Editorial, Context n°86 (July 2005) — Did Someone Say ‘Blitz’?

Did Someone Say ‘Blitz’?

Certainly, there is the horror of all terrorist acts. Expatiating on them and lashing out against their barbarity comes all to easily. That makes it possible to gauge the ignorance and the superficiality of analysis which characterize what could be termed the ‘official press’ (the blindly pro governmental press in our countries).

The London bombings of 7 July were a prime example. The symbolism proved irresistible. The pundits and commentators harked back to memories of Britain’s spirit in toughing out the Blitz of 1940. Turning to an article in the Chicago Sun Times of 12 July by J. O’Sullivan entitled: “Can today’s Brits resist the ‘Blitz’ of terrorism?”, the author draws a parallel between the heroic attitude displayed by the British during the Blitz and this same heroic attitude displayed by Londoners and other Britons during and in the wake of the 7 July bombings.

“The London bombings took place the week that Britain celebrated the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in a series of nostalgic public events prompted in many minds a slightly unsettling question: Would the current generation of Brits resist as bravely and as successfully as their forefathers of the Blitz?”

“Within a few hours of the bombs exploding last Thursday, it was clear that Londoners would show the same spirit of resistance. […] If stoical endurance is the test, then Londoners today pass it. But endurance alone wins no wars. What wartime Britain also had was determination to defeat the enemy. That determination lent a firmness and even ruthlessness to the British war effort. In the end, Berlin and Hamburg suffered worse destruction from the skies than London.”

Such comparisons are today legion. Almost invariably the articles making the comparisons contain errors of fact which show that their authors are poorly qualified to engage in historical analysis. For example, O’Sullivan wrote “For 4½ years London was pounded”, linking the August October Blitz of 1940 and the V1 and V2 attacks of October 1944-January 1945. What he fails to take into account is the fact that between the two periods, there were no German attacks on London. What we find inadmissible is the parallel drawn between the 7 July bombings and the Second World War, with an obvious political motivation, based purely on the emotion of the moment. The two events have nothing in common.

The respective power, the respective destruction and the respective stakes cannot be compared. Conventional warfare, as in the Second World War, presupposed a total break with an enemy that was precisely identified. The policy adopted was one of unconditional surrender militarily and politically. The war on terrorism presupposes never losing contact with the enemy – an enemy that is murky, shadowy and poorly identified.

The war fought by France in Algeria is the prototype of the war on terrorism (urban terrorism, guerrilla warfare, etc.). That war against the FLN (Front de Libération Nationale, the main rebel grouping) was won by France militarily in 1960, and it was solely de Gaulle’s political determination – for quite acceptable general policy reasons – that culminated in independence for Algeria. During that war, France never lost contact with the enemy. France was constantly infiltrating the enemy, pitting the opposing factions against each other. One of the main combatant French forces was composed of 150,000 harkis (FLN rebels won over to the French cause). Infiltration by the French secret services reached its culmination in the ‘Si Salah Affair’ (in 1960) and the disinformation operation dubbed ‘bleuite’: the decision by one of the five major heads of the FLN military regions to come over to the French side with all his troops, followed by the most atrocious internal purge (‘la bleuite’) – orchestrated by the French services – that the FLN had known.

During the war in Algeria, there were more Arab deaths through FLN activities – massacre of civilians, internal purges, fighting against the rival MNA (Mouvement National Algérien) – than through operations conducted by the French Army. Much is said of the torture meted out by the French Army, but little is said about the torture centers operated by the FLN during the war against those ‘purged’ from the upper echelons of the FLN.

The London bombings are simply the result of an inept policy by the Blair government, which fights terrorism by inventing a new Second World War. The Middle East expert Daniel Pipes, one of the more extreme Neocons, who can hardly be suspected of pro-French leanings, wrote on 15 July: “Thanks to the war in Iraq, much of the world sees the British government as resolute and tough, the French as appeasing and weak. But in another war, the one against terrorism and Islam, the reverse is true: France is the most stalwart nation in the West, while Britain is the most hapless.”