I'm currently reading (among other things) Atomic Obsession, and really enjoying it so far. One thing that Mueller mentions, kind of as an aside, has to do with the sheer amount of stuff that the US supplied to the USSR during WW2.
I knew the US helped supply the USSR with supplies during WW2, but didn't know we supplied them with (on average) 1/2 lb of food per day per Soviet soldier for every day of the war, largely in the form of Spam. True story.
Today's track is dedicated to the late Howard Zinn, and I think it's one he would've been very comfortable with:
Thinking about Zinn's legacy, which has been written about by some other commentators at length in light of his passing, I think two of its most positive elements a) his contributions to the Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement and b) the simple fact that he introduced many Americans to the fact that everything they learned in history class may not have been entirely accurate or presented without bias.
With respect to the actual substance of A People's History and his other works--as a card-carrying member of the center-left and friend of capitalism, I am decidedly less enthusiastic. This essay gets at much of what I disagree with in his work.
One other major problem I found with some of it was his pacifism. As a "national security progressive" and someone who is generally skeptical of most calls for war, I think that pacifists and proponents of complete nonviolence offer a powerful critique of militarism and the jingoistic hawkishness that surrounds much of our national security discourse. I think the fact that Zinn's pacifism came from a WW2 bombardier lends further credibility to his position.
He was, I think, wrong on many issues though. Nonviolence simply isn't a viable solution in some cases and just war theory offers a middle ground between pacifism and unrestrained violence that progressives can embrace. Zinn's condemnations of WW2 and the first Gulf War are then, for example, wrongheaded (although his critique of say, terror bombing in the former are not).
His pacifism also becomes intellectually shallow in some of his work. Specifically, I remember in his discussion of the Clinton Administration in A People's History, he portrays the administration as basically a 1990s version of Genghis Kahn's hordes, terrorizing Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, without providing any real context as to why those wars were fought.
Overall, though, I would say that Zinn's legacy has been more positive than negative, and he is not someone the left should disown. However, a critique of his work should serve to solidify liberals' commitment toward just war as a last resort and regulated capitalism.
It was claimed by someone I encountered today that:
a) the US "could have nuked Germany" during WW2 b) the US never really seriously considered nuking Germany
Given that the first nuclear test was in the summer of '45, after VE Day had already taken place, I was skeptical of this person's argument. Could any reader help me out with this?
Via Yglesias, Brian Moore is looking for terrible, offensive quotes from great historical figures. For some reason, I have always enjoyed finding the darker side of beloved historical figures as well. Here are some of those.
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
Winston Churchill
Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.
Fascinating, fascinating stuff in the NYT regarding Teddy Roosevelt's strong "tilt" toward Japan during the Russo-Japanese War era.
"No human beings, black, yellow or white, could be quite as untruthful, as insincere, as arrogant — in short, as untrustworthy in every way — as the Russians,” he wrote in August 1905, near the end of the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese, on the other hand, were “a wonderful and civilized people,” Roosevelt wrote, “entitled to stand on an absolute equality with all the other peoples of the civilized world.”
Sounds like ol' Teddy may have not been very deserving of that Nobel Prize given his strong partiality toward one side and the secret deals he cut. I bet he didn't catch as much flak as our latest Nobel-winning prez, either...
Bradley's most controversial claim seems to be that TR deserves at least some of the responsibility for emboldening Japan toward further expansionism going forward by letting them have Korea. I don't really feel qualified to evaluate the claim, but it's an interesting one nonetheless.
I'm currently reading (among other things) Atomic Obsession, and really enjoying it so far. One thing that Mueller mentions, kind of as an aside, has to do with the sheer amount of stuff that the US supplied to the USSR during WW2.
