Delete comment from: Boston 1775
On the contrary, Kirsch's statement read on its own is precisely what I believe it to be and I would argue that "outright betrayals" are not part of every combat. I don't think he really thought through the implications of that declarative statement.
One must separate the "myth" of WW2 from the history. The US went to war because Japan attacked us; FDR made no request for a declaration of war against Germany because he knew he had no justification for it and the country had no stomach for it. It was only after Hitler declared war on us a few days later that FDR could go to war with Germany. It's often forgotten that FDR spent sometime in Germany as a teenager and brought into office a profound distaste for the Germans and had his own personal feelings about them.
Add to that the fact that WW2 was unique in that it had all of Hollywood putting out propaganda film after propaganda film so that the myth of what Hollywood indicated what we are fighting for overshadowed just how the country felt.
There was a distinct difference in the sentiments of the Americans fighting in the Pacific and in the European theater. Any readings in depth about the troops in the European theater brings out the fact that, whereas there was a profound passion about fighting the Japanese, partly because of Pearl Harbor and frankly racism, there was no such passion among the troops fighting in the European theater. Their primary attitude was to get the war over so that they could go home.
But, historians have characterized it as a "good war", the discovery of the barbarism and horror of the concentration camps helped to propel it into a moral crusade.
Historians only know are starting to come to grips with the Vietnam War and only now are starting to reevaluate WW2. But that's what historians do.
I would conclude by saying that, of course, historians should be aware of and examine the moral paradoxes of war and betrayals, but that's a far cry from Kirsch's statement.
Jun 10, 2011, 8:21:21 AM