The Second World War and Modern Memory

In a past post, I spoke briefly about how our society remembers the Second World War. Here is a brief section of that post: 

Just consider how we think about the war: the Nazis are seen as the ultimate villains of history- the purest manifestation of hatred, subjugation, and objective evil. Often, people label them as "monsters", and it is believed that these "monsters" were only defeated through dedication, bravery, intelligence, and commitment to a moral cause. The Allies were heroes. "It was their finest hour." Even it's name, "the World War", suggests incredible grandeur- the largest stage and stakes there are: our planet. So, the very way we describe and think about the war has shifted our interpretation of it from history to epic legend- something like Homer's Iliad, half way between history and myth

But why should this be so? There are many wars throughout history which are treated with casual disinterest, despite marking significant developments in political, social, scientific, or military thought. So why is this war so significant in our cultural memory? What was it about that time, our enemies, and what we "know" about it that brings us to treat every inch of battlefield as hallowed ground?

D-Day, Patton, and FUSAG

As many of you are no doubt aware, yesterday was the 72nd anniversary of the D-Day offensive on the beaches of Normandy. In light of this, I thought I'd write a short (really short this time- no joke) entry about a lesser known, but equally important, offensive that was launched at almost exactly the same time as the attack on Normandy...

Why the Atomic Bomb was Used

Last week, President Obama became the first sitting American President to visit Hiroshima since the United States military detonated an atomic bomb over the city on August 6th, 1945. There was some speculation that Obama would make a formal apology on behalf of the American people, but no such declaration was given.

Many within the Japanese parliament were upset about this outcome, and many others in America were angry that Obama would even consider making an apology. The visit was, to be sure, an odd and questionable political decision, especially when considering the diplomatic and emotional landscape surrounding the issue: a visit without an apology would anger many politicians within Japan; but making any public concession would have drastic consequences in both America and allied nations who suffered greatly at the hands of the Japanese in the Second World War. Why Obama would even make such a potentially explosive visit is difficult to understand.

But, there is a larger question here that is often debated in American spheres, and likely abroad: were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justifiable? Naturally, this question is ludicrously difficult to answer as it involves a myriad of "what if" questions and speculations that cannot be confirmed. We will never get all of the facts, nor can we truly understand the various contexts in which the decision to bomb Japan was made. It is important, therefore, to remain as close to the "facts" as we can, and put aside as many personal biases as possible. These biases blind us from seeing facts as they are and coming to conclusions based on those facts- all we end up seeing is how the facts can be used to support our preexisting conclusions. Even without all these personal biases, this is still an enormously complex issue. The bombings caused almost 270,000 deaths in both immediate explosions and subsequent radioactive poisoning- it is not easy to come to a rational conclusion. But that does not mean we shouldn't try!

So can we, as objective analysts, justify the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945?

Misconceptions of German Power

On Monday, a friend of mine showed me a video explaining the stealth technology of the B2 bomber- America's current-generation stealth bomber. At the end of the video, the speaker described how the Nazis had invented a working version of a stealth plane in 1943-1944. The next day, I did a little research in a few war encyclopedias I own. As it turns out, the Nazi stealth plane was genuine, and the stealth components functioned almost perfectly.... just before it crashed on its test flight. They started to rebuild, but it was never truly completed.

I hear a lot of similarly erroneous claims online and in conversation. Many people seem to believe that the Nazis were vastly more technologically advanced than they really were, and possessed fully-functional weapons of incredible power. To make things worse, the idea of Nazi super-development has been sensationalized by the media: Hitler clones, Nazi fusion cannons, advanced German computers, and enormous underground complexes in the Sahara (often housing super-weapons) have all been covered by ostensibly serious documentaries. Hollywood spins even more outlandish stories to boost this sentiment- Holy Grails, Arks, Norse technology, and jet-packs are just a few of the technologies that Nazis have employed in fictional films. Let's just leave the Nazi zombies alone.

But why do people believe wild claims about the Third Reich's technology? What makes everyone think that they were so advanced?

Norman Rockwell and the Heroism of Warfare

I'm going to break from our regularly scheduled programming to talk very briefly about one of my favorite paintings, which can be seen after the break. Norman Rockwell painted this particular piece, The War Hero, in late 1945 after the end of the Second World War. I think it's especially wonderful because it breaks away from the common, proud and determined American narrative of the war to introduce a sad and fundamental truth of all warfare.

"I'm always in conversation. And sometimes other people are involved."

As Mr. Samuel Clemens notes in the quote above, we all speak to ourselves constantly. Whether this discussion is intentional, unbidden, vocal, or internal varies on the person in question. I am personally partial to speaking to myself out loud- a habit that has earned me many strange looks. Unfortunately, my conversations are often times relatively simple; there is really only so much insight to be gained when both sides of a discussion come from the same source. But, to me, self-discussion is also necessary; so many of my closest friends (not to mention my significant other) are passionately disinterested in the topics that I am passionate about: war, security, statecraft, and global relations. It leaves few opportunities for discussion and development.

As such, the hope of this blog is simply to open the conversation up beyond the veil of my own head.  It's possible that I will end up just speaking to myself in a more public venue. But, if you're interested, I invite you to share in the discussion in whatever capacity you'd like. Agree, disagree, comment, question- all are welcome. Hopefully, as I get further along in this blog's development, I won't be quite as alone as Samuel.