Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Truth About the "Good War" Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_truth_about_the_good_war#25873 Post contents: Considering the exhaustion by both sides by 1917, America’s late entrance into WWI, which many historians now concede probably prevented an Allied Powers acquiescence to the reality of the still intact superior Central Powers military capability, created the pre-conditions for WWII. Absent that American decisive intervention, it seems probable that the warring parties would have been forced to arrive at a mutual accommodation. If The Great War had been settled intra-Europe with post war geopolitical conditions more or less resembling the pre-war correlation of forces, we would probably not know today the names of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot. Our entry into WWI at the behest of the British was the spawning Grand Strategic event of the 20th century. And that century later unfolded as the bloodiest experienced by man on this planet. That century also saw America become an Imperial power leaving her republican roots in the sentimental past. Wars have consequences both seen and unforeseen. In World War II, despite the best armies and military leaders, superior war-fighting doctrine, internal lines of communication, efficient logistical management and a natural patriotism which married a sense of moral rightness from being “stabbed in the back” at the post World War I peace treaty at Versailles, Germany lost the war. However, the German war-fighting in World War II and Germany’s ultimate loss becomes explicable when viewed through a prism of three war types, Wars of Dominance, Wars of Displacement and Wars of Destruction. The reason was that when you mix colors you get a mishmash. Germany fought all three types of war near concurrently, and had strategic decisions based on one war type imposed on the others. In the West, Germany fought a War of Dominance over her traditional rivals, the French, British and their lessor allies. In the East, pursuant to the perceived necessity of “lebensraum,” she fought a War of Displacement. At first the Ukrainians, Belorussians and other Slavs welcomed them as liberators and were prepared to willingly subordinate themselves to new German masters in order to remove the hated yoke of Russia and Communism. When they realized that it was a War of Displacement of THEM, they resisted with efforts which slowly bled the German Armies dry, and which were significant contributions to the anti-German war efforts . And always and everywhere, because of an imposed overruling Nazi ideology ,Germany also fought a War of Destruction attempting to primarily exterminate all remnants of Jewry, but also gypsies, some Slavs and other “unter menchen.” Scarce resources and military deployments were constantly diverted in furtherance of that goal despite critical military situations in accordance with the needs of the other war types. The German military had three different war goals imposed by the regime which were frequently at cross purposes with each other. Germany was never therefore able to develop and execute a consistent and coherent Grand Strategy to fight and win the war. If Germany had committed serious resources to the Naval effort and hadn’t lost the Battle of the North Atlantic by 1943, no invasion of France in 1944 and a Western Front against her would have been possible, and logistical support to Russia would have been drastically reduced. That would have probably led to stalemate in the East, and given her a chance of negotiating a peace with considerable eastern assets in tow. However, the cardinal interest was never really about Germany, but always Hitler’s ideological concerns. In a rare exception to historical experience, state interests were trumped by ideology, and whenever ideology prevails, true national interests will suffer. That is why Germany lost World War II. Sent at: 2008 07 06