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.

What fascism is (and why it stinks)

Warning: This blog post contains a disturbing picture, related to the Holocaust.

It seems that people in most political movements will eventually denounce their political opponents as “Fascists” or “Nazis” (as I will describe later on in this post). At the very least, they sometimes compare their opponents to Nazis – sometimes accurately, sometimes inaccurately. Either way, though, they are right to denounce the Fascists and the Nazis, even if they do not always correctly identify who they are. (More on that later on.)

Hitler addressing the Reichstag, 1933

But what is fascism, and why exactly does it stink (and it definitely does)? What are the biggest problems with this system of government, and why should it be left on the “ash-heap of history” (to paraphrase a characterization of communism by someone else)?. That is what I will be discussing in this particular post. I will here give a brief overview of both the history and philosophy of fascism. In so doing, I will show why it cannot possibly bear the honest scrutiny of history. This will only be an introduction to this complex topic, which will touch on some of its major themes. Indeed, I have covered other aspects of this topic in some other blog posts (which I link to here). But I may nonetheless succeed in showing why fascism is an utter travesty, and why it should be discarded. I will also give my own take on it, with my own unique perspective.

Nazi book-burning in Berlin, May 1933 (which included some Jewish authors)

Forgotten battlegrounds of the World Wars: Africa, the Middle East, and Italy

“♪ We’re the D-Day Dodgers, out in Italy,

Always on the vino, always on the spree.

Eighth Army skivers and their tanks,

We go to war in ties like swanks.

For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,

In sunny Italy. ♪

♪ We landed at Salerno, a holiday with pay.

Jerry brought his bands out to cheer us on the way,

Showed us the sights and gave us tea,

We all sang songs, the beer was free.

For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,

The lads that D-Day dodged. ♪

♪ Palermo and Cassino were taken in our stride,

We didn’t go to fight there, we just went for the ride.

Anzio and Sangro are just names,

We only went to look for dames,

For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,

In sunny Italy. ♪”

– “D-Day Dodgers” (1944), to the tune of “Lili Marleen” (written in 1915, but not published until 1937) – a tongue-in-cheek Canadian song about the forgotten (and then-ongoing) campaigns in Italy

How the war against Nazi Germany began long before the 1944 invasion of France …

The war against Nazi Germany began long before the 1944 invasion of France. Listening to some popular histories of World War II, you might be tempted to suppose that the war began when the Allies launched their invasion of Normandy on June 6th, 1944. But, in fact, the war began long before the famous battles fought on this great “D-Day.” This post will focus on some of the other aspects of the war against Nazi Germany, giving details on times and places that are often ignored elsewhere. To some degree, I myself have ignored them elsewhere on this blog, because I review various documentaries with more traditional focuses. Thus, I will try to address these deficiencies in this blog post, and tell a story that has sometimes been neglected – including, to some degree, by myself.

British artillery in Kamerun, Africa, 1915 (during the First World War)

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 “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 “Mussolini: The History of Italian Fascism”

“I have never wished anyone dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”

– Paraphrase of defense lawyer Clarence Darrow, in a quote often misattributed to Mark Twain

Mussolini’s fascism arose in Italy in 1922, whereas Nazism did not arise in Germany until 1933 …

People today are fascinated by both sides of World War II, and this is as it should be. To a large extent, this includes an interest in what happened on the Axis side. In particular, history buffs tend to talk about Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the major players on that side of the war. By contrast, the history of Fascist Italy tends to get relegated to a series of brief historical footnotes. This is understandable, given that Fascist Italy was much smaller than either of these other two nations. Thus, it seems inevitable that its story would become far more obscure outside of the Italian Peninsula. But if history is about learning from the mistakes of others, then we can learn much from the mistakes of Fascist Italy. That is to say, we can learn what went so horribly wrong there, and why Italy went down this terrible road. Most importantly, we can protect ourselves from a similar fate, by learning about this kind of tyranny.

Benito Mussolini, circa 1930’s

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 Machiavelli’s “The Prince” (audiobook)

I had read “The Prince” itself before listening to this audiobook, sometime during the winter of 2006-2007. It was in English translation, since I don’t speak Italian, but it would still seem to have counted for something. Thus, you might expect that I didn’t learn anything from this audiobook. But on the contrary, I learned much from this hour-and-a-half audiobook.

Niccolò Machiavelli

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 “Friedrich Nietzsche” (audiobook)

“There are no facts, only interpretations.”

– Friedrich Nietzsche

He was the most controversial thinker in the entire history of philosophy …

I have never been a fan of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, or any part of his philosophy that I have ever heard about. He may be the most controversial person in the entire history of philosophy. He attacked virtually every aspect of the existing culture, and advocated disturbing ideas in their place. But there are still people today who believe in his ideas, so I thought that it would be worthwhile to know something about them. Thus, I listened to this audiobook (narrated by Charlton Heston), to learn about him. I was not disappointed, and learned much about him and his ideas – much of it disturbing, as you will see in this post.

A review of Bettany Hughes’ “The Spartans”

“Athens became the seat of politeness and taste, the country of orators and philosophers. The elegance of its buildings equalled that of its language; on every side might be seen marble and canvas, animated by the hands of the most skilful artists. From Athens we derive those astonishing performances, which will serve as models to every corrupt age. The picture of Lacedæmon [a. k. a. “Sparta”] is not so highly coloured. There, the neighbouring nations used to say, ‘men were born virtuous, their native air seeming to inspire them with virtue.’ But its inhabitants have left us nothing but the memory of their heroic actions: monuments that should not count for less in our eyes than the most curious relics of Athenian marble.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “A Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” (1750), First Part

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an eighteenth-century admirer of the Spartans

A number of people have praised the Spartans – including Rousseau, Machiavelli, and Hitler …

Many centuries after the Spartans, Jean-Jacques Rousseau once praised their culture in his “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.” He said that the memory of Sparta's heroic actions “should not count for less in our eyes than the most curious relics of Athenian marble” (as cited above). Niccolò Machiavelli was another philosopher who praised the Spartans. (See the footnote to this blog post for the details of this.) American colonists and French revolutionaries have sometimes been among those who praised the Spartans. In modern times, some liberals have also praised Sparta for what they perceive as its “greater respect” for women’s rights. And, as the presenter of this documentary notes, Adolf Hitler also praised the Spartans, with Nazi Germany using them as a model of sorts – particularly in their use of eugenics. (See the Wikipedia page on “Laconophilia,” or the “love of Sparta,” for some of the details of this.)

Adolf Hitler, a twentieth-century admirer of the Spartans

… while Alexander Hamilton considered Sparta to be “little better than a wellregulated camp”

Ironically, Sparta was admired even by some from its arch-rival Athens, the other great superpower of Ancient Greece. The Spartans actually believed that they were creating a “utopia.” But if anything, it seems to have been closer to the other end of the spectrum – a dystopia. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that “Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.” (Source: Federalist No. 6) Thus, although he recognized Sparta as a “republic,” Hamilton considered Sparta to be “little better than a wellregulated camp” (an accurate summation). This documentary shows that the truth about Sparta is less romantic, and far less flattering, than the description offered by Rousseau. It acknowledges the rights of women in Sparta, even as it repeats tired old myths about how women actually had more rights in Sparta than they did in Athens (although I should acknowledge that they were still second-class citizens in both). But as this documentary notes, Sparta was “no feminist paradise.” It was a hellish dystopia (as mentioned earlier), with no real concept of human rights. It killed those boys that it deemed “weak,” denying them any future chance to redeem themselves for the unforgivable “crime” of weakness.

Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours’s “The Selection of Children in Sparta,” painted 1785

Actually, Machiavelli WAS pro-dictatorship (and Rousseau was wrong about him)

“I admit that, provided the subjects remained always in submission, the prince's interest would indeed be that it should be powerful, in order that its power, being his own, might make him formidable to his neighbours; but, this interest being merely secondary and subordinate, and strength being incompatible with submission, princes naturally give the preference always to the principle that is more to their immediate advantage. This is what Samuel put strongly before the Hebrews, and what Macchiavelli has clearly shown. He professed to teach kings; but it was the people he really taught. His Prince is the book of Republicans.[footnote]”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (1762), Book III, Chapter VI

Rousseau said that Machiavelli's “The Prince” is “the book of Republicans” …

More than 200 years after Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532, Jean-Jacques Rousseau commented on this work in 1762. Rousseau argued that it was “the book of Republicans.[footnote]” (Source: “The Social Contract,” Book III, Chapter VI). In this context, “Republicans” seems to mean “those who support a republic.” Was this meant as positive praise or negative criticism? It appears that this was indeed meant as praise, as we can see by examining Rousseau's definition of a “republic” (as I shall do below).

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… and said that “every legitimate government is republican”

Elsewhere in “The Social Contract,” Rousseau had written: “I therefore give the name 'Republic' to every State that is governed by laws, no matter what the form of its administration may be: for only in such a case does the public interest govern, and the res publica rank as a reality. Every legitimate government is republican;[footnote] what government is I will explain later on.” (Source: Book II, Chapter VI) In the footnote to this paragraph, Rousseau actually said that “I understand by this word republic, not merely an aristocracy or a democracy, but generally any government directed by the general will, which is the law. To be legitimate, the government must be, not one with the Sovereign, but its minister. In such a case even a monarchy is a Republic.” (Source: Footnote to Book II, Chapter VI) Thus, for Rousseau, “even a monarchy is a Republic,” and “every legitimate government is republican.” Thus, referring to “The Prince” as “the book of Republicans” seems to be meant as positive praise.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, later in life

Machiavelli argued that Cesare Borgia was a good ruler. (Was he?)

“I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. This duke entered the Romagna with auxiliaries, taking there only French soldiers, and with them he captured Imola and Forli; but afterwards, such forces not appearing to him reliable, he turned to mercenaries, discerning less danger in them, and enlisted the Orsini and Vitelli; whom presently, on handling and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he destroyed and turned to his own men.

And the difference between one and the other of these forces can easily be seen when one considers the difference there was in the reputation of the duke, when he had the French, when he had the Orsini and Vitelli, and when he relied on his own soldiers, on whose fidelity he could always count and found it ever increasing; he was never esteemed more highly than when every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces.”

– Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” (1532), Chapter XIII

Niccolò Machiavelli

Rousseau argued that Machiavelli's choice of Borgia as his hero revealed a “hidden aim” …

More than 200 years after Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532, Jean-Jacques Rousseau would comment on this work in 1762. In his work “The Social Contract,” Rousseau opined that “Macchiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Cæsar Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays.” (Source: Footnote to Book III, Chapter VI) Even Rousseau admitted that Machiavelli's hero “Cæsar Borgia” was “detestable” (calling him his “detestable hero,” after all), but he argued that this strange choice “clearly enough shows [Machiavelli's] hidden aim” right after this. In this passage, a “love of liberty” is thus implied to be a part of this “hidden aim.” Was it really so? I shall examine this question below.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The Nuremberg trials: A comparison of two movies

Warning: This post contains some disturbing pictures related to the Holocaust. One of these, in particular, is very graphic, and may merit special caution.

Why we allied with Soviet Russia during World War II, and then fought against it later on

"The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[,] desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement: Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers."

- Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (also known as the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), 23 August 1939 - a pact which was quickly broken in 1941, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union

It's often cited as one of the great ironies of history - that the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II, and then enemies during the Cold War. Why is this?

We were fighting against a greater enemy during World War II, which was Nazi Germany

The answer is long and a bit complicated, but essentially it boils down to this: We in America allied with Soviet Russia during World War II to fight against a greater enemy (Nazi Germany) that had actually declared war on us, when Soviet Russia had not. Later on, we watched with horror as the poor countries of Eastern Europe were passed from one dictator (Hitler) to another (Joseph Stalin), and reluctantly realized that the Soviet Union could be every bit as threatening as Nazi Germany had been. Thus, we fought hard to prevent its expansion into any further territory.

Adolf Hitler

Joseph Stalin

The common theme in our dealings with the Russians was America's national interest

These ideas might seem incompatible: Allying with the Russians during one five-year period, and being enemies with them for more than forty years after that. Yet the alliance and the later conflict both had a common theme in them, which was America's national interest. It was served by an alliance of necessity during World War II, and an opposition of equal necessity during the Cold War period.

Russian Revolution of 1917

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.