Another reason why I hate historians

[theaustinescorts]

History is a psuedo-science. Historians work in a highly-charged atmosphere of ideology and politics which rules their beliefs. That would all be cool if they admitted this, but instead they hold themselves out as impartial, "fair and balanced" when they are anything but.

One example is the way historians have condemned the U.S.'s alliance with Nazis after the war.

In particular, the vitriolic, insanely moralistic critic by recent historians of the American alliance with the Nazi intelligence network in eastern Europe after 1945.

Here's what happened -

In every country in eastern Europe, and in the Soviet Union itself, there were pro-Nazi and anti-communists active BEFORE war broke out between Germany and the USSR in 1941. This ideological conflict between the expansion of Stalinist communism in these countries and all those who opposed it was the root of the German invasion of Poland, the USSR, and ultimately the root cause of the entire war.

As the Germans and their allies [Hungarians, Romanians, etc.] swept through the east, pushing back Stalinist forces, local anti-communist and pro-Nazi groups went into action. They assisted the Nazis in military operations, intelligence gathering, and rounding up communists left behind. These captured commnists were dealt with in the same brutal and merciless manner in which they themselves had treated others.

However with the aid of the US and Britain, the Soviet Union came roaring back and pushed the Nazis and their allies out of the territories they had conquered. The Soviet army conquered Berlin, as well as occupying all of the rest of eastern Europe. In every country of their occupation the Soviets staged coups through local communist proxies which resulted in pro-Soviet governments.

But there remained in each of these countries many surviving anti-communists which had formerly worked with the Nazis. These groups and individuals were often secretly anti-communist and continued to live in their respective, now-communist governments and countries.

When antipathy and conflict exploded between the Soviet Union and the US shortly after the war ended, this extensive network was still accessable to German intelligence, which is to say, Nazi figures. The US obviously had no such network...no history there working with anyone. It was a ready-made organization not only able to gain information, but more importantly able to form resistance movements against their communist occupiers.

In the face of this dire need the fact that these Nazis had acted brutally in the east was not of scant concern - IT WAS OF NO CONCERN. Unlike the American public, which had been brainwashed with anti-Nazi propaganda during the war, the educated leaders of US Army Intelligence and the new CIA knew full well that the US and its allies had also committed war crimes of similar magnatude, and did not look on thier new Nazi partners with any distain. In fact, they found much in common with them, and shared their ruthless commitment to do whatever was necessary to prevent the world from conquest by Stalin.

Unfortunately recent historians can't seem to set aside their moralizing and ignorant images of the Nazis long enough to understand any of this, and this is particularly outrageous given that all of them now conceed that Stalin killed over 40 million of his own people while in power - over twice the number killed in the entire Second World War, which these same ignorant historians falsely claim was started entirely by the Germans. Since 1998 when President Clinton signed the "Nazi War Crimes Documents Act" forcing the CIA and Defense Department to release documents proving that the US was allied with Nazis [and secretly re-settled thousands of them into the US] these historians have had a field day.

But what's perhaps worst about these moralizing tails by ignorant historians is their assertion that the Nazis often provided the US with bad intelligence BECAUSE THE INFORMATION CAME FROM NAZIS AND THEREFORE HAD TO BE BAD.

If this absurdity doesn't unmask the basic flaw of their entire argument I don't know what does. That flaw being that their prejudice against the Nazis is so irrational that it forces them to the conclusion that they are incapable of doing anything needed, whatever it might be.

Were there bad people among the Nazis? Yes. Were there bad people among the Americans? Yes. Did both sides do horrific things during the war? Yes.
Does that mean that the information collected by Americans is accurate, and that of the Nazis inaccurate because Americans are Saints and Nazis are devils?

No.

The fact is that much of what the Nazis gave us was bad, but that's true of any intelligence organization. During those years the CIA got it wrong much more often [and contintues to today] as the Nazis did in their operations working for the CIA after 1948.

In fact the Nazi network had fewer penetrations of itself and fewer missteps than the US, and certainly the British had in that period.

Anyone who knows the facts of how badly British and US intelligence performed could not deny that.

[Poet Laureate]

You have deluded yourself. While some of what you are writing makes perfect sense, it's clear that your own study of the history of Europe in the early and middle 20th century left something to be desired.
-
The root cause of the entire war had very little to do with ideological differences between Nazism and Communism. Adolf Hitler merely tried to take advantage of those differences for his own ends. To find the root cause of WWII, you have to go back to the treaty of Versailles in 1918, and you need to understand something of German culture.
-
The Treaty of Versailles was not intended just to stop the war; it was also used to punish Germany for starting the war in the first place, even though Germany didn't start that war at all. WWI was begun as a direct result of the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife. In the political fallout that followed, it was Serbia who first sent troops into Austria-Hungary, who then declared war and mobilized the portion of its army that would face the (already mobilized) Serbian Army on 28 July 1914. Under the Secret Treaty of 1892 Russia and France were obliged to mobilize their armies if any of the Triple Alliance mobilized. Russia's mobilization set off full Austro-Hungarian and German mobilizations. Soon all the Great Powers except Italy had chosen sides and gone to war.
-
WWI was known as The War to End All Wars. It was the most devastating and destructive war the world had ever seen. When it finally ended, much of Europe lay in ruins, millions were dead or injured, and several countries were close to bankruptcy. Add to that the often overlooked fact that in 1918 the Spanish Flu epidemic swept through Europe and killed another 25 million people, and you have a recipe for the disaster that was the Treaty of Versailles, which was the single most powerful catalyst for WWII.
-
Versailles was meant not just to punish Germany, but also to rape what was left of the German economy in an effort to bolster the economies of the victorious nations. Whole territories were stripped from Germany and given to other nations; some were entirely German, but that didn't matter to the victorious Allies; they were punishing Germany.
-
But beyond losing territories like Alsace-Lorraine to France, Malmedy to Belgium, West Prussia and Upper Silesia to Poland, and others, there were crippling reparations payments demanded of the Germans; payments that gutted an already weak post-war German economy. Within ten years the German mark had been so devalued that it took a wheelbarrow full of bank notes to buy a loaf of bread.
-
Then there were the military restrictions imposed. Germany was limited to a standing Army of 100,000 men and was allowed no tanks. She was allowed no Air Force, no submarines, and only 6 capital naval ships. For a country that identified itself with uniforms and military service, this was the cruelest blow of all. Because in German culture, being a soldier was an honorable calling, and fighting a war was a business, which they did better than most.
-
The Treaty of Versailles was so burdensome, so onerous, so restrictive, and so punitive that its effects on Germany and her citizens ultimately led many of the to turn a deaf ear to the whispers about Adolf Hitler when he was rising to power. Hitler appealed to the German sense of national pride. Once he took control, he stopped making reparations payments, ignored the Treaty and built up the Army, created the Luftwaffe, and ordered the building of a fleet of submarines. The only mistake he made was in not paying closer attention to sea power; militarily speaking he should have built a bigger navy.
-
Under Hitler Germany enjoyed an unprecedented expansion in her economy. Unemployment was literally zero; everyone had a job. And with the growing military the German people once again felt a sense of national pride. Hitler then began the diplomatic conquests of territories and nations that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the other European leaders were only too happy to give away in the hopes of keeping the peace. But Hitler had no intention of keeping the peace. He was going to take whatever territories he could by negotiation and threat, and when that strategy had gained him all it could, he struck by invading Poland Sept 1 1939.
-
Hitler's move west and south to Africa had nothing to do with being anti-Communist. He would have done exactly the same thing if Russia had been a democracy or a monarchy. He wanted land and natural resources, and Russia had both. Hitler's hatred and mistrust of Stalin merely fueled the fire.

[LexusLover]

I think the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is a decent review of the history of Hitler's reign and Mein Kampf gives some parallel insights into his thoughts.

“The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes” - Hitler.

[Poet Laureate]

In general I agree, but the problem with "The Rise" is that it doesn't pay as much attention to the economic and geopolitical forces that were at work in other nations; these factors were critical in allowing Hitler first to obtain power, and then to misuse it.
-
Mein Kampf is a fascinating read, but only if you're really into Hitler and early to mid 20th Century Europe. Otherwise it's pretty boring.

[JD Barleycorn]

First of all the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was written by a newspaper man who witnessed much of what he wrote. He was not a historian. Don't make the mistake because they called him a historian later in life but at the time he was writing the first draft of history as a reporter. Mein Kampf is not history per se, it is a autobiography. Some autobiographies are so good in explaining things that they are later considered history and Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is NOW considered history, first person history.
Historians are people with biases and points of view. Usually the first draft is lacking in prospective and they do want to get published. I am surprised that you didn't mention Duranty. He worked for the New York Times as a reporter. He published years of columns praising the Soviet Union. It was considered to be first person history at the time and used as evidence for our support of the Soviet Union. They even used a few to make a movie Mission to Moscow. Afterwards it was revealed that it was mostly lies. Sometimes concocted by Duranty and others just passed along from the Soviets.

It takes time to write history. When Harry Truman left office he was considered to be a failed president but now he consistently ranks in the top 10 if not the top 5.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Poet Laureate

You have deluded yourself. While some of what you are writing makes perfect sense, it's clear that your own study of the history of Europe in the early and middle 20th century left something to be desired.
-
The root cause of the entire war had very little to do with ideological differences between Nazism and Communism. Adolf Hitler merely tried to take advantage of those differences for his own ends. To find the root cause of WWII, you have to go back to the treaty of Versailles in 1918, and you need to understand something of German culture.
-
The Treaty of Versailles was not intended just to stop the war; it was also used to punish Germany for starting the war in the first place, even though Germany didn't start that war at all. WWI was begun as a direct result of the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife. In the political fallout that followed, it was Serbia who first sent troops into Austria-Hungary, who then declared war and mobilized the portion of its army that would face the (already mobilized) Serbian Army on 28 July 1914. Under the Secret Treaty of 1892 Russia and France were obliged to mobilize their armies if any of the Triple Alliance mobilized. Russia's mobilization set off full Austro-Hungarian and German mobilizations. Soon all the Great Powers except Italy had chosen sides and gone to war. Kaiser Wilhelm could have cut the fuse and not led Germany into war, but Kaiser Wilhelm proved unequal to the challenge and allowed events rather than pragmatic thought draw him and his nation into war. Depending on the source one reads, Emperor Franz Joseph didn't even like his nephew Franz Ferdinand and merely used Ferdinand's death at Sarajevo as a convenient pretext to go to war against Serbia.
-
WWI was known as The War to End All Wars. It was the most devastating and destructive war the world had ever seen. When it finally ended, much of Europe lay in ruins, millions were dead or injured, and several countries were close to bankruptcy. Add to that the often overlooked fact that in 1918 the Spanish Flu epidemic swept through Europe and killed another 25 million people, and you have a recipe for the disaster that was the Treaty of Versailles, which was the single most powerful catalyst for WWII.
-
Versailles was meant not just to punish Germany, but also to rape what was left of the German economy in an effort to bolster the economies of the victorious nations. Whole territories were stripped from Germany and given to other nations; some were entirely German, but that didn't matter to the victorious Allies; they were punishing Germany.
-
But beyond losing territories like Alsace-Lorraine to France, Malmedy to Belgium, West Prussia and Upper Silesia to Poland, and others, there were crippling reparations payments demanded of the Germans; payments that gutted an already weak post-war German economy. Within ten years the German mark had been so devalued that it took a wheelbarrow full of bank notes to buy a loaf of bread. Another thing taken from Germany were industrial patents. The Allies stole industrial knowledge, technology, that had allowed German industry to be successful before the war. Once the allies began manufacturing products identical to that of the Germans, there was no market for the German products.
-
Then there were the military restrictions imposed. Germany was limited to a standing Army of 100,000 men and was allowed no tanks. She was allowed no Air Force, no submarines, and only 6 capital naval ships. For a country that identified itself with uniforms and military service, this was the cruelest blow of all. Because in German culture, being a soldier was an honorable calling, and fighting a war was a business, which they did better than most.
-
The Treaty of Versailles was so burdensome, so onerous, so restrictive, and so punitive that its effects on Germany and her citizens ultimately led many of the to turn a deaf ear to the whispers about Adolf Hitler when he was rising to power. Hitler appealed to the German sense of national pride. Once he took control, he stopped making reparations payments, ignored the Treaty and built up the Army, created the Luftwaffe, and ordered the building of a fleet of submarines. The only mistake he made was in not paying closer attention to sea power; militarily speaking he should have built a bigger navy.
-
Under Hitler Germany enjoyed an unprecedented expansion in her economy. Unemployment was literally zero; everyone had a job. And with the growing military the German people once again felt a sense of national pride. Hitler then began the diplomatic conquests of territories and nations that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the other European leaders were only too happy to give away in the hopes of keeping the peace. But Hitler had no intention of keeping the peace. He was going to take whatever territories he could by negotiation and threat, and when that strategy had gained him all it could, he struck by invading Poland Sept 1 1939.
-
Hitler's move west and south to Africa had nothing to do with being anti-Communist. He would have done exactly the same thing if Russia had been a democracy or a monarchy. He wanted land and natural resources, and Russia had both. Hitler's hatred and mistrust of Stalin merely fueled the fire.

.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

In every country in eastern Europe, and in the Soviet Union itself, there were pro-Nazi and anti-communists active BEFORE war broke out between Germany and the USSR in 1941. This ideological conflict between the expansion of Stalinist communism in these countries and all those who opposed it was the root of the German invasion of Poland, the USSR, and ultimately the root cause of the entire war. Your statement here is categorically wrong. Hitler considered Poland to be "macht nichts" state encompassing territory Hitler felt rightly belonged to Germany. Furthermore, there is the matter of Hitler's "Lebensraum" program to consider.

Unfortunately recent historians can't seem to set aside their moralizing and ignorant images of the Nazis long enough to understand any of this, and this is particularly outrageous given that all of them now conceed that Stalin killed over 40 million of his own people while in power - over twice the number killed in the entire Second World War, which these same ignorant historians falsely claim was started entirely by the Germans. Since 1998 when President Clinton signed the "Nazi War Crimes Documents Act" forcing the CIA and Defense Department to release documents proving that the US was allied with Nazis [and secretly re-settled thousands of them into the US] these historians have had a field day.

Yes, there is a great deal of hypocrisy. It's evident in this forum every time someone chooses to point out the collaboration between bin Laden and the Reagan administration to bring down the Soviet Union or when someone declaims FDR for collaborating with Stalin during WWII to defeat Hitler. Those were different times with different realities.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.... the collaboration between bin Laden and the Reagan administration to bring down the Soviet Union ....

Carter started the "cooperation" and "support" for the anti-Soviet groups in Afghanistan ... so said ...

.... his national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.

They funded them, built camps, trained-the-trainers, and brought trainers to Virginia for more intensive instruction.

"Operation Cyclone"

The U.S. cooperation and assistance to the Taliban continued from Carter through the 2nd term of the Clinton administration and into Bush's in 2001 when he demanded that OBL be turned over post 911.

In fact in 1998 there was a Taliban-Enron meeting in Sugarland to discuss the gas pipeline planned to cross Afghanistan to provide gas for the power plant being constructed by Enron-sub company in India .. the one at which there was a large explosion. Clinton had forced the deal on the plant in India with a threat of trade consequences to get India to approve the Enron project.... and then was supporting the negotiations for the pipeline.

[Poet Laureate]

IB, I would not say this if it weren't true, because it's too ridiculous, but away off in the nether regions of distant cousins twice removed, I am actually related to Kaiser Wilhelm.
-
Yes, technically the Kaiser could have chosen not to honor the treaties that had been signed, but realistically he couldn't. Remember, the Germans thought of war as a business, not a personal thing, and in business your word is more important than anything.
-
Also consider the social mores of the day. Honor, personal and professional, was still enough of a big deal to these men that they would duel to the death over the smallest slight or insult. So even though the Kaiser had it within his power to refuse to mobilize the German armies, it truly wasn't an option for him. He was as stuck as Roosevelt was when he found the U.S. allied with Stalin.

[JD Barleycorn]

A few things, maybe a matter of semantics or not. After the assassination of Franz Ferdinand the Serbs mobilized their army and defended their border after threats from Austria-Hungary. You said they marched on A-H which is misleading. Serbia had no where near the firepower of A-H. The Germans do everything according to a plan. Their plan (the Schlieffen Plan) called for knocking France out of any possible war before dealing with threats to the east (Russia). The Germans were highly mechanized with trains. They could mobilized faster than France and far faster than Russia. What Wilhelm failed to realize is that going through and taking out Belgium put him on the English Channel and that was something the English could not allow. That is what brought them into the war against Germany. Germany failed to take out France (and England) which lead them to a two front war.

Following the loss of the war Germany was punished and as part of the treaty had to accept all responsiblility for starting the war. It is true that they were not allowed an air force, any submarines, no tank corps, and were limited to 100,000 men and officers. Now Hitler did not start the build up. President Ebert signed a treaty with Russia at Rapallo, Italy to allow Germany to develop and outfit armored units and aircraft in Russia out of sight of the world. This was 1922 ten years before Hitler came to power. Ebert also signed a treaty with Sweden for German scientists to research and improve submarines and torpedoes in Sweden. As for the 100,000 man army; Germany changed all enlistments to six months and the reserve time to 20 years. Every six months Germany fielded a new 100,000 man army. All of this was in place before Hitler. Hitler just went public and did away with the pretense.

[Jackie S]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Or, at least for the moment.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

First of all the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was written by a newspaper man who witnessed much of what he wrote. He was not a historian.

An historian is also defined as a "recorder of events" ...

...."a newspaper man who witnessed much of what he wrote" qualifies, and at least in my opinion, is more qualified than one who cherry-picks facts and embellishes those preferentally treated to create their own perspective and interpretation of past events.

The latter is not an "historian" in my book, but more of a propogandist. Plenty of examples on this board.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Poet Laureate

IB, I would not say this if it weren't true, because it's too ridiculous, but away off in the nether regions of distant cousins twice removed, I am actually related to Kaiser Wilhelm.
-
Yes, technically the Kaiser could have chosen not to honor the treaties that had been signed, but realistically he couldn't. Remember, the Germans thought of war as a business, not a personal thing, and in business your word is more important than anything.
-
Also consider the social mores of the day. Honor, personal and professional, was still enough of a big deal to these men that they would duel to the death over the smallest slight or insult. So even though the Kaiser had it within his power to refuse to mobilize the German armies, it truly wasn't an option for him. He was as stuck as Roosevelt was when he found the U.S. allied with Stalin.

Completely agree. It would have meant sacrificing honor; therefore, it is almost unimaginable that the situation could have developed differently than it did.

[JD Barleycorn]

I'm not sure the point your post. Shirer was a newspaper man and always was a newspaper man. Sometimes a newspaper man rises to the level that he becomes like a historian and other times like Duranty he becomes a hack.

Like the above reporters not all "historians" are worth the paper they write on. Will Durant was a historian, Stephen Ambrose was a historian, Cornelius Ryan was both a newspaperman who rose to the level of historian, Howard Zinn was not a historian though he is a Hollywood favorite, and lately Ken Burns is leaving history to agenda driven documentaries. Only time will tell.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by Poet Laureate

You have deluded yourself. While some of what you are writing makes perfect sense, it's clear that your own study of the history of Europe in the early and middle 20th century left something to be desired.
-
The root cause of the entire war had very little to do with ideological differences between Nazism and Communism. Adolf Hitler merely tried to take advantage of those differences for his own ends. But Hitler had no intention of keeping the peace. He was going to take whatever territories he could by negotiation and threat, and when that strategy had gained him all it could, he struck by invading Poland Sept 1 1939.
-
Hitler's move west and south to Africa had nothing to do with being anti-Communist. He would have done exactly the same thing if Russia had been a democracy or a monarchy. He wanted land and natural resources, and Russia had both. Hitler's hatred and mistrust of Stalin merely fueled the fire.

You are providing a very doctrinal account of Hitler derived entirely from allied propaganda. Bogus sources such as "Rise of the Third Reich," have no documentation to support their theories. If you go to the documents, German and Soviet, a much different narrative is present, and it's consistent with the testimony of German officials [which traditional historians have usually ignored].

Hitler was motiviated by one over-riding concern - the perceived rising threat of an attack on Germany by Stalin allied with France.

In order to prevent such he entered into a non-aggression pact with Stalin in which Germany and the USSR jointly invaded and divided Poland. This was a ruse by Hitler to close the border distance so he could attack the USSR without having to pass through Poland first, and archives now show that Stalin was intending to do likewise, but on a longer timetable. Stalin was totally shocked when Hitler struck before he could, and his miscalculation was epic [to say the least].

The entire German government was therefore dumbfounded when France and England promptly declared war on Germany....but had absolutely no criticsim of ANYTHING Stalin did in Poland. Stalin occupied 51% of Poland while Germany occupied only 49%, and the number of Poles killed was less than the US killed in the "liberation" of Iraq in 2003 [70,000 vs. 92,000].

Because of the threat from Britain and France the Germans finally attacked in the west in 1940, but never intended to stay there. Germany fully intended to withdraw from the west after the east was secured. Unfortunately that never happened. Operation Barbarossa failed, and Stalin succeeded in his plans for hegemony. The German campaigns in Africa were geostrategic in nature, to damage British lines of supply, but were not imperial by any means.

This brings us to the major point of my post, which was the cooperation between the US and former Nazis after 1945.

This cooperation was necessary and beneficial.

Unfortunately stupid and moralizing historians prefer to CLAIM otherwise, but have no rational arguments to profer, only their revulsion that somehow Nazis must be more evil than Stalin, which is a completely unsupportable position in moral terms.

Why do they insist that Stalin must be less evil than Hitler [despite all facts to the contrary?]

Because Stalin was the US's ally, and that fact will bend all "analysis" around US patriotism and an unwillingness to accept that most "historians" simply belief whatever the US government claimed and the newspapers said at the time.....regardless of what the facts might be.

[Carl]

History is not a science or a pseudo-science. It's one of the liberal arts.