View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's January 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's January 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
1. firstname.lastname@example.org 2. "Kuehn, John Dr CIV USA TRADOC" <email@example.com> 3. Frederick Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> -----Message from: email@example.com----- These 2 replies indicated some of the problems faced during WW II on the Alllied side of the war. In this 2nd asked question, Mr. Morganthau of the US govt. proposed to Roosevelt, Germany be stripped of all its heavy industry and reduced to an agricultural nation. FDR did not accept this policy recommendation. Stalin, it is published in some volumes, indicated his opinion, within 50 years, Germany would be re armed to the point where a third world war would be required. As history developoed, when Germany was divided into Allied zones, the Soviets did strip East Germany of all its heavy industry, initially; at what point, when the Communist government took over East Germany, it restored any industry would have been a post-war decision and policy based on the Cold War between Communism and Western Democracies. Wyatt Reader UCLA___Whittier College Calif. Community Colleges//privat[Instructor] firstname.lastname@example.org -----Message from: "Kuehn, John Dr CIV USA TRADOC" <email@example.com>----- > Francesco Dall'Aglio wrote: " How is this distinction[[[the > criminal state led by Josef Stalin???]]] relevant, or even > useful, to the questions discussed in the book and to the > subject of criminal accountability?" Fair enough. Okay, the title of the book being reviewed was: _ After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation. _. This implies a reductionist approach regarding Allied occupation policy. The implication in the title is that the Allies are to be judged as a body rather than as individual states. My objection relates to that and is based on the resulting tenor of the review. Perhaps the book does make substantially more detailed distinctions than the passage cited from the review: "MacDonogh's reportage is replete with na´ve but craven Americans, larcenous and vengeful French, dignified but arrogant English, and rapacious and bestial Russians." This is not my language, it is Professor's Wend's. I got the sense from the review that the occupation behavior is treated, as I stated above, as a body, as collections of policies and behaviors that closely resembled each other enough to be treated that way and not distinctively. Therefore, making the distinction in my comment is meant to point out the fallacy of not doing so in the review because one of the states and its leadership is markedly distinctive in every respect from the others. For example, the review states: " Regardless of geographical locale, similar threats menaced German civilians: liberated peoples, bent on revenge; occupying troops intent on exacting sexual and material tribute from a captive people;..." I think the record clearly shows that German civilians could distinguish between the "occupying troops" of the Western Allies and the Red Army...but the review seems not to make that distinction. So I did. In other words, a sort of moral relativism seems to be at work here that downplays the substantial scholarship that now exists regarding the true nature of the Stalin regime of that period and its "occupation" policies. Are the questions being raised in the book so important that these sorts of distinctions need not be made? I think not. As for Mr. Barrett's argument, which follows that of Mr. Dall'Aglio, one of the points I am implying (and now make explicit) is that the behavior of the USSR and its military and political organs does not seem substantially different in occupied Germany than it did in occupied Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia prior to a single Wehrmacht boot crunching the ground of the Workers and Peasants utopia....you get the idea. Vr, John John T. Kuehn, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Military History Fort Leavenworth, KS "Kuehn, John Dr CIV USA TRADOC" <firstname.lastname@example.org> -----Message from: Frederick Taylor <email@example.com>----- > Message from: firstname.lastname@example.org > > Quoting from Dr. Kuehn: > > "I do not propose that British, French, and United States' > criminal behavior by soldiers/occupiers be excused. However, > I do propose that we recognize that one of the "Allies" was > in fact the criminal state led by Josef Stalin". > > How is this distinction relevant, or even useful, to the > questions discussed in the book and to the subject of > criminal accountability? Francesco Dall'Aglio, Ph. D., University of Rome I think, with respect, that Dr Kuehn's point was a fair one to make. Viz: that the crimes committed by Soviet troops on German soil at that time were in scale and degree far worse than any committed (as they undoubtedly were) by the soldiers of the Western Allies. This special barbarity was connected both with the brutalised nature of Soviet society under Stalin and with an understandable desire for revenge, given the unspeakable atrocities committed by the Germans in Russia. I think Dr Kuehn is also right that Mr Macdonogh has a tendency to lump (rather gleefully) all this bad behaviour by the occupiers together. Stealing some wretched German aristo's family china is scarcely comparable with, say, the mass rape and murder of women in Berlin or Koenigsberg. Frederick Taylor Frederick Taylor <email@example.com> ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----