Writer "Antony Beevor"

[Jan-Hendrik]

Hey, we have Klaus J. Arnold, and some much motivated "amateurs" on the run, times can only get better



Jan-Hendrik

[panzermahn]

Panzermahn is indeed correct about John Erickson and his bias for at least for me an author that starts his book with the words "Death to Fascism!" cannot pretent to have any objectivity. As those words were in Russian, the bias is even greater. And if still in doubt, one has to only read his sections dealing with Finland and one can no longer have any doubts, the text is exactly like out of the mouth of a Communist party apparatshik

There is a term for such personalities. They were usually called "watermelons" (green outside, red inside). I believed Erickson's wife, Ljubica is still alive and she is a Russian, which probably explains why Erickson was a Russophile.

Bull's eye. Sadly, it is all the same in Germany. If you look at what is often cheered as "the revival of military history in academic circles", 90% of that it is about anything (anything meaning all kinds of postmodernist poppycock combined with the usual "Vernichtungskrieg" mantra), but not military history

You had it correct. A very good example is Richard Evans with his Trilogy history of the Third Reich. His last volume was absolutely horrible for a so-called social historian of the Third Reich to try writting military history about Third Reich

[Ricardo Silva]

While you are right in criticizing all this nonsense that some like to call "modern military history", the fact is that military history (in this case, 2WW) has always been mistreated, to say the least.
In the former soviet union, stalin dictated the glorification of the soviet armed forces, to a point where even the most obvious defeats were denied or given very little importance, these stalinization of the russian military history, while lighter nowadays, continues to mark the russian view of the war, that they prefer to call the great patriotic war.
But worser even, the japanese society likes to believe that they were the victims, and not the agressors. Their history books have a lot of space for the atomics bombings, but guess what...the nanking massacre isn't even mentioned, nor is pearl harbour portrayed as an agression, instead, they prefer to see it as the result of the embargoes that they had sufered.
And as to the banzay charges of 42/43 that where such a wast of men, they see it in a romantic way, the truth is that it was just stupid orders given by a group of officers that were so blind by the idea that the japanese soldier was so superior in the battlefield, that they couldn't even talk about defense.
They learned their lesson, and the battles of iwo jima and okinawa show that. But the japanese historians (not all, but most), continue to prefer to think that they lost only due two the numerical and material inferiority (partially true), but they miss one point, japan chose a path where tecnology was left behind, believing that man alone win a war. It was a strategic mistake to loose the tecnology war, the american submarines couldn't have done the havoc they did if japan had invested in asw tactics and equipment, guadalcanal could have had a diferent outcome if they had reacted in a more swifter way, instead of sending a token force to beat the 1st marines. And these many mistakes aren't going to be found on a japanese book, at least, not those i've read. Only once i saw some honesty, when i read Saburo Saka book, there he admits that the zero was pushed way beyond its limits, and that the top brass lived in denial of the reality until it was to late.

[Rotanhäntäpistin]

I don´t see much wrong about those Japanese views. By any standard that stands up to closer scrutiny, the atomic bombing was a war crime, a crime against humanity. And Pearl Harbor was a response to the American stranglehold intented to force Japan out of China and let American capital free hand instead. And do Portuguese schoolbooks tell the students of the horrors and massacres perpetrated by Portuguese colonialism? And as far as US schoolbooks are considered, do they e.g. celebrate Columbus

a) as a "discoverer" of America

or

b) as a harbinger of near total annihilation of Indians and a total ethnic cleansing of an entire continent? A crime to which Nankings are peanuts.

As for military history, outside stricly military professionals military historiography is still used to further political aims, the "West" included. Today the mission is sometimes hailed as "protecting democracy" which considering the political systems in place is de facto "protecting the dictatorship of party elites". What use is parliamentarism of if the party bosses have more weight in affecting the votes of the MPs that the people who elected those MPs? That has nothing to do with genuine democracy.

[Ricardo Silva]

Portuguese schools teach the students that in those days portugal was run by a dictatorship, and that it was that same dictatorship the responsible for the colonial war by not accepting a political agreement with the rebels, and the independence of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau,...
As to the war crimes, in portugal you just need to see some tv to know about them. Several documentaries have been keen on showing them, and while shamefull to all of us in portugal, we admit them.
The japanese rapped millions of chinese, philipino and korean women, they even made sex slaves out of them. They killed several million chinese, and it was their lack of respect for the human being that brought them problems with the american admnistration (at least, because of the public opinion), but mostly, their imperialism, that led them to invade china, make a puppy state in manchuko, and then seeing the french in a bad shape...they took vietnam.
They were a nation that looked at the other people in asia, as slaves, that wanted to make an empire out of the whole continent, that saw themselves as the superior race (just like the nazi thought of the germans/arians), and as far as i recall, it was they that attacked the chinese, american, british, australian, dutch,...
I may respect and admire the japanese people, i even admire and love to read everything about the PTO, in the japanese perspective. Nonetheless, they still are the agressors, and the atomic bombings, while tragic and criminal, is something that made all they could to deserve, it killed many people? Many more died on the conventional bombings, and nowadays no one says it was criminal, just remember the tokyo bombings and you'll see that the atomics bombings weren't much different in terms destruction and death, they were just quicker.
And honestly, in our modern western mentality it may look like criminal, but 70 years ago it had a military logic, and it probably saved more japanese lives, than those it took. If the american continued their conventional bombing campaign, and followed that with the invasion of japan, imagine how many more would have died.

[Ricardo Silva]

When i think about the alternatives to democracy, i honestly prefer to live in the freedom that only democray brings. It may have several major flaws, but that's because it's human made, and we all know that men always abused of whatever political system they have.
There is no perfect political system, the comunism is interesting when in theory, but we all know quite well the results of it in the real world. Fascism, well, many countries tried that one, and usually it ended with that country in being dragged into a war that could only end the bad way. Examples: Germany, Italy,...even portugal with it's colonial war.
So, is there a better system than democracy? I think that such a system still has to be invented, nowadays democracy its the best we have, and its because of it that we can be here having these conversation.

[lwd]

OT I know but ...

I don´t see much wrong about those Japanese views.

Hmmm ...

By any standard that stands up to closer scrutiny, the atomic bombing was a war crime, a crime against humanity.

Most emphatically no it wasn't. Indeed only a few on the fringe consider it so and they are clearly wrong.

And Pearl Harbor was a response to the American stranglehold intented to force Japan out of China and let American capital free hand instead.

Forcing the Japanese out of China would not neccessarily have given "American capital free hand". Indeed it was the savage treatment of the Chinese by the Japanese that provoked/allowed the American response as much or more than it was Japanese limiting the access of others to Chinese markets.

.... And as far as US schoolbooks are considered, do they e.g. celebrate Columbus
a) as a "discoverer" of America
or
b) as a harbinger of near total annihilation of Indians and a total ethnic cleansing of an entire continent? A crime to which Nankings are peanuts.

It's pretty clear that he didn't "discover America" and most books now make that clear. Furthermore while the European settlements in the Americas did result in a severe decline in the indiginous population it wasn't "near toal annihilation" or "total ethnic cleansing". Nor in many cases are their any serious grounds for considering it a crime.