Dispatches on War (Part VI)

The author has done a fair job de-mythyfying historical events. It is quite true that more so than america and its western allies, it were the hated communist Russians who deserve the label of ``winners`` in WWII. It were them who demoralized and demolished the mighty germans, who breached Berlin defenses, and who took on more casualties than all europeans / americans COMBINED!

While it is true that winners write the history, in the case of WWII, it were the runner-ups who wrote the history. As the author has alluded, after winning the WWII, Russia lost the media war to the western allies. You never hear about the bravery and sacrifice of the Russian soldiers and russian people against the invading Germans. Recent books like ``The Greatest Generation``, which by the way came just in time to whip American public into war frenzy for Iraq invasion, continue to solidify and romanticize american role during 1911 - 1945.

Indeed, the role of the chinese in building the american railway lines is one of the greatest whitewash of 18th century. Soon after eastern and western lines were joined in Utah, there was a legislation passed by the US congress - The Chinese Exclusion Act. This act, by law, barred immigration from China.

If challenging the myths of history is out of fashion in American media, then allow me to say that the Jewish leaders in US did a tremendous job of sanctifying certain ``truths`` and criminalizing others. Let me elaborate.

When you criminalize a version of history by calling it ``revisionist``, you open the door for similar stances elsewhere. David Irving, a british historian is currently in an Austrian jail because he dared to suggest that historical and physical evidence points to the fact that jewish holocaust may not have occured, or at least did not occur as a planned activity on that large a scale. However, there is a law in Austria that criminalizes ``alternative`` view of holocaust! And hence, a historian is in jail because he dared to look at history from an independent perspective, rather than learning it through movies like ``Schindler`s List`` and ``Anne Frank`s diary`` etc.

And when you sanctify one version of history for a certain group of people, then is it any wonder that other groups demand similar rights? And when that happens, then history does not become a collection of facts, rather a result of lobby / pressure groups` interests and hollywood box office. And that is why you have movies like ``DC-911`` legendrazing President Bush as a man of steel trying to rally his people on September 11, rather than a man on the run from one underground shelter to another.

Is this a serious article?

I have not seen such a simplistic narration of the history from Feroz before so I am just thinking that he probably wrote the whole piece to poke some fun at the Hollywood movies.

First, attempting to view history from the Hollywood perspective is not for scholars. Hollywood is all about fiction and story telling. Hollywood primarily makes movies for the US audience and I doubt that the every movie they make about some historical event, is backed by some hard facts nor do they claim their version of the history as a hard fact.

Movies follow a pattern and that pattern is having heroes, heroines and villains. Sometimes those villains are Japanese, sometimes Arabs and just a decade ago they were all Russians. They even invented a Russian boxer for the heavy weight contention. In Indians movies sometimes they have Pakistanis as villains and in Pakistani movies zamindars take the rule of villains and sometime Indians are shown to be of heinous nature. Now if someone is so simple that he/she takes the movie version literally then that person is beyond any education. Movies are all about creating heroes and are not made to dispense facts or dissect other points of views. In fact the documentaries too are there to show a certain version of the history that can be challenged by others.

The whole effort here appears to trivialize history in a mammoth way.
If I start to contest every issue raised in this article, I would end up doing a piece as long as this one. I hope Feroz would refer to some regular books from regular historians rather than relying on Hollywood screen writers to score his points.

It is funny to see the attempt to minimize the US role in the second WW. If it were not for the US land-lease program, the British or the Soviets would have come up really short in their war efforts. The physical US entry in the war actually ensured that the war would end in allies’ victory alone. The number of US dead on European and the Asian theatres explains the extent of the US involvement in the Second WW.
I have never seen a serious historian discuss history based on what was shown in the Guns of Navaron.
Will take up other issues in the article later…

Bridge over River Kawai is near the Thailand - Burma border. This bridge was built by the british PoWs under japanese command. Later it was made famous by the movie ``Bridge over River Kawai``.

As I visited this famed bridge, I came across a cemetry of the british soldiers. Hundreds upon hundred rows of tombstones in perfect symmetry adorned the lush grounds. I walked through those rows, glancing at the names and ages of the soldiers burried there. Most of them were younger than 25, who came half way across the world to fight in a battle that they perhaps themselves did not understand.

And then as I moved towards the exit gate, I looked at a wall with some muslim sounding names. These were the names of the pre-partition indian soldiers who had perished in this foreign land. In the case of the young british soldiers, even if they did not understand the war, at least they fought and died for their own country. But in the case of these indian soldiers, they fought in a war they had nothing to do with, they fought under the command of a country which was not theirs, and they perished in these foreign lands where their bodies did not even recieve a burial adjacent to the white soldiers. This belated board with their names is all that is left of their sacrifice.

``The Second World War started on September 1, 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and on September 3, 1939, England, due to its treaty commitments to Poland, declared war on Germany. Therefore, from September 3, 1939 to December 7, 1941, England, aided by its empire, was fighting the Japanese and the Germans alone. ``

FerozeK:

I have a difference of opinion with you on multiple points in this article.

``The Second World War started on September 1, 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and on September 3, 1939, England, due to its treaty commitments to Poland, declared war on Germany. Therefore, from September 3, 1939 to December 7, 1941, England, aided by its empire, was fighting the Japanese and the Germans alone. ``

That is the English version of history. It could also be factually stated that the war that commenced on Sept 3, 1939 was essentially a European War between Germany on one side, England and France on the other. Polish involvement ended by the end of September. Japan was actually not involved in the conflict at all at that point except in its incursion into China that had been carrying on for a few years. Neither was Russia. Hence, calling it a ``World War`` in 1939 would be a stretch.

It was only in 1941 that Japan attacked the US and Germany attacked Russia. Germany declared war on the US after the attack by Japan, thereby making it a comprehensive World War.

HP also brings up the point of the Lend Lease agreements. The industrial and military might of the US was instrumental in winning the war. Malik`s comment about the Commies being the true winners might be satisfying in an emotional sense but does not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, the Russians took the most casualties but that does not constitute victory in itself. Also, Zhukov took Berlin because Eisenhower (a statesman more than a General) ordered Montgomery and Patton to lay off Berlin and capture the most territory in the west.
The Eastern front would have gound to a stalemate without American aid to the Soviets. Ofcourse, in hindsight it may be argued that Patton was right about the need to carry on marching east and fight the Russians there and then, rather than waiting for the evil of Communism to settle over Eastern Europe for half a century.

``But in the case of these indian soldiers, they fought in a war they had nothing to do with, they fought under the command of a country which was not theirs, and they perished in these foreign lands where their bodies did not even recieve a burial adjacent to the white soldiers. ``

They fought and died because fighting with the chance of dying was the profession they signed up for. The British Indian Army, as the Indian Army of today, was a voluntary force which individuals joined at choice. There was no draft in India. The official racism as it existed was a fact of life. These soldiers still chose to join and acquiited themselves well for the most part. The soldiers who were more politically aware chose to fight with the INA and were looked upon by British Iindian troops as Namak Harams. The value judgements of the time cannot be replicated today.

“What Wilson refused to listen to and what the American policy makers do not seem to understand is that they cannot solve the world’s problems, because they do not have the required background to understand its problems in all of its myriad complexities. The Americans see the worlds’ problems through their own unique perceptional prisms (right versus wrong; evil versus good and; us against them) and seek to impose their own imported set of solutions, which seldom take into account the historical and local realities behind the origins of a particular problem.”

Coming from Feroz, it is a major disappointment. This stereotypical view of Yankee appears in some extremely naïve publications and suggest that the Americans are slow witted dumb or don’t have enough education and training to understands the world problems.

I just hope that people would realize that the US as a country has already put in over 200 years, first as a leader and now as perhaps the only leading nation in the world. The US boasts of the best educational institutions in the world and probably conducts the most intense diplomatic activity ever seen in the world since the dawn of life on this earth.

Assuming that the Americans “do not seem to understand” does not even merit a comment. I wish Feroz would just walk in some top US schools and see the caliber of the people that graduate from there. The amount of knowledge they absorb and the amount of discussions they have not amongst themselves but also with professors and other scholars is just mind-boggling.

The arguments that feroz is making would perhaps right away disqualify him for a serious discussion in any top rank US school. The US think tanks only keep the top graduates and have created a plethora of documents and research on various issues that surround the world. I hope Feroz, some day, would have time to visit just a few institutions like Cato, Brookings, AFPC, John Hopkins Foreign Policy institute or the Georgetown school of foreign affairs etc. just to name a few.

If there is any group of people who understand the “Myriad complexities of the world politics, historical and local realities behind the origins of particular problem” that would be Americans.
The American President may simplify issues for various reasons but believing that people behind him don’t understand the issues is really simplistic.

Highly qualified analysts work for the CIA, MIA DEA, and other American security organizations such as the national security agency under the Whitehouse. Speaking about such qualified individuals in such layman terms only shows that most of the historians and political analyst in the subcontinent are still beholden to views propagated by the soviets during the cold war.

HP:

Though I agree with the basic thrust of your arguement, I would submit that FerozeK`s point is akin to the European criticism that Americans often lack the historical baggage needed to understand the complexity of conflict and emotions found in countries that have a longer sense of history. In that sense, this article would be better served if FerozK had mentioned ``The Quiet American`` as an introverted observation of American idealism leading to missteps in strategic implementation of a benign worldview.

Hi Feroz:

You have studied well your Hollywood. And, yes, Hollywood has unfortunately played a large role in shaping worldview of history not only for Americans but also of common people everywhere for whom Hollywood is the sole source of information on all all world events. On the small screen, the supremacy of American mind is now spread ``Sitaron se aagay`` by Star Trek and its various offshoots. One can add the whole new genre of ``infotainment`` led by CNN and followed even by the BBC whose very name spelled integrity at one point.

I do not know however to what extent the US textbooks also spread the same myths as Hollyood. As someone pointed out, the US thinktanks and policymakers in Washington have access to the best historians in the world who know a lot more than what we see on the screen. But if the schools are spreading the same message, then one can see how a cynical administration can easily manipulate a misfed citizenry.

BTW didn`t Canada join the war before 1941?

stuka

“European criticism that Americans often lack the historical baggage needed to understand the complexity of conflict and emotions found in countries that have a longer sense of history.”

Do we really have to buy this European non sense?

There is no comparable institution in the whole Europe that devotes as much time and efforts as the US schools do in teaching students about the historical backgrounds of issues and the European perspective about the European problems.

A foreign affairs graduate or post graduate student of the international affairs of the US schools would know more about the European issues than most of the European diplomats. Some young American graduate know more about communism than Brezhnev ever did.

The problem is Europe’s aristocratism; it is their fragile ego that makes them say things that have no relevance with the reality. Europe invented extremism in international politics. They often lack the world view and pursue their policies within the small framework of European politics.

The US has provided a balanced view to the world about the realities that are out there. The European views are constantly rejected by all major countries in the world as Europeans range in international issues is extremely limited, naive and often based on experiences they gained some 100 years ago when they had colonized and suppressed people. Nobody gains any insight by enslaving and incarcerating a whole nation. Petty minded feudal are trying to match the scientific views of the current world by claiming that they have some edge over the Americans because they know history…Sorry they don’t.

They need to pay attention to their problems before the US intervenes to set them right…:)

It`s the audience.....Average Joe isn`t much smarter than the Jaywalking all-stars...Most people wouldn`t know Utah beach wasn`t in Utah...They probably think the utah beach landing was on the shores of the Salt Lake..

#9 by dost-mittar on November 28, 2005 1:29pm PT


the supremacy of American mind is now spread ``Sitaron se aagay`` by Star Trek and its various offshoots.


Actually the US has ceased to exist in Star Trek..All nations of Earth are now united.


But if the schools are spreading the same message, then one can see how a cynical administration can easily manipulate a misfed citizenry.


This ain`t Pakiland where you need the k-for-kaafir K-12 education to produce the jihadis..

Just scare a bunch of people and they`ll support you war....It`s the lack of education(and interest) rather than indoctrination that makes something like Iraq possible...

malik99 #1

`` The author has done a fair job de-mythyfying historical events. It is quite true that more so than america and its western allies, it were the hated communist Russians who deserve the label of ``winners`` in WWII. It were them who demoralized and demolished the mighty germans, who breached Berlin defenses, and who took on more casualties than all europeans / americans COMBINED! ``

If Soviets did not get American support the Germans would have overran Soviet Union.

`` While it is true that winners write the history, in the case of WWII, it were the runner-ups who wrote the history. As the author has alluded, after winning the WWII, Russia lost the media war to the western allies. You never hear about the bravery and sacrifice of the Russian soldiers and russian people against the invading Germans. Recent books like ``The Greatest Generation``, which by the way came just in time to whip American public into war frenzy for Iraq invasion, continue to solidify and romanticize american role during 1911 - 1945. ``

The Red Army committed too many atrocities against Germans and East Europeans to be considered in a positive light. Red Army suffered a lot of casulaties because Stalin mounted pretty good purges of its officer corps.

`` Indeed, the role of the chinese in building the american railway lines is one of the greatest whitewash of 18th century. Soon after eastern and western lines were joined in Utah, there was a legislation passed by the US congress - The Chinese Exclusion Act. This act, by law, barred immigration from China.``

Life is not fair !!!

bbabu # 13 writes ``The Red Army committed too many atrocities against Germans and East Europeans to be considered in a positive light.``

Red army was in a role of being the jackhammer that brought down Nazis. They were in the front line. And hence took and inflicted more casualties than the americans and brits. But then again, the firebombing of hapless citizens of Dresden by americans and brits does not have its parallel even with red army. In fact, the firebombing of Dresden is perhaps the only event that is considered a war crime against German people in WWII.

Re: # 11

Mr.Arjun please bear with me.

Americans went in IRAQ so average citizen will know where it is located ?

I read many real americans do not consider desi and arabs as asians ? ( only asians means orientals)

Re: # 11

Mr.Arjun please bear with me.

Americans went in IRAQ so average citizen will know where it is located ?

I read many real americans do not consider desi and arabs as asians ? ( only asians means orientals)