ambiguous. It was the manner of the execution of those aims that made the campaign disreputable.

Iraq today is much the same. There was nothing much morally wrong with the aims of the US war there. It was the failed execution of those aims post-war that have retrospectively made the original campaign seem disreputable in hindsight. It was not.

Cheers,

Sid.

Thanks for reading the catechism closely.

Yes, I agree there is a mix of elements re our notions of "evil", be it Nazis (this thread) Evil Empire (Ronald Reagan's designation of the late Soviet system so familiar to the Romanians) or G.W. Bush's "Axis of Evil". And it's a complex mix, of which the "just war" argument is only one underpinning.

To your point: that quote may be interesting, but imo it's blatantly incorrect to say Americans did not experience our two earliest wars as in the "national interest". The Revoultionary war was fought exactly to establish a nation, and the Civil War was fought (by the North) to preserve a nation. There was no shortage of true beleivers for both these causes.

I don't know of Rappaport, but he is supremely ignorant or else confused about American history.

Curiously, however, imo, his conclusion is correct (another great example of being right for the wrong reason). Americans, by and large, did and do view war as ideological, a pursuit of "righteousness over evil", or good guys (us) vs bad guys (them).

This is one reason that the Vietnam War, which was of course raging in 1967 (when Rappaport was writing that piece), was so profoundly confusing and traumatic to many Americans. If ever there was a morally ambiguous war, that was it, and there was hell to pay, politically here, as we all know.

More importantly, for this discussion, this self justifying ideology is also one reason why a version of that history is being repeated in Iraq today. We are supposed to be the good guys (we think). Obviously some of the rest of the world disagrees with that view. (Tony Blair excepted, thank you very much).


Rappaport is also off the mark (or at least superficial) in identifying mass-entertainment as the source of "protagonists of good". Mass entertainment, particularly during the 1940's, usually took conventional (read traditional Judeo/Christian) morality as its unswerving compass.

cheers, anyway.

Hi Cnflyboy,

The key thing about what Rapoport says is 'in the Clauswitzian sense'. I think he means what Clauswitz understood when he wrote about National interest in relation to wars.

In the Civil War, and the War of Independence, as far as I can tell, and I don't know much about these periods, the struggle was about what kind of Nation America would be; I think the Clauswitzian idea of National Interest is related to establishing superiority and power over other 'rival', foreign Nations. It is more linked to an established European context I think.

The problem with the use of the word evil by statesmen and leaders, and these ideas, is that they can be easily misused, and inappropriate parallels drawn between situations.

It might be a sign, however, that the American public does not like or think Clauswitzian wars on a large scale are justified, so, to gain public support they have to dressed up as 'just wars' in a moral sense.

Let's just say administration's stated intentions (which shifted almost daily) and assumptions in Iraq were, from the outset, debatable if not phony. Bush Sr. knew it would be folly to go into Baghdad in Gulf War I. Bush#2 and the neoidiots proved him correct beyond a doubt, in Gulf War II.

Whether stupidity (the worst strategic mistake in U.S. history?) can be equated with immorality is questionable, I guess. IMO continued willful disregard of reality in pursuit of saving face may very well be immoral, if not evil (thread topic)

imo, Vietnam is a whole other can of worms, although people are already writing books about the supposed parallels to the Iraq debacle.

I'd be happy to explore these issues with you, email or PM or other thread, but this thread probably not the appropriate place.

cheers

In addition to the problems cnflyboy points out, Rapoport is simply very selective in what wars he chooses to consider. It's hard to find a more straightforward Clauswitzian power struggle than the Mexican War (as it's known in the US), or the Spanish-American War. A revisionist power wants something (land, colonies, international respect). A status quo power has it. It's not clear to the participants or the rest of the world who is stronger, and it needs to be settled on the battlefield (or at sea, in the case of the Spanish-American War). Yes, the propaganda of the time gave them an ideological spin, but they were not really about ideologies. It was just to see which was the bigger, meaner dog.

This is so wrong it's laughable. Yes, the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the two World Wars were (and are) thought of this way in the US, as major conflicts that must be fought for some higher moral purpose. But I would say the main reason the US did not fight major wars was that it lacked land borders with other nation-states. The US has been fighting small wars -- punitive actions, protecting US interests overseas, supporting allies and so on -- almost as long as it has been in existence. When it did have borders with other nations -- Britain through Canada, and Mexico -- it did fight them, and more than once. The list of small wars is much too long to list here, from the Barbary pirates, to the long string of Indian wars from the 1600s to 1890, to the Gulf Wars. None of those were "extreme efforts" for the USA, many had very weak provocations, if any, and it's quite a stretch to say that the US was always "in the right".

Yes, I guess that's the (SF'S) point: we always thought of ourselves as the good guys; the Minutemen (War of Independence), the Frontiersmen ("Indian" Wars), the Yanks and Johnny Rebs (Civil War), the Rough Riders (Spanish American War) to the doughboys (WWI), to the GI's (WWII) .....our national narrrative was/is these are all valoric, honorable "warriors in just" war causes. And so, "right" and deserved of unalloyed victory.

Not to deflect this thread (more) into U.S. military history, but there was little room for moral ambiguity in that self image, and never for "evil" (our subject).

IMO, Vietnam was the first time that self image was seriously challenged (My Lai, Tet, napalm, carpet bombing, agent orange...take your pick).

But that questioning fell out of fashion, lost in the post 9/11 rage and sorrow. The Iraq invasion was favored by the majority here, I think, early on, as fair revenge on the "Axis of Evil" Unfortunately "stuff happened" (Defense sec'y Rumsfeld's famous words re the looting of Baghdad), then unraveled further with sideshows like Abu Grahib along the way, to a real muddle, arguably worse than Vietnam, and an outcome almost certainly bad, if not evil.

Stumbled on this article:

President Bush maintains that he is fighting a war against threats to the “values of civilized nations”: Terror, cruelty, barbarism and extremism.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&...=13&m=12&y=2006

I am sure some will find the conclusion exaggerated. Or maybe not even agree with the article. The point is evil is being done, willingly or not (collateral damage), and if the US was to lose the war then the evil it has done would be exposed, disected, hold as historical example, bashed, etc. If it were to win, it will be treated with gloves, mentioned but not emphatically, considered necessary in the fight against.... evil. The same thing happened with Nazi evil in my opinion. I am not comparing the level of evil done, but the "dynamic".

take care

Gulf War I was a UN-mandated operation, and going to Baghdad was not part of the mandate. This was why Bush Sr. did not take the troops to Baghdad. It was simply not part of the plan (although it should have been, in my opinion).

As to Gulf War II, all you are doing is throwing pejoratives around - immoral, neoidiots, folly, stupidity - without making any actual points or arguments in your statements. But I know this is typical of your party's left-wing (or Hollywood-wing) ideology: flinging accusations without actually offering any solutions or viable alternatives.

But if you insist on speaking about immorality, I think you have better examples than the US. Both Irak and Vietnam were in the grips of brutal dictatorships. Saddam was a more brutal, Muslim version of Ceausescu, while Vietnam was falling under the true evil of communism. In both cases, people were living under fear and being repressed, if not murdered or tortured in jail in many cases. The immorality of both of these regimes was tremendous, simply immense. Why do you continuously choose to ignore this point?

In the late '40's and through the '50's, people in Romania were praying that the US and UK would come and save them from communism and Soviet domination (i.e., invade the Balkans). When they lost faith, many started to criticize and swear at these two countries for not coming to save them. As a US citizen, would you have supported the US invasion of the Balkans in the mid-to-late '40's before USSR had nuclear weapons? Or would you have reacted the same as you do today - criticizing the government for invading an "independent" country, as you did with Vietnam and Irak?

As a romanian would you have supported hungarian or/and russian troops invading Romania to liberate it from Ceausescu and his PCR/Securitate/"Baath" people in 1989?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 13, 2006 04:08 pm

Gulf War I was a UN-mandated operation, and going to Baghdad was not part of the mandate. This was why Bush Sr. did not take the troops to Baghdad. It was simply not part of the plan (although it should have been, in my opinion).

As to Gulf War II, all you are doing is throwing pejoratives around - immoral, neoidiots, folly, stupidity - without making any actual points or arguments in your statements. But I know this is typical of your party's left-wing (or Hollywood-wing) ideology: flinging accusations without actually offering any solutions or viable alternatives.

But if you insist on speaking about immorality, I think you have better examples than the US. Both Irak and Vietnam were in the grips of brutal dictatorships. Saddam was a more brutal, Muslim version of Ceausescu, while Vietnam was falling under the true evil of communism. In both cases, people were living under fear and being repressed, if not murdered or tortured in jail in many cases. The immorality of both of these regimes was tremendous, simply immense. Why do you continuously choose to ignore this point?

In the late '40's and through the '50's, people in Romania were praying that the US and UK would come and save them from communism and Soviet domination (i.e., invade the Balkans). When they lost faith, many started to criticize and swear at these two countries for not coming to save them. As a US citizen, would you have supported the US invasion of the Balkans in the mid-to-late '40's before USSR had nuclear weapons? Or would you have reacted the same as you do today - criticizing the government for invading an "independent" country, as you did with Vietnam and Irak?

Well, at least they HAD a plan in Gulf War I. I'm using the pejorative idiotic, because it IS my point that to invade a country without a plan to provide security after "mission accomplished" is if not idiotic, extremely short sighted, IMO.

Look Mab; nobody in their right mind denies that Sadamm was anything other than as you say. Unfortunately for the Iraqis, the price of their "democracy" is proving very steep in lives lost, country destroyed, and the price for the U.S. is too; lives lost, reputation destroyed, security worsened. IMO, this outcome was forordained by inadequte security, and incompetent leadership.

Re Vietnam; many observers saw that, early on, as a civil war, following in the wake of a nasty war of colonial overthrow (Vietman had been a French colony). Some here tried to make it, via the "domino theory" into a cold war lynchpin. We got involved, first as "advisors", then massively. The central question there, never answered IMO, is whether the "containment theory" which applied, in Europe, to Soviet communism (and worked!) was applicable to the Chinese Communists in Asia? There's some evidence that it was not, that the Chi coms were never as imperial minded as the Soviets, and indeed were in competition, not concert, with the Russians.

Maybe we'll never know the answer to that, but certainly the Chinese Communists never absorbed Vietnam after the U.S. withdrew.


Re Romania, the Balkans: you ask a very difficult personal hypothetical question, one I know is very emotional to most Romanians. So I'll try to make sure I know exactly what you mean, before I answer. If you mean exactly 1945; I don't think it would have been possible then for the U.S. to mount an invasion of the Balkans. If I were alive then and somehow know what we do now; yes, I would support it.......I know too many Romanians, have heard too many stories, have observed firsthand what the Soviet system did to your lovely country and people to say no.

But in 1945 very, very few Americans saw Stalin for what he was. Hindsight is always 20/20. If you mean 1948,or so, I think it would have been WWIII for the U.S. to do that, and then I would say no. Even a non nuke WWIII, on the ash heaps that were European cities at that time would have been unthinkable.

As a side observation; I do know that, when asked whether the U.S. should get involved in the Balkans in the 1980's, the then Republican Secretary of State James Baker said, simply; "We don't have a dog in that fight." The next President, Democrat Clinton, risked plenty of political capital in the teeth of a then isolationist Republican Congress to get get invloved there, (whatever one thinks of the results). The Republicans at the time were still very insistent that the U.S. should NOT be involved in either "nation building" or as the world policeman. How that policy changed is still a mystery to me, but I think it had a lot to do with, of course 9/11(goodbye, isolationism) and neoconservative philosophy (hello, nation building).

In any event, I would argue that the U.S. DID invade the Balkans, in a sense, post WWII; the Cold War was all about a long line of U.S. administrations Dem AND Republican confronting the Russian Communists, nigh unto the very brink of nuclear war (anybody remember Kruschev and Kennedy "eyeball to eyeball" ?) and that if we/they had NOT done so Eastern Europe would still be in the Soviet bloc. We made mistakes (Yalta) and missteps (1956 Hungary) but we won that one.

thank you for your time reading this. I'm sorry to go on, and to be so offtopic, but I think the subject needs serious dialogue.

cheers, cnfb2k

The important word is 'serious', by this I think Rapaport is talking about large scale and long drawn out wars.

The excerpt I quoted is part of a text which goes on to discuss other US wars, and Neo-Clauswitzian influences in US foreign policy, but, it is also talking about the situation, and the American imagination post WW2, when, I think the memory of the big struggles of WW1 and WW2 was much more vivid than that of the US-Mexican war or the Spanish American war.

This is so wrong it's laughable. Yes, the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the two World Wars were (and are) thought of this way in the US, as major conflicts that must be fought for some higher moral purpose. But I would say the main reason the US did not fight major wars was that it lacked land borders with other nation-states. The US has been fighting small wars -- punitive actions, protecting US interests overseas, supporting allies and so on -- almost as long as it has been in existence.

The text is not talking about the reality of what happened at all, but in general terms about the idea of war that became fixed in the imagination of the American public after WW2. Nor does it say anything (in this bit) about whether such a view is justified by the facts or not.

It does go on to discuss all of these things however, but it is about 80 pages long and far too long to quote in full.

As far as I can see from a very superficial reflection on European history, both the US and the UK did not get involved in large scale 'Clauswitzian' wars because it was more in their national interests to see peace or at least stability and equilibrium among other European nations. When this was threatened, they had to get involved, which can make them look,when you look back, like defenders of peace and justice.

I don't know if, given the US and UK public opinion, it would have been possible to introduce conscription and mass armies apart from during national emergencies. The US and the UK fought loads of small scale Clauswitzian wars, but they had to be relatively cheap, short, and contain clear financial and commercial benefits. Through the 19th Century UK always has only a small regular army for example, a big navy and, colonial ventures have to be locally funded, and preferably mostly carried out with local troops.

[moved from Plane wrecks?]

There was no such thing as 'nazi' paratrooper, only German paratrooper.

Gen. Dénes

There was no such thing as 'nazi' paratrooper, only German paratrooper.

Gen. Dénes

For Denes,

Well in my book if he has a Nazi swastika on the para badge on his breast,

fighting under the nazi symbol of the swastika, fighting for the beliefs of N.S.D.A.P.
then he is a NAZI Paratrooper.

all members of the para units were ardent Nazis, but, if you want to be a revisionist.

"A Paratrooper of Nazi Germany from the period of 1938 - 1945."

Apples and Oranges,

Make you feel any better,

Kevin in Deva.

There was no such thing as 'nazi' paratrooper, only German paratrooper.

Gen. Dénes

Exactly my opinion also. The regime was nazi, the were German Paratroopers.

They were just soldiers, like the others, in the Allied armies.

My 02 cents on the matter.

Al