34 Historically Speaking • March/April 2008 MORAL DIMENSIONS OF WORLD WAR II: A FORUM THE MORALITY OF WAR IS AN ENDURING QUESTION HIS- of Choices Under Fire: Moral Dimensions of World War II (Knopf, 2006), torians cannot avoid. In recent issues we have run pieces by Niall Ferguson, Sir Max to open our forum with an essay drawn from his book. Sanford Lakoff, Eric Bergerud, Hastings, and Harry Stout that explore some of the moral dimensions of modern Michael Kort, and Harry Stout offer their responses to Choices Under Fire, followed warfare. And in this issue we again take up the topic. We asked Michael Bess, author by Bess’s rejoinder. POPULAR CULTURE VERSUS ACADEMIC CULTURE IN NARRATING WORLD WAR II Michael Bess n 1994, when the Smithsonian ness of “our side.” They are books that Museum attempted to display the make the reader feel straightforwardly IB-29 bomber Enola Gay, one of good about being an American, a feeling the most interesting aspects of the unclouded by any reservations or trou- fierce ensuing controversy lay in the bling afterthoughts regarding the grey fractures it revealed among the stake- areas of the war’s history. holders in the proposed exhibit—a set My book, Choices Under Fire, was of fractures that arguably reflect deep written with the aim of bridging the di- divisions in the broader American soci- vide between these two literatures, or at ety. When it comes to World War II, we least of bringing them closer to a com- find an unusually wide variety of per- mon language of historical analysis. I sons who feel a direct connection to the hope to convince a general readership of events under discussion: war veterans the inherent complexity and ambiguity versus professional historians, politi- of many key moral issues raised by the cians versus academics, journalists ver- war, while staying true to those central sus museum staffers, left-wingers versus threads in the conflict’s story that still right-wingers. One of the most signifi- elicit awe in us today and deserve cele- cant of these fractures is the rift be- bration. Exploring these moral com- tween popular culture and academic plexities does not necessarily mean culture in remembering the war. Indeed, The mushroom cloud from the atomic bomb, Nagasaki, Japan, August 9, 1945. Li- undermining our appreciation for the brary of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [reproduction number, LC- the entire fiasco at the Smithsonian can USZ62-36452]. heroism and self-sacrifice of those who be partly understood as a failure of fought in the war. On the contrary, the these two very different worlds to find a heroic deeds of that era come out even common language through which to frame the by some war veterans or conservative politicians on more vividly when we place them in the full richness events of August 1945. The closing act of World reading Kennedy’s words. Indeed, the journalist of their actual historical context. World War II was War II became a highly charged symbolic vector for George F. Will promptly described the book as “a really two kinds of conflict at the same time: a deeper moral and political questions about the stinker of a Pulitzer,” dismissing its severe conclud- morally straightforward war of defense against un- meanings of national honor, about America’s role in ing judgments as a typical “coagulation of late-20th- provoked aggression, and a morally complex con- world politics, and about America’s very self-image century academic conventional wisdom.” flict pervaded by painful dilemmas, uneasy as a nation. On the other side of the great divide lies the vast trade-offs, awful but unavoidable compromises. This Most academic writers on World War II, while popular literature about the war—the books one dual nature of the war, I argue, requires a delicate highly diverse in their approaches and interpreta- finds selling like hotcakes at Borders or Amazon or balance between what I call the “stance of celebra- tions, do not hesitate to subject wartime deeds to Barnes & Noble. Though some of these books do tion” and the “stance of critical scrutiny.” harsh critical scrutiny. A good example is the delve quite seriously into the more controversial or At a broader level, my goal in this book is to per- Pulitzer-prizewinning study by David Kennedy, The ambiguous aspects of World War II, many tend to suade a general readership that ambiguity and messy American People in World War II, which concludes its fall into a different category. They are books that complexity are important for understanding his- wide-ranging and eloquent overview of the war narrate wartime events from a perspective that never tory—not just other nations’ histories, but our own years with a moral balance sheet that can only be de- questions—and more importantly, never challenges as well. Unfortunately, there is a growing tendency in scribed as trenchantly critical in nature. Kennedy the reader to question—the overall righteousness of contemporary public discourse to force simplicity somberly lays before the reader many of the morally Allied conduct and policy. Some of these books are and clarity on issues that are actually extremely com- questionable acts (or sins of omission) committed fairly measured and judicious in their analysis, others plicated. In an age of sound bites and dueling pun- by the United States between 1939 and 1945. One border on cheerleading. But what they have in com- dits on TV, many of us have become accustomed to cannot help but imagine the mounting outrage felt mon is that they reinforce the underlying virtuous- having the key questions of public policy boiled March/April 2008 • Historically Speaking 35 down into comfortable little packages of straight- on the Allied side led to a gross underestimation of of world governance to structure the postwar peace. forward either-or choices. But this is dangerous, be- Japanese capabilities in 1941—a misperception for Some of the innovative institutions they built were cause the real world does not work this way. More which Britain and the United States paid dearly in primarily political in nature (United Nations, Coun- often than not, the real world is baffling, fragmen- December 1941 and the early months of 1942. cil of Europe); some were economic (International tary, intricate, and riddled with paradoxes: it presents Racial distinctions permeated the American war Monetary Fund, World Bank, Marshall Plan, Euro- us with alternatives that entail difficult compromises economy and the American military. They also led pean Economic Community); some were military or trade-offs. Choices Under Fire seeks to flesh out this to one of the greatest breaches of constitutional (Western European Union, NATO, Warsaw Pact, kind of complexity in the context of a war that is governance in the nation’s history, the forced intern- SEATO); some were juridical (Nuremberg and too often considered morally cut-and-dried. My ment of a racially demarcated subset of American Tokyo Trials, International Court of Justice, Fourth hope is that, by doing this, it will also make a contri- citizens. Racial hatreds animated soldiers on both Geneva Convention, Universal Declaration of bution toward greater acceptance of ambiguity and sides in the Pacific War, leading to unprecedented Human Rights). What is undeniable is that the late nuance in discussing the important issues of today. levels of brutality in the conduct of combat and the 1940s constituted one of the all-time high points of Choices Under Fire offers a tour d’horizon of the treatment of prisoners. And racism, of course, lay global internationalism under vigorous and deter- war’s moral “hot spots”—those areas around which at the heart of the Nazi genocide that has marked mined American leadership. the most intractable (and often acrimonious) debate this war as a chapter of unique horror in human his- This aspect of the “Greatest Generation’s” has tended to emerge. A good example of the ap- tory. Race, in short, is arguably one of the central achievement tends to get elided in many recent ac- proach I take is my treatment of strategic bombing. concepts of the entire conflagration that we call counts, mainly because the United Nations and the I seek to lay out as persuasively as possible the best World War II, both in causing the conflict and in de- other institutions built by the victors of World War arguments of all sides in the debates over II have fallen into disrepute in some cir- this issue, from those who defend cles. Yet such an elision amounts to an un- wartime bombing practices to those who Another moral theme that I single out for warranted erasure of the peace-oriented consider them war crimes. I thread my elements that played an equally fundamen- way between the philosophical questions particular emphasis in the book—precisely tal role in defining that generation’s world- that cannot be avoided in this subject because it is commonly forgotten today— view. Here, too, moreover, it is important matter and a close analysis of the evolv- to underscore the profound ambiguity of ing historical circumstances through is the wave of fervent internationalism that humankind’s post-Hiroshima predicament which the bombing campaign developed. as it presented itself to the leaders of At the same time, I do not hold back emerged in the war’s immediate aftermath. 1945. from offering judgments of my own, and One such figure, for example, was what gradually emerges is a picture in General George C. Marshall, the U.S. which trenchant a priori moral distinctions unavoid- termining its course and outcome. Army Chief of Staff. On October 29, 1945, Mar- ably give way to countless nuances, intricacies, and Making distinctions among these far-flung shall was invited to present his ideas on “the future ambiguities.