But by stopping in 1941, Baker avoids arguing about what did bring the war to an end. And what would have happened if the war had not been fought at all? Could it have been any worse? Would an even greater holocaust have taken place — albeit at a more leisurely pace? Or would nonviolence, widely and determinedly practised, have prevailed?
Baker does not pretend to know. Nor can we. But his book makes a strong case, and makes it originally and with astonishing attack and verve, that history having given the fight-fire-with-fire mob their chance, we should just for once try fighting fire with water.
‘Our way of passive resistance has never yet been tried out,’ said the Labour MP George Lansbury in 1939, ‘but war has been tried through all the centuries and has absolutely failed.’ Right on.
Comments
Bob Wright
April 25th, 2008 3:40pm"Right on," my ass. The world is a very dangerous place. If all good people disarm and look the other way, or when forced to fight do so with one (or both) hands tied behind their back, then the Nazis/Taliban/Islamofascists (or some other "True Believers") will rule the world. Noone will be safe, anywhere.
Report this comment
Kevin Dunn
April 25th, 2008 2:23pmI have a standing order for "The Spectator" with my newsagent. On the strength of this review I shall be cancelling it on Monday. I do not spend my money to read one moral imbecile reviewing another.
Report this comment
TDK
April 25th, 2008 12:58pmWhen you allowed my second comment but not my first I assumed it was somehow offensive - I therefore rewrote it. I apologise for the duplicate posting and also for my failure to spell check "munitions"!
Report this comment
TDK
April 25th, 2008 12:24pm"Jewish refugees were not welcomed in any great numbers anywhere"
The statistics are as follows (Strauss):
Jewish population of Germany June 1933: 499,800
Jewish population of Germany Sept 1939: 185,100 63% reduction
The same figures for Jews under 40 years old are 261,000 (1933) 48,800 (1939) an 81% reduction.
Maybe they were not welcomed but they were certainly admitted to other countries.
Report this comment
TDK
April 25th, 2008 11:37am"The record of the bombing was similar. In 1941 it was estimated that only one in five British bombers placed its payload ‘within 75 square miles of its assigned target’. ‘Not more than one per cent’ of bombs hit their military targets — so targets were selected in order that the bombs that missed would hit civilians rather than be ‘wasted’. And what were the results? By May 1941, there had been ‘no collapse of civilian morale, no revolutionary unrest, no industrial taproot cut’. What was needed? Why, more and bigger bombs, more dead civilians."
This paragragh gives the false impression that no change in policy occured during 1941.
Prior to the Butt report (Aug 1941), the RAF had attempted to hit precision targets such as municitions factories. Their failure to achieve any significant result caused a rethink. Either Britain should cease the strategic bombing effort and concentrate on tactical support or the methods and objectives be completely revised.
Area bombing was selected because it offered the only way to hit back at Nazi Germany. Britain was hesitant to invade France in 1944 let alone 1941, so to abandon Strategic bombing would effectively mean Britain's resistance to Germany would be limited to the periphery, such as the desert campaign. It's worth pointing out that in May 1941 the Blitz was still in full swing. When the decision to switch to Area bombing was made, Germany had far exceeded the Allies in tonnes of bombs dropped on cities and the destruction there caused.
I'm sympathetic to claims that Area bombing was immoral but judgements made after the event should take into account the limited range of options available at the time.
Report this comment
TDK
April 25th, 2008 11:19am"Jewish refugees were not welcomed in any great numbers anywhere"
Well perhaps they weren't welcomed but according to Strauss, the Jewish population of Germany had gone from 499,800 in June 1933 to 185,100 in September 1939, a reduction of 63%. Ignoring those over 40, the rate increases to 80%.
Jews who escaped to say Poland, Netherlands or France would still have been victims of the Holocaust.
The rest of Europe might be blamed for failing to accept the 37%, assuming every one of those wanted to leave. The rest of Europe might be criticised for treating those refugees with suspicion. However it is a huge calumny to equate the rest of Europe's behaviour to that of Nazi Germany.
Report this comment
Johanna
April 24th, 2008 11:49pmAs somebody of Afrikaans descent I don't have a great deal of time for Churchill, but is Baker seriously suggesting that refusing to fight Hitler would have made things better? Surely if any tyrant in history needed to be stopped then it was this man.
Report this comment
Herbert Thornton
April 24th, 2008 5:54pmIf Britain and France had refrained from war with Germany, what would now be the relationship of Europe with Islam?
Report this comment
eric james
April 24th, 2008 5:18pmAsk the Poles how their passive resistance went. I don't believe the Jews resisted much either.
Report this comment
Chris
April 24th, 2008 4:52pmIs it really a good idea to get an idiot to review a book by another idiot?
Report this comment