Philip Whitehouse

Interesting. Do you really believe that the Nazis could possibly have won against such a combination of powers ? T

I did say "önly in certain circles". True, those circles included many of those who were "Movers- and- Shakers"in the society (please forgive the blatent inacronism) i.e. those who thought they had the most to gain from a patriotic insurrection. The average peasant just wanted a quiet life and had little incentive to take up arms

No it wasn't. Germany lost the war because she had got herself in the hopeless situation of having to fight the USSR, the USA, and the British Commonwealth simultaneously. There was certainly a military nexus between the first and second world wars as far as the spirit of German militarism was concerned,.

THat's not entirely correct. It was Ludendorff ,his belief in victory was shattered by the reverses suffered by the German Army, who informed Hindenberg that Germany must ask for an armistice. Thus, German collapse was not triggered by what was happening on the home front but,nevetheless the blame was carefully transfered to the so-called "November Criminals". The prestige of the German Army had to remain inviolate.

And you, it can be assumed ,are totally immune from such "brainwashing" ? No matter how hard we try to be totally objective, we are always influenced to some extent, by extraneous factors.

Indeed. Nationalism ,as we know it, really only became an issue in the nineteenth century, and then only in certain circles. In her book.The Peacemakers, Margaret MacMillan cites an example of the problems faced by the delegates at Versailles in trying to determine "self-determination". "And what if the locals did not know which nation they belonged to ? In 1920,when an outside investigator asked a peasant in Belarus, on the frontiers where Russians,Poles,Lithuanians, Byelorussians and Ukrainians all mingled, who he was the only answer came back was 'I am a Catholic of these parts'. What do you do ,asked the American experts in Carinthia in the Austrian Alps, when you have people 'who do not want to join the nation of their blood-brothers,or else are absolutely indifferent to all national questions'".

I know it was a "tourist City " prior to WW1. My father was born near there (unless ,of course, you believe my family "brainwashed" me, personal abuse doesn't cut it , I'm afraid) so I didn't read about it. There was the glorious gothic Cathedral of St Michael and the central area was a maze of medieval streets which were originally based upon the ancient Benedictine monastery founded in 1043. The destruction of the city centre has been compared with the burning of Louvain in WW1; maybe you've heard of that. But enough: It's perfectly true that Coventry was, and still is, a centre of the motor industry:- but not in the city centre. What are "legitimate " targets in wartime ?

I got that the wrong way around, it should read; "" But the charge that the Poles slaughtered 5,000 Germans....." Sorry about that.

More "whataboutism", I'm afraid. In November 1940 the Luftwaffe visited Coventry, destroying the ancient Cathedral and gutting the medievil centre of the city. But figure-pointing gets us nowhere ,"Lord,forgive them for they know not what they do"

Try me. But the charge that the Nazies slaughtered 5,000 Poles,all at once, in 1939 ,without pretext, just because they felt like it, seems very much like propaganda, After all, as I understand it, ethnic Germans and Poles had lived together in that region (East Prussia) more or less amicably for centuries. What stirred up the alleged violence ? Why would the Poles invite Britain and France to attack Germany in 1933 ? What would be in it for Britain and France ?

There were several distinguished US soldiers serving under McArthur and I'm sure their names would be far better known had they served in Europe; but,unfairly, Douglas took all the credit. His dispatches were all about him. General Eichelberger,for example, had he fought in Europe I think his name would be as well regarded as Patton or Bradley.

I know it seems like "Whataboutism",which I for one,despise: but the "Baedeker Blitz"of 1942 created a horrible precedent. In this series of attacks, the targets chosen by Hitler were those appearing in the Baedeker Tourist guide of historic cities in Britain: York, Norwich, Exeter and Canterbury and others, all of little or no war-waging potential.

Of course. But nobody should run away with the idea that the aid was donated out of pure altuisim. It was very much in the interest of the USA that Western Democracy should triumph.

Interesting,indeed. Your references ?

Perhaps the fear was that if Hirohito was removed from the scene there be nobody else with whom to negotiate. As for the dropping of the nuclear weapons, it's difficult to see that Truman had much choice. If there was an opportunity to end the war without horrific alllied casualties then it had to be seized. It was only well after the event, when the horrors of radiation poisoning were properly understood,that moral arguments against the use of the weapons were raised.