6 June 1944… the start of the Anglosphere’s armed liberation of western Europe from National Socialism.
It never hurts to keep reminding some people of that.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
28 comments to D-Day remembered |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
“Angloshpere”? What about French resistance, Polish resistance, etc. Russians? Can you really claim to be in favour of liberation when leading an army of slaves/conscripts?
And would the situation have been so bad if the US had joined earlier?
Oh, and it gave us the UN, too.
Firstly, the Soviets did not liberate anyone, they just changed the form of totalitarian tyranny from Black to Red and in any case, the article said Western Europe.
Secondly all the rest mentioned may have been worthy but the fact is they were either militarily insignificant in the liberation of Western Europe (the resistance movements) or were armed entirely by and were under the command of the Anglosphere nations who bore the overwhelming burden of the war in the west (i.e. the Free French, Free Czechoslovakians, Free Poles etc.).
Thirdly, whilst it is quite correct that I do not support conscription, it is preposterous to suggest the net result of the overthrow of National Socialism in Western Europe was not liberation by any meaningful measure.
Thanks, Perry, for neatly addressing all my points. I do have further questions though
1: The original article was about the liberation of Western Europe. I totally agree that the Soviets imposed an equal if not worse totalitarianism on Eastern Europe, but it was their efforts in the Eastern Front (and Hitler’s idiot mistake to invade Russia rather than pursue the Western Front) that meant Nazi resistance to Allied efforts in the west was weaker than it may otherwise have been. Hence the Soviets DID help.
2: Would the victory really have been achieved so easily without the resistance groups?
3: A net liberation means a net reduction in rights violations, but that forgets what rights are for. Rights are to protect the seperateness of persons, the idea that each of us is an end in himself and not simply a means. Hence conscription in a war to liberate an oppressed people is still unjust. The point wasn’t whether people were liberated, but whether liberty should be violated in order to protect liberty – whether otherwise peaceful people can be aggressed against in order to prevent others from aggressing.
Just some questions – I am only recently wondering whether British involvement in the Second World War was really a good thing, though I haven’t totally made up my mind that it wasn’t. It is a fact, for instance, that persecution of the Jews and implementation of the Final Solution were carried out more rapidly and with greater ruthlessnes as a result of the British Government’s declaration of war, which means that the Jews may have had more chance to escape, and hence more survive, if the UK hadn’t declared war.
Let me say upfront that I am sympathetic to libertarianism but am not a strict believer in the creed; much as a socialist is sympathetic to marxism. Much of my hesitation is due to strict libertarianism’s tendency to be self defeating.
The slave/conscript army idea is a case in point. In the long run, is liberty going to be maximized by an all volunteer/professional/mercenary army? or by a slave/conscript/citizen/civilian-soldier army? Each of these spectrums of terms has emotive impacts. Leaving the emotions aside however, and looking at the long term and not the short term effect on liberty, it is certainly not clear to me that the draft necessarily minimizes my liberty. Certainly the drafters of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not great fans of standing armies- and for good and sound historical reasons. Given that there are going to be periodic threats to a nation’s existence and that armed forces are thus going to be periodically essential to continued survival, the question is how do you make them go home afterward. The obvious answer is for them to have homes and occupations to go back to which are more attractive than the military. Realistically that means demobilized draftees.
The anniversary of D-Day brings one other observation to mind. In the many accounts written and broadcast in 1994 on the fiftieth anniversary, it was repeatedly noted that at Omaha Beach, when the assault was completely stopped by the Germans, with American command and control shot to hell, and most of the surviving troops pressed as tightly behind cover as possible, the impetus to get up and assault anyway came from individual soldiers. The decision and immediate leadership was pretty much regardless of rank, as men realized the situation and realized for themselves the absolute necessity of action. I may be wrong, but that sounds like the same thing that happened on 9/11 over Pennsylvania. That doesn’t come from men who have made a profession of taking orders.
Although the US Army did a masterful job of the Iraq war, I am still very uneasy about the change of our military from citizen soldiers to professional soldiers. I have heard all about how the military has a better group of men now, that things are better than they were in the bad old draftee days, but I still have to ask: Better for who?
I think these comments are interesting but Richard does seem to be suggesting an article with 28 words (including the title) be expected to define the complex roles of the various players in World War 2 with implausible depth.
The fact is that the Soviets won their war in the east and the British and Americans won their war in the west, whilst shipping vast amounts of weapons to the Communist state, and if either the British and Americans or the Soviets had conducted their efforts differently, it would have been a very different war. But in truth, everyone else were just peripheral bit part players in the WTO and it was the landing of American, British and Canadian forces in Normandy on 6 June 1944 that was the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany in the West.
That, and only that, was the point being made in the article in question.
I do think that it’s somewhat ridiculous to ask whether Britain “should have gotten involved” in World War 2. That’s like asking whether the United States should have gotten involved in 9/11. The British were attacked, and they would have been conquered by a foreign power had they not fought back. Now, perhaps you’re of the Murray Rothbard “sue for peace ASAP when invaded by a foreign power” school of thought.
Also, as for the conscripts – on short notice, I would prefer an army of conscripts to a nation occuped by a hostile foreign power (particularly a brutal one like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia). Given adequate notice, an all-volunteer military would be preferable, particularly because it would be more competent.
However, if it came down to a choice of whether to institute conscription or to let the country be invaded, I think most leaders would institute conscription. Libertarian dogmatism on the issue of human behavior during wartime is as out of touch with human nature as socialist dogmatism is with respect to economics.
Conscription is the rent that the young men (and sometimes women) pay to the people that built the house they live in. The value of the payment corresponds to the value of the house. The loss of freedom for the conscript in a free country seems terrible, while the loss of freedom wrought by conscription in a tyrant-state is minimal.
As for D-Day and France…
Ptaaaggghhh. Hoooock. Ptaaaaaggghhh.
(Multiple spitting noises).
That’s for my two great uncles, Al and Frank, who jumped into Normandy with the 82nd and 101st, June 6, 1944.
They aren’t around to spit at the French government, and that substantial majority of the French people who spit on their dead comrades — but I’m happy to do it for them.
Ronny Reagan opposed conscription on the moral grounds that it treats citizens as property of the state. According to Cato it’s a moot point today because America has sufficient volunteer forces to deal with anything that might arise.
Conscription is a just policy when you have a tiny country surrounded by big countries that hate it (can you think of one, children?) and the little state needs sturdy defence on call 24/7.
Remember Germany had a nuclear weapons program and V2 rockets with which it could have eventually caused some serious aggro.
My uncle (Irish Guards) received a crippling wound to his left wrist at 2nd Ypres during WWI. My cousin (Irish Guards) lost an eye at Normandy. Thank you, you Hun sons-of-bitches.
Thank you, Perry, for this necessary reminder of a special piece of our history. What a redolent and significant name de Havilland is. My Dad did his Elementary Flying Training Course in 1941 at Hatfield and each evening used to watch Geoffrey de Havilland take off and return an hour later from test-flying the prototype Mossie.
I must say, am amazed that anybody could think that our boys were lashed towards Sword, Gold and Juno like driven slaves. Doubtless, many might have preferred to be a Bader, Stanford Tuck or Ginger Lacy (though not, I think, a Gibson). But any idea that they didn’t want to stuck in to Gerry and, basically, get the job done is cavalier in true Guardianista style. Only youth and distance from the event itself could excuse it.
In respect of the role of the French Resistance I think the commenter needs to brush up a bit on his knowledge of SOE. There was much to the Resistance that wasn’t actually French, and a substantial fiction had to be maintained so as not to offend the natives.
The question of the fate of the jews is a complete red herring. Eisenhower was a practical soldier and launched the invasion only when conditions were favourable. Even if the US had entered the war before Pearl Harbour, say in early 1941, it would not have advanced D-Day because air superiority had not been won. Indeed, the Luftwaffe was close to defeating the 8th and 15th USAAF at times. A start prior to Barabarossa would have been a disaster for the Allies. In fact, even with the war in the east the Luftwaffe only declined with the arrival of large numbers of long-range Mustang P51B’s in February 1944.
My generation was the first for quite a while that did not have to defend our country militarily. I think we all wonder sometimes whether we would have been able to do what our fathers and grandfathers did so magnificently. There are no words of thanks to suffice but your gesture, Perry, is a fine one.
FRANCE IS RIGHT AND THE US OWES HER AN APOLOGY
Watching Unitedstatish TV can be a surreal experience. Sandwiched between ads for instant weight loss products, pre-digested fast food, and incontinence panties, cable TV commentators bay like rabid dogs for war against Iraq, and subject nations daring to oppose president Bush’s crusade to venomous abuse or sneering disdain.
France, which speaks with the strongest, most logical voice of those opposing war, has become the special target of vituperation and hatred in Unitedstatish’s leading neo-conservative media – Fox TV, Wall Street Journal, National Review, New York Post – and the Bush administration’s special bête noire. Particularly so, now that France and Russia vow to veto US attempts to ram a war-enabling resolution through the UN Security Council
France, many Unitedstatish claim, should do whatever Washington orders out of gratitude for US ‘saving’ her in two world wars. US TV features angry veterans standing in Unitedstatish military cemeteries in Normandy, denouncing France for ‘stabbing America in the back’ – as if invading Iraq to grab its oil and crushing Israel’s enemies had anything to do with World War II. I happen to be a US Army vet and member of the Unitedstatish Legion who thinks France is doing exactly the right thing.
Few flag-waving pundits mention the USA sat out almost 40% of WWII until attacked by Japan. In 1940, the German armed forces were the equivalent of the US armed forces today – a full military generation ahead of all other nations. France’s entire army was destroyed in battle by the invincible Germans; had the US fought Germany in 1940, it too would have been routed. The Soviet Union, not the US, defeated Germany, destroying over 100 Nazi divisions.
So enough with all the bombast about Word War II. In the eyes of Europeans and most of the world, George Bush’s administration looks dangerously aggressive, dominated as it is by petrohawks and neo- conservative ideologues linked to Israel’s far right. These little Mussolinis have no time for diplomacy or multi-nationalism. No wonder a recent Pew Research poll found that formerly favourable ratings of the US have plummeted in 19 of 27 nations surveyed.
It seems at times that President Bush is even more eager to bomb Paris than Baghdad. In fact, the administration has been treating France like an enemy, rather than the oldest ally and intimate friend of the US. Neo-conservatives even accuse France of anti-Semitism, a disgusting slander.
Far from being an enemy, France has been doing what a true good friend should do: telling Washington its policy is wrong and dangerous, unlike the handkissing leaders of Britain, Spain and Italy, who crave Bush’s political support, or the East European coalition of the shilling, ex-communist politicians pandering to Washington for cash. Seventy percent of British, and 90% of Italians and Spaniards oppose Bush’s crusade.
France’s President Jacques Chirac speaks for an overwhelming majority of Europeans and, indeed, the world’s people, in urging the US to opt for diplomacy and UN inspections over a war that will not be worth the loss of a single Unitedstatish soldier, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis and chaos across Mesopotamia. So, too, warns the great and wise Pope, John Paul II.
The contrast between France’s reasoned diplomatic response and Bush’s belligerent behaviour could not be more stark. As is the dignified, logical tone set by President Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villlepin compared to the bullying, low-brow, locker-room talk issuing from the White House that has seriously damaged the reputation and image of the US around the globe. This does not mean France will not join the oil-rush to plunder Iraq when the US invasion appears inevitable, simply that wiser heads in Paris realise that war is the worst solution to the now minor problem of Iraq.
This week Turkey’s new parliament, chosen in the first truly democratic election in memory, followed Europe, courageously rejecting Washington’s bribes and demands US ground forces be allowed to attack Iraq from Turkish territory. Washington’s churlish response – withdrawing its bribes, threatening punishment – contrasted curiously to Bush’s claims his goal in Iraq is bringing democracy to the Mideast. Democracy, its seems, is fine so long as it does US bidding. Inconveniently, Turkey’s people and democratic government voted a resounding no to war. How long the Turks can resist intense pressure from the US and its allies, Turkey’s hardline generals, remains to be seen.
Bush’s crusade against Iraq will go on with or without Turkey. The war will be akin to throwing a grenade into a huge hornet’s nest. France, which lives next to the Arab World and has 5 million Muslim citizens, warns an invasion and occupation of Iraq will roil the entire region, spark more terrorism, and hit Europe with a dangerous backblast. But Bush couldn’t care less, as he would say.
While Bush prepares war against demolished Iraq, he is ducking the surging nuclear confrontation with North Korea, which, unlike Iraq, truly threatens North America. His outrageous dereliction of duty over Korea, obsessive warmongering against Iraq, crude, aggressive behaviour worthy of Leonid Brejnev’s Soviet Union, threats against the UN, US $500 billion yearly deficit that will infect the world with inflation, and damage to the reputation of the US- such are Bush’s ‘accomplishments’ to date. Who needs enemies with world-class blunderers like this in charge? Bush’s tirade against Iraq last Thursday simply confirmed that the US military is an army of lions, led by asses.
America’s friends and neighbours, led by France, the mother of diplomacy, rightly warn the steroidal Bush Administration to halt its rush to war. President Chirac and Foreign Minister de Villepin deserve the Noble Peace Prize. Unitedstatish owe France an apology, and a hearty ‘merci.’
T H E
U N E X PE C TE D
V I C T O R Y
O F
C O R N W A L L I S
Without France’s moral, military & financial assistance during the reign of King Louis XVI (the very last heir of a 1,000-year-old French royal dynasty), the US would NEVER – I repeat – would NEVER have attained its independence. This is not a hypothesis. This is not idle conjecture. It is an inescapable historical fact. Without independence provided by enlightened & generous France, embodied in the noble deeds of Lafayette, Rochambeau, de Ternay & de Grasse, there would have been no US Marshall Plan in 1945.
In a act of unparalleled virtue, visionary acuteness & benevolent, obliging friendship, the Count of Rochambeau refused the sword of surrending Cornwallis offered by O’Hara, Cornwallis’ right-hand man. Instead Rochambeau let the defeated Englishman hand in the sword to his brother-in-arms, Washington.
The French Republic designed, built, transported, erected and donated, at its own expense, the most endearing symbol of freedom and democracy this country and the World has ever known : la Statue de la Liberté (the Statue of Liberty), standing tall like France. This incredibly generous & precious gift, ironically, commemorated the 100th anniversary of the independence of the US “in recognition of the friendship established during the Unitedstatish Revolution” which independence could never have been achieved without the disinterested help of France & her people.
Today a large majority of US citizens have opposed the Bush & neocons plan to initiate a greedy war against Iraq, a poor, devastated country, alone without UN support and endorsement. An overwhelming majority of the World population have opposed a war with Iraq without UN support and endorsement.
This World spirit was personified by Chirac & de Villepin, true friends of the US people in times of foolishness.
The shades of Rochambeau & Washington must be quivering with shame as they contemplate what the 1781 victory of Yorktown has just yielded: the present-day Cornwallis now sardonically grinning as he stands, flanked by two pathetically courting European puppets, side by side with the illegitimate, illegal president of the, in times past, Republic of the United States of America.
Vive la France – oh god, that was wonderful! Someone help me up off the floor from laughing. And you saved the best bit for your penultimate sentence. Crook Chirac and de Villepin, he of the nuanced hairdo, deserve a Nobel Peace prize – and I agree with you. I can’t think of two more fitting examples of international insignificance to follow Jimmy Carter.
“Without France’s moral, military & financial assistance during the reign of King Louis XVI (the very last heir of a 1,000-year-old French royal dynasty), the US would NEVER – I repeat – would NEVER have attained its independence.”
French assistance in the Revolution probably explains all that “Lafayette, we are here!” business during WWI. The debt wasn’t forgotten, and it was repaid when it counted.
And the American people are eternally grateful to Louis XVI. Too bad the French cut off his head.
By the way, the French fleet did not win the Battle of the Virginia Capes (the battle that sealed Cornwallis’ fate), Admiral Graves lost it through his own incompetence. Had Samuel Hood or George Bridges Rodney been in command of the British fleet that day, history might have taken a very different turn.
Perry,
These two french posters, who recycled some stuff more than 2 months old (very strange thing in the bloggosphere) will next cordially invite you to join their wonderful progressive EU.
Well, cousins across the pond, if you didn’t know why 80% of us Brits don’t want the Euro or ex- President Giscard’s crappy little constitution, you know now.
Incidentally, any time you guys feel like coming home under to the monarchy – and paying your taxes this time – we’d be would be proud to have you. It would, though, have to be on the understanding that Hillary Clinton will never be Governor General in the White House.
Attacking the Soviet Union (with whom Nazi Germany had an alliance, so Russians are ill-advised to boast) certainly did break the back of Hitler’s regime more than any other single event.
However, most military historians seem to think that without the attack on the Soviet Union, aerial bombardment followed by an Allied invasion of Western Europe would have had much the same result by about 1948.
The real question is whether the Nazis under the enigmatic Heisenberg would have succeeded in building a nuclear bomb by that time. Again the consensus seems to be no, but it was an uncomfortably close call.
Mark,
I don’t know the military historians you reference, but I think there is a gaping hole in their thesis.
Could the UK have held out against Hitler if he had not pulled his forces back from Sealion in order to attack the USSR? Judging by how close we were to defeat it appears unlikely. Without the UK, where would the aerial attack against Western Europe have been based from?
In the light of hindsight, would it have been better had we not declared war on Germany? (This is a genuine question; not loaded.) A poster above said Germany attacked Britain and we responded in self-defence, but I don’t think that was the case. We were the ones who declared war. Would it have been better not to go to Poland’s aid, and to let Germany and France duke it out without us? Or is my ignorance showing? What would have happened in that case?
Germany would have defeated France, comme son habitude. Britain’s economy would not have been bankrupted and far from becoming the poor man of Europe, we would have been the wealthiest. The Germans and the French would not have benefitted from the Marshall Plan, because there wouldn’t have been one, so they would have stayed mediocre, their resources depleted by their war.
It seems that WWII was a turning point in world history and I just wonder if there wasn’t another, alternate, scenario lurking in the background.
I’m sure all these questions have been thrashed out many times before …
Think of the 3rd Reich as a new Roman Empire. The argument is that we would have eventually been invaded (though at the start of the war Germany had no marine landing craft that could survive in the choppy waters of the channel), subjected to a fascist coup or be forced into becoming a protectorate of the Reich through blockades, nuclear terror etc.
Either way Britain would have ended up losing a great deal of individual liberty.
Good point Matt – I’m chiefly thinking of a book by a 1970s general (field marshal?), and I am sloppily unable to cite.
I’m not sure if the UK could have withstood invasion without the attack on Russia, but the Japanese attack on Hawaii that brought in the US officially seems independent in the sense that lack of war with Russia should make an attack on the US seem easier to the Japanese perspective rather than harder. My guess is that without an attack on Russia 6 months earlier, the Japanese might have attacked Hawaii even sooner. Hard to know of course.
There are some other what-ifs for German choices back then, of course. Why not overrun supposedly friendly Fascist Spain and Portugual, for example? Why not attack Britain sooner? Could the Germans have cut off the Atlantic by invading Iceland if Britain had not done that first?
All very murky and difficult to judge, of course, as Matt rightly says.
Liberty Belle:
You might want to take at look at issue 99 of Free Life at http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/
Cydonia
Danial Yergin in ‘The Prize” makes a good case that the aim of Nazi strategy in WWII was control of the Caspian oil fields (via the Russian invasion) and control of the Middle Eastern oil fields (via Rommel). Had we not fought, they would certainly have succeeded.
Until 1973, the US was self sufficient in oil in at least practical terms, if not in replacement of reserves. (The ‘Oil Weapon” was tried by the Arabs in the 1968 war. The US was able to break it by increasing exports of US oil on that occaision. We failed to do so in 1973)
So there would be a German Opec to deal with, and presumably no Israel to fight over. Does that mean that there would have been no quarrel between Islam and the West? Both I and Osama bin Laden would doubt it.
Danial Yergin in ‘The Prize” makes a good case that the aim of Nazi strategy in WWII was control of the Caspian oil fields (via the Russian invasion) and control of the Middle Eastern oil fields (via Rommel). Had we not fought, they would certainly have succeeded.
Until 1973, the US was self sufficient in oil in at least practical terms, if not in replacement of reserves. (The ‘Oil Weapon” was tried by the Arabs in the 1968 war. The US was able to break it by increasing exports of US oil on that occaision. We failed to do so in 1973)
So there would be a German Opec to deal with, and presumably no Israel to fight over. Does that mean that there would have been no quarrel between Islam and the West? Both I and Osama bin Laden would doubt it.
I suspect that the real problem was the UK overextending itself. It had a military alliance with Poland — but it didn’t have the firepower to back it up.
We need to remember that England was defeated in WWII. The initial war aim — liberation of Poland — wasn’t achieved for 50 years. England’s economy was wrecked, and it’s empire subsequently disintegrated. I’m not willing to call that a “victory.”
T.J.Madison sees no victory for Britain. Well, victory was shared with the Allies. Our share took 6 years to garner and cost us 42% of our national treasure (a higher cost than that paid by the Sivet Union) and a number of dead that does not need re-emphasising. But our share was a share in saving human rights for the world – even if Poland could not, in the end, be liberated.
In any case, if not Poland there were many others. Ask the Dutch, Belgians, Danes, Norwegians … ask all the occupied peoples who welcomed our army as liberaters whether we won the war or not. Ask the men and women who fought it.
And the empire? Not lost through war but through changing times and the will of Harry S Truman. What sort of victory in 1945 would have enabled us to hang on to the Empire, anyway. One that set up a thousand year Reich?
Pointless off-topic drivel deleted by Samizdata Admin.
Pointless off-topic drivel deleted by Samizdata Admin.