Why World War II continues to fascinate so many

World War II has been depicted in countless books, documentaries, and Hollywood movies. Some of these movies are basically action films of one sort or another. That is, they dramatize the contributions of those who fought for the various Allied nations. These films can take place on submarines and other warships, in bombers or fighter planes, or in various (often exotic) ground locations all over the world. Other films tell the stories of those who lived under Nazi or Japanese rule, with difficult decisions dropped on these unluckily-placed people. For example, some of them chose to escape, some of them chose to spy for the Allies, and others of them chose to collaborate with the Axis occupations of their own countries (sadly enough). Other films depict parts of the Holocaust, dramatizing the countless victims of the genocide. Other films (such as “Tora! Tora! Tora!”) ask big questions, like how we got involved in the war. I have even heard of a film about the efforts to prevent the Nazis from getting the atomic bomb. (More about that here.) Other films depict World War II code-crackers or spies, prisoners of war in Axis-controlled prison camps, or even the postwar Nuremberg trials. There are biographies of major leaders – such as FDR, Churchill, Patton, or Eisenhower. And there are countless stories about ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Why is this? What is it about World War II that continues to fascinate people, all of these decades after it tore the world apart – and then altered the very map of the world itself?

Firefighters tackling a blaze amongst ruined buildings after an air raid – London, 1941

Naval air power: Aircraft carrier tactics in the Pacific War

In Italy, the distant Battle of Taranto proved the effectiveness of aircraft carriers

In November 1940, a British aircraft carrier launched an aerial attack against the forces of Fascist Italy. At the Italian port of Taranto, 21 Fairey Swordfish biplanes wreaked havoc on Mussolini’s fleet. These planes were “torpedo bombers,” meaning that they were designed to drop torpedoes at a point in the water near to an enemy ship. The torpedoes were then supposed to plunge towards their targets, and hit it beneath the waves. By inflicting a hole on the submerged part of the enemy ship, they would allow water to pour in, and (if all went well) send the target sinking to the bottom of the ocean. People were understandably skeptical about whether these torpedoes would work in the shallow waters of Taranto harbor. They were worried that the torpedoes would instead plunge into the muddy bottom of the harbor itself. But, at the cost of two British aircraft, the British had damaged one heavy cruiser, two destroyers, and two enemy fighters. Most importantly, they had actually disabled three Italian battleships, which were then supposed to be the most formidable ships afloat. At Taranto, Mussolini’s Italians had lost 59 killed and 600 wounded, while the British had lost only 2 killed and 2 captured. The Battle of Taranto was powerful evidence about the effectiveness of the latest aircraft carriers, and their ability to sink these supposedly “invincible” battleships.

Aftermath of the Battle of Taranto, showing a beached Italian battleship – Italy, 1940

Air power in the World Wars: From “expensive toy” to a serious weapon

“There are a lot of people who say that bombing can never win a war. Well, my answer to that is that it has never been tried yet, and we shall see.”

– Royal Air Force general Sir Arthur Harris (a.k.a. “Bomber” Harris), in a speech given in 1942 (during World War Two)

In 1903, the Wright brothers showed the world that “man really can fly” (to paraphrase Dieter F. Uchtdorf). As Wikipedia puts it, Orville and Wilbur Wright made “the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft with the Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903, four miles (6 km) south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, at what is now known as Kill Devil Hills.” (see source) Planes have since been used for scientific and commercial reasons, but they have also been an important part of warfare for more than a century now. They have altered the way that warfare has been fought, on both the land and the sea. The history of military aviation is one of conflict between carrier and battleship theories, between heavy bombing and close air support theories, and other changes in military strategy and tactics. I freely confess that I’m no expert on any kind of aviation, but my paternal grandfather was well-versed in the subject, and taught me some of what he knew about it. This post will thus focus on aviation in the two massive World Wars, particularly as used by the United States. This was my grandfather’s biggest area of historical expertise.

German biplane shot down by the Americans in the Argonne, 1918 (during World War One)

A review of the “BBC History of World War II”

Note: This is a collection of several BBC documentaries about World War II. That is to say, it is not a unified history like “The World at War” is. Nonetheless, many of its documentaries are quite good, so I thought that I would review some of them here. I have reviewed the others elsewhere, in posts more focused on their respective topics.

I’ve actually reviewed five of the BBC’s installments elsewhere …

The “BBC History of World War II” contains ten different documentaries about various aspects of this conflict. I have reviewed a number of these documentaries in other blog posts. For example, I have reviewed “The Nazis: A Warning from History” here, “The Road to War” here, “War of the Century: When Hitler Fought Stalin” here, “Horror in the East: Japan and the Atrocities of World War II” here, and “Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution’” here. To review these again in this post would risk being redundant. Thus, I will not attempt to duplicate much of that coverage in this blog post.

British Lancaster bomber over Hamburg, 1943

… so I will instead focus this post on reviewing the other five BBC installments of this series

But there are five other installments that I’ve waited until now to comment on. I will thus try to cover these five documentaries in this post. To me, these five films would seem to have a common theme – namely, that they’re all focused on the combat part of the war against Nazi Germany, as engaged in by the Western Allies – and, particularly, the British. These installments are as follows: “Dunkirk,” “Battle of the Atlantic,” “Battlefields,” “D-Day 6.6.1944” (also marketed as “D-Day: Reflections of Courage”), and “D-Day to Berlin.” As you might imagine, there’s plenty of material to talk about with these subjects, and with the way that the BBC covers them.

A review of “Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution’” (BBC)

Warning: This blog post contains some disturbing pictures, which I simply cannot omit.

By far the most infamous episode of the twentieth century …

The Holocaust is, by far, the most infamous episode of the twentieth century. It was a crucible for Jewish history, claiming the lives of six million Jews in all. But when you add in the other victims of the Holocaust, the death toll goes up even further to ten million. The other victims include Poles, homosexuals, the Romani people, and anyone else that the Nazis disliked. Both numbers are so large as to seem incomprehensible, but they come from the figures of the Nazis themselves. Indeed, the Nazis seemed almost to be proud of the enormity of these numbers. Anti-Semitism, of course, has roots going back far before the twentieth century, and so do pogroms and other violence against Jews. But the Nazi manifestation of it is the most infamous example of this phenomenon, and it is the most widely-known (and widely-condemned) genocide in history. Sadly, there have been other genocides as well, but it would be beyond the scope of this blog post to attempt to list them here. Suffice it to say that the Holocaust is still an important topic, and that the BBC was right to cover it in this series.

An aerial reconnaissance photograph of the Auschwitz concentration camp, 1944

There were several Nazi concentration camps, of which Auschwitz was the biggest

The series is usually called “Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution.’” This is because the Nazis chillingly referred to this genocide as the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question.” But this documentary has also been titled “Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State.” It is six episodes long, and may be the most in-depth documentary on this tragic episode. You might already know that there were many Nazi concentration camps, of which Auschwitz was the biggest. This series is focused specifically on Auschwitz, mentioning other camps (such as Treblinka) only as context for what happened at Auschwitz. Nonetheless, one could see Auschwitz as the Holocaust in microcosm, even though it was a disproportionately large number of the deaths. In the Nuremberg trials, the longest-reigning commandant of Auschwitz (Rudolf Höss) was accused of murdering three and a half million people. He replied: “No. Only two and one half million—the rest died from disease and starvation.” This confession, along with the callous (and flippant) way in which it was delivered, led to his later execution in 1947 – one of the healing positives of the Nuremberg verdicts. But that’s a subject for another post. Here, let me dive into the story of the Holocaust itself, and how this disturbing episode began.

A review of “Horror in the East: Japan and the Atrocities of World War II” (BBC)

Warning: This blog post contains several disturbing pictures. One of them shows the body of a child.

The Japanese were racist against other Asians and Pacific Islanders, not just Whites …

Apologists for the Imperial Japanese seem to have multiplied in recent years, even in the West. They do have some valid points, including that there was some real racism against the Japanese in the West – including in my home country of the United States. But there was also racism in Japan as well, and not just against the “White Westerners.” They were racist against anyone who was not Japanese – including the Chinese and other fellow Asians and Pacific Islanders, whose countries the Japanese would soon be invading. Some of the Japanese officers interviewed on camera here admit to such racism, as do some of the Western officers fighting against them. Japanese propagandists used the slogans of “Asia for the Asians,” and a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” But the truth was far different from these grossly misleading slogans, because they wanted an Asia exclusively for the Japanese. No other Asian groups benefited from Japanese imperialism, as the record shows.

A review of “The Road to War” (BBC)

Why did World War II happen? It’s a complicated (and interesting) topic, involving causes in many different nations. Some of these involve Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, while others involve Imperial Japan – which is quite distant from these European nations. This topic has enormous power to explain the events of the twentieth century. Most importantly, it explains World War II itself, the largest war in history. Thus, the BBC undertook to explore the causes of the war. In four episodes, they cover the events that shattered the peace, in a documentary aptly titled “The Road to War.” Incidentally, this documentary is written (and narrated) by the British journalist Charles Wheeler.

Neville Chamberlain

A review of “War of the Century: When Hitler Fought Stalin” (BBC)

Note: The Russians usually refer to their own part of World War II as the “Great Patriotic War.” Some Eastern European countries use this same term. But in Germany (and in most other Western countries), it is known as the “Eastern front” – or, more informally, the “Russian front.”

They call it the “War of the Century” here – the massive conflict between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. To me, World War II as a whole is better-deserving of this title than any one of its parts, even this part. Nonetheless, I should acknowledge that the Russian front really was quite massive, and was cataclysmic for both sides. It is a war between two of the cruelest superpowers of the twentieth century. There were innocent victims on both sides, and there were cold-blooded murderers on both sides – with both sides having plenty of each. To me, this documentary seems to cover them in the right proportions, by painting both sides in a negative light. The war was a vicious and brutal conflict which lasted for nearly four years. Thus, it seems to make for great television, particularly with the moving way that the BBC covers it here. They show the human drama of the story, and tell it with a flourish.

A review of “ANZAC: Australians at War in World War Two”

“Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially, that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement.”

– Australian prime minister Robert Gordon Menzies, in a speech given on 3 September 1939 (the day of the British and French declarations of war)

Where does the name of this documentary come from?

Australians and New Zealanders have long celebrated a public holiday known as “Anzac Day.” Held on the 25th of April (an anniversary associated with their Gallipoli landings), it honors the contributions of their armed forces. “ANZAC” is an acronym standing for the “Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.” This corps was only active from 1914-1916 (an early portion of World War One), and then again in 1941 (a single year in World War Two). Nonetheless, the term “ANZAC” is now used to refer to virtually anyone who has served in the armed forces of either country, regardless of the literal meaning of what the acronym actually stands for. This may explain why the title of this documentary does not literally fit the acronym’s meaning. There are a number of ways in which this documentary departs from the literal meaning of “ANZAC,” since this covers Australian involvement in the entirety of World War II. That is to say, it goes from 1939 to 1945. There is brief mention of the contributions of New Zealanders (the other “ANZAC” nationality), but this documentary definitely focuses on Australia. It also covers their Navy and Air Force, and not just the “Army Corps” to which this acronym refers.

Australian light machine gun team in action during Aitape–Wewak campaign, 1945

A review of “The Nazis: A Warning from History” (BBC)

It seems incredible that the Nazis ever came to power. Today, they are among the most unpopular of all movements, portrayed as bad guys in movie after movie (and rightfully so). You would think that they were as unpopular then as they are now, but this was obviously not the case. Most of the people who supported them at that time have since tried to conceal their Nazi pasts. But a small number of them are more open about their involvement in these things, and are willing to praise Nazism even in the climate of today. This series interviews a few of these people on camera, and shows why they were willing to follow Adolf Hitler to the extent that they did (or at all, for that matter). It is a revealing look into the psychology of the Nazis.

Adolf Hitler

A review of “Canada at War” (World War Two series)

“We do hereby Declare and Proclaim that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939. Of all which Our Loving Subjects and all others whom these Presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and govern themselves accordingly.”

– Canada’s Declaration of War against Nazi Germany (10 September 1939)

More than one in 300 Canadians died in World War II. This is more than the percentage of the United States population that died therein. Yet most Americans don’t really know much about the Canadian contributions during World War II. I am an American myself, and so I didn’t really learn much about this subject in school. As a kid, I had heard that they were involved in the D-Day invasion of Normandy in 1944, because the 1962 movie “The Longest Day” (which I had seen) mentions their role at Juno Beach. But the Canadian military did much more in this war than just storming Juno Beach at Normandy. Their involvement in the European theater of the war began in September 1939, within a couple of weeks of the Nazi invasion of Poland. By contrast, the United States did not enter the war until December 1941, at the time that Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. Luckily for the British and Canadians, Nazi Germany would also declare war on the United States within a few days of Pearl Harbor, thus involving the United States in the European theater of World War II (and not just the Pacific theater, as it otherwise might have been).

Canadian troops at Juno Beach on D-Day, 1944

A review of “Tora! Tora! Tora!” (1970 movie)

“Thus, the earnest hope of the Japanese Government to adjust Japanese-American relations and to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American Government has finally been lost. The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations.”

– Closing lines of the “Japanese Note to the United States,” on 7 December 1941 (which was delivered an hour after the Pearl Harbor attack, and did not contain an actual declaration of war anyway)

Pearl Harbor was part of a series of attacks throughout the Pacific …

On a warm Sunday morning in Hawaii, Japanese carrier planes attacked the United States fleet in Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. But contrary to popular perception, this was not the only place that they attacked that day. The attack was actually simultaneous with moves elsewhere in the Pacific on places like British Malaya, British Singapore, and British Hong Kong. Prior to these attacks, neither the United States nor Britain had been at war with Japan; so these two countries were thus drawn into the Pacific theater of World War II at almost the same time. Other American possessions that were attacked at around this time were Guam, Wake Island, Midway Island, and the Philippines.

"Battleship Row" at Pearl Harbor (photograph taken from a Japanese torpedo plane, 1941)

Why dropping the bombs on Japan was the RIGHT thing to do

“We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and simultaneously to the Supreme High Command of the Red Army all forces on land, at sea, and in the air who are at this date under German control.”

– “Act of Military Surrender Signed at Berlin,” on 8 May 1945

Nazi Germany had just surrendered, but the war in the Pacific continued in full force …

In May 1945, Nazi Germany finally surrendered to the Allies. It was a day of great rejoicing, and the Allies had cause to rejoice at that time. But the Second World War was not yet over, because there was another conflict going on in the Pacific. That conflict was with Japan; and it continued to produce American casualties as a great battle raged at Okinawa. My grandfather was fighting there at Okinawa, and he was among a number who were psychologically scarred by the experience. Others were physically scarred, and others were sent home in coffins, never to be heard from again (or seen alive again). Okinawan civilians jumped off cliffs at this time, in the “certain” knowledge that they would be mistreated by the Americans. The few survivors were glad to find out that the Americans were much nicer than the Japanese propaganda films had portrayed them to be; but many a Japanese soldier preferred suicide to surrender, and actually committed suicide at this time. If we had been forced to invade the Japanese home islands, it seems that this scenario would have been repeated time and time again, with the same grim costs in human life. Such was the wisdom of instead bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

US Marines pass a dead Japanese soldier in a destroyed village - Okinawa, April 1945

Japanese American soldiers in World War II

"Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion."

- "Executive Order No. 9066," issued by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on 19 February 1942

Japanese American children pledging allegiance to the United States in 1942, shortly before the internment started

Japanese American soldiers served with great distinction in World War II

Most Americans today have heard the story of Japanese American internment in World War II (at least in outline form), which was unquestionably one of the sadder episodes in this country's history (at least in the last century). But most Americans have not heard of the story of the Japanese American soldiers in World War II, who served with great distinction in the war. This is a part of the story that our schools have not told as well, and so I thought I'd venture to offer some coverage of it on my blog here. (This necessarily involves some background about the story of Japanese internment, I should note here; but I intend to focus this post on the military contributions of the Japanese American soldiers.)

"Instructions to all persons of Japanese ancestry," under Executive Order 9066

A review of PBS's “FDR” movie

"This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself ... "

- President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his First Inaugural Address (4 March 1933)

How does this compare to other films about the Roosevelts, and other films by this filmmaker?

I should give a disclaimer up front that I have not seen Ken Burns' series "The Roosevelts: An Intimate History," which includes considerable material on both Franklin Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor. Although I've heard that it's weaved together fairly well (and tells their lives in parallel), I am somewhat put off by the length of the series, and feel no particular need to watch it anyway - at this time, at least - when I have this fine film about FDR (and another about his famous cousin Theodore Roosevelt). Perhaps I will get around to watching it someday - I've heard that it's sometimes available on Netflix - but for now, at least, I'll confine my made-for-television biographies of FDR to this classic one by David Grubin. He is also the maker of PBS's films on Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Truman, and LBJ. (I might also note one other thing about this filmmaker, which is that he made some films about a few notable Europeans as well, such as Napoleon and Marie Antoinette, which are also quite good.)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Some of the positive features of this documentary

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, this television biography of FDR is quite good. With plenty of real photographs and footage of him, it manages to tell the story with considerable interest and visual detail. It has interviews with his descendants (along with some former members of his administration and a number of scholarly talking heads); and there's also a notable interview with one of Churchill's daughters, where she comments on this famous relationship between the two men. This was, of course, one of the great and important relationships of World War II. FDR actually got us involved in the war long before Pearl Harbor, with the Lend-Lease aid to Britain, and the Navy's involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic. Although not many would appreciate it today, FDR was pushing the envelope on what Americans would tolerate in this area; and he may have helped to save Britain by his successful advocacy of (at least some) early American involvement in the war.

Atlantic Charter, 1941 - a meeting between FDR and Churchill aboard the HMS Prince of Wales

Winston Churchill: A comparison of two movies

On both sides of the Atlantic (particularly in the English-speaking world), there is still a great deal of interest in Winston Churchill. He is considered an inspirational figure by many (including myself), who is often compared to Lincoln in both his wartime leadership and - to a large degree - his extraordinary way with words. Both had the ability to win public support for their war with powerful rhetorical language and persuasive speaking, and Winston Churchill won the Nobel Prize in Literature for his memoirs.

His gift with words is undoubtedly a big part of his memoirs' popularity, but there is also the fact that his life story itself is unusually interesting; especially the most visible accomplishment of his being the British prime minister during World War II. But there's more to his story than the high-profile portion of his life. If you're interested in hearing some other important parts, there are some movies available from which to get some info. I should give a disclaimer that I'm only aware of two movies - I have not read Mr. Churchill's memoirs, and I do not claim to be anything approaching an expert about his life. But I have some important information to offer about these two movies, and hope that this will help anyone interested in Mr. Churchill.

Eisenhower movies: A comparison of some films

There's something about war heroes and statesmen that holds the fascination of many; and so there have been a number of movies about the life of Dwight Eisenhower. He fits both categories, of course; being both a victorious Allied general in World War II; and a President of the United States during the 1950's. Thus, there have been a number of films about him since his time.

A review of Ken Burns’ “The War” (World War Two series)

"The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America."

- German Declaration of War with the United States (11 December 1941), four days after Pearl Harbor

With a great subject and the superb direction of Ken Burns, you'd think PBS's "The War" would be one of my favorite documentaries. I'm a big fan of several Ken Burns films (especially "The Civil War"), and I have loved many documentaries about World War II (especially "The World at War"). And it is true that I like this documentary; but it isn't one of my favorites. The focus that it chooses is both a strength and a weakness; and for someone like me, it's mainly a weakness.

Limiting the story to Americans has its weaknesses at times ...

What is the focus that I talk about? Mainly, it's the fact that World War II is told through the eyes of four American towns. It's a brilliant depiction of life in these four places; and in a broader sense, life in wartime America generally. Yet it is also the weakness of this documentary - limited in its geographic area, they have fewer interviewees to choose from; and not all of them are equally interesting. More importantly, the documentary focuses entirely on America; and shies away from depicting anything outside of it - whether that be from our allies (mainly the British Commonwealth and the Soviet Union), or from our enemies (mainly Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan). It would be as if he did "The Civil War" from only the point of view of the North. Yes, that point of view is important (and ultimately the right one); but the war is not understood from an exclusive focus on either side. You have to depict both sides to get a true understanding of the war.

Japanese army enters Nanking, 1937

A review of “The World at War” (World War Two series)

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin Nevile Henderson handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock, that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, that a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country [Great Britain] is at war with Germany."

- British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, in a speech given from the Cabinet room at 10, Downing Street on 3 September 1939

World War II is a subject that continues to fascinate millions throughout the world. From people in the losing countries to people in the winning ones, everyone seems to be fascinated by World War II. Because of this, there continue to be media of all kinds about the subject, and a viewer interested in it has many options to choose from. Indeed, there almost seems to be a choice overload (a nice problem to have), and it's hard to know which ones are the best.

D-Day invasion at Omaha Beach - Normandy, 1944

This documentary depicts stories from all over the world, on both sides of the conflict

"Best" is a subjective term, and what is best in the eyes of one may not be best for another. But if asked my opinion on which documentary is the best, my vote would go to "The World at War," the classic British documentary from the 1970s. From the British and Americans to their reluctant Soviet allies, to the Axis powers of Germany and Japan, stories from all over the world are told, and woven together into a fascinating narrative about the events of World War II.

A review of PBS's “Truman” movie

"The Buck Stops Here."

- A sign on Truman's desk in the Oval Office

It might seem strange to hear a Republican like me say it, but I am actually a big fan of Harry Truman. He was undoubtedly a Democrat, but the Democratic Party of that time was very different from the Democratic Party of today. I have a lot of admiration and respect for him personally, as well as a lot of respect for his presidency. I once watched PBS's documentary about him, which is four hours long. Thus, I thought I'd like to offer my review of it here.