"...Yes, despite the great horrors of the world wars, they served a purpose. In the end, the United States, the USSR and the British Empire mobilized resources sufficient to completely defeat their enemies--the goal laid down by Franklin Roosevelt, as I showed inNo End Save Victory, in the first week of July 1941. That enabled them to establish peace in Europe...." DK
Unfortunately, a gross misinterpretation of the history and the outcomes of both wars here.
RE complete defeat, unconditional surrender itself was part of the problem, after all, as Kennan observed.
RE complete defeat, unconditional surrender itself was part of the problem, after all, as Kennan observed.
The end of WWII was neither a victory, nor a peace, worth having for the West.
Russia was a so called ally in Europe, and an enemy in Asia.
Field Marshall Montgomery said we won the war but lost the peace.
We did not even win the war, leaving Russia in absolute control of Eastern Europe. That was a military defeat, turn it any way you want.
WWII was a final defeat for the British Empire itself, for a variety of reasons, one big one of which was that the US insisted on dismantling it, a truly sad commentary for a so called ally, as Michael Howard pointed out.
Why candy coat it?
Russia was a so called ally in Europe, and an enemy in Asia.
Field Marshall Montgomery said we won the war but lost the peace.
We did not even win the war, leaving Russia in absolute control of Eastern Europe. That was a military defeat, turn it any way you want.
WWII was a final defeat for the British Empire itself, for a variety of reasons, one big one of which was that the US insisted on dismantling it, a truly sad commentary for a so called ally, as Michael Howard pointed out.
Why candy coat it?
No comments:
Post a Comment