[lit-ideas] Misplaced Kindness causing World War Two
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:10:44 -0800
Donald Kagan begins his account of the causes of the Second World War, as
any history of that war must, with the conclusion of World War One. On page
282 he writes,
?The Allies checked the German assault and took the offensive themselves.
Before they could break through on the Western front, however, the collapse
of the Central Powers? armies in the Balkans forced the Germans to seek
peace. General Erich von Ludendorff, the effective commander of the German
Army and virtual dictator of Germany, told his government that ?the
conditions of the army demands an immediate armistice in order to avoid a
catastrophe.? He urged that they approach President Woodrow Wilson of the
United States at once to begin peace negotiations on the basis of his
Fourteen Points. He also recommended the establishment of a more
representative and liberal government, in part because he thought only such
a regime could gain an acceptable peace or rally the nation to resist an
unacceptable one, in part, also, to lay the blame for Germany?s defeat not
on the military leadership and their political allies but on the democratic
parties that would form the new government. ?Let them conclude the peace
that now will have to be concluded,? he told the approving Kaiser.
?On October 3-4 the new government asked for an armistice. The Allies took
some time to answer, for they did not all agree on the advisability of a
cease-fire or on its terms if adopted. The day before he called for an
armistice, when asked if he would grant such a request were he commander of
the Allied forces, Ludendorff responded, ?No, certainly not; I would attack
even harder.? The same view was taken by some Americans. The Commander of
the American forces, General John Pershing, wanted to march his troops into
Berlin. He wrote to Foch, ?We should take full advantage of the situation
and continue the offensive until we compel [Germany?s] unconditional
surrender.?
Comment: In retrospect the Wilsonian ?kind? response to Ludendorff was a
colossal blunder. While Ludendorff and Wilhelm II were chuckling to
themselves over getting a naïve German government to negotiate the defeat,
the German rank and file were full of resentment. They weren?t
sophisticated enough to understand that Ludendorff called a halt ?to avoid a
catastrophe.? This was all too complicated for them; so they sought people
and forces to blame and the seeds were sown for World War Two.
Peace would have been assured (at least a longer peace than the one the
world got) if what Ludendorff said was carried out by the Allies, that is,
that Pershing, Folk and Haig be allowed to ?attack even harder,? attack
until Germany surrendered unconditionally. That would have permitted the
soldiers to experience the defeat and understand the need for surrender. It
would have taken Hitler?s argument away from him.
Was Wilson an incipient Gearyite? Did he mentally brush aside questions of
strategy and how best to assure a peaceful future and rush straight ahead
into the embrace of Peace? It would seem so. He did his best, but he just
didn?t have the knowledge or the experience and he wasn?t willing to
delegate matters to people who had them. Wilson was an idealist with little
experience in working out practical political details. I remember reading
Fromkin?s A Peace to End All Peace in which Fromkin describes the clever
Lloyd George manipulating the inexperienced Wilson. Fromkin was concerned
about the ?Creation of the Modern Middle East? and what a mess the Americans
(Wilson), the British (Lloyd George) and the French (Clemenceau), and
Italians (Orlando) made of their imposed peace, but we don?t need to stop
there. Fromkin?s sarcastic title conveys his impression of it and his
sarcasm would fit all of Europe as well as the Middle East. The
opportunity was there for the allies to do something momentous. Instead
they messed up Europe and the Middle East for years to come. Not only did
they contribute mightily to the origins of World War Two, but they mucked up
the Middle east so badly that we are still paying for their bungling ? but
notice: their hearts were in the right place. They embraced peace.
It is plain to us now that one can dispense with a heart for peace if one
has a head for it. None of the allies mentioned in the preceding paragraph
could qualify as brilliant political thinkers. They were all short-sighted
bunglers. Wilson had the greatest heart but a weak head. Lloyd George,
Clemenceau and Orlando were all out for punitive damages ? to make Germany
pay; also, to grab as much territory as possible. In the end they
?imposed a peace? that guaranteed that there would be no peace. Their
?peace? ended the chance of peace.
So what should they have done? Once again, they should have continued
fighting the war until Germany surrendered unconditionally. This will grate
on a Gearyite, but by continuing the war to a palpable conclusion, one every
German would be able to feel and understand, any political firebrand like
Hitler would then have only small audiences if he tried to argue that
Germany surrendered because they were betrayed and that they never really
lost the Great WAr.
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Misplaced Kindness causing World War Two
