What They Say is Less Important than What They Don’t Say

Posted on November 6, 2006
Filed Under Error and bias |

Yesterday’s Sunday Times ran a brief article by historian Norman Davies under the title “How We Didn’t Win The War…. But Russia Did”. It might seem like a peculiarly British preoccupation, this second world war stuff, but I think it goes to the heart of why the west now confronts radical Islam.

In short US and British newspapers and TV have habitually allowed politicians to use the legacy of World War II to persuade those around them that they have a God-given right to determine the course of international relations. The Iraq invasion is an example (I don’t argue against the invasion but I do believe that the arrogance of these two countries is what left us with no plan for what was to come next - it’s democracy, innit).

Why the UK and USA act undemocratically in international relations is they, after all, saved the free world. At least that’s the lesson they keep drawing from World War II. I have first hand experience of this habit and I’ll come to that in a second post tomorrow.

Davies’ point is that the more accurate rendition of WWII is that the Soviet Union far and away outstripped western war efforts and in doing less than they could the USA and UK prepared the way for communism.

I think it is interesting that this argument is finally being given press space in a leading UK newspaper. I suspect there are more and more people in London thinking - if we don’t destroy this myth we’re going to get more Iraqs and we’re going to make no progress with Islamic fundamentalism. In short, the editorial view seems to be emerging that Britain needs to reappraise its history because without that it will continue to attract enemies. The USA too. That sadly would continue to be bad for all of us.

It was a brave move by editor John Witherow. I will say more about my own experiences with the BBC tomorrow.

technorati tags:, , ,

Comments

Leave a Reply