fuck baseball

kali - Was American racism or anti-Semitism better than Hitler's? Was it the "good" racism as opposed to Hitler's "bad racism"?

The answer is definitely yes. The American never build extermination camps, special factories for killing human being. The Nazi did.

Being discriminated against when applying for a Job, University, or country club, is not the same as being sent for the gas chambers.

The War is just more Reich-wing CPB propaganda to bolster the successful escalation and wider war to be reported by generals Loot and Betrayus in mid-September. More Bushist ROTC (Run Out The Clock) official bamboozlement.

It is the "winner" of a war that determines who is "good" and who is "bad" after it is done. What if Germany and Italy "won" WW2? What if Japan claimed victory over the USA and the Americans did not have the atomic bomb, nor could stop them. The world would indeed be different, but one should not judge on whether this was good or bad, because the losers of WW2 really believed in what they were doing; indeed were willing to die for their causes - which to them were "good." The Germans in particular truly believed they were doing the world a favor in their endeavors. Chances are, if the Allies lost WW2, they would be judged as evil by the Axis victors simply because the Allies fought against something that was noble to these imagined victors.

One myth that needs to be dispelled is that regardless of who won and lost WW2, History and stories about war have more credibility if the winning side wrote it. So much credibility in fact that the History of a war from the winniing side is taught in schools, without so much as hearing what the losing side had to say. This fact is the same for all wars. The USA Civil War for example, what if "The South" won that war instead of "The North?" The latter would be downplayed and/or portrayed as evil and insignificant while the former has more credence and portrayed as being good.

Yes to the victor go the spoils and the right to write the hitory. All wars are lost except to the elite who plan and profit from them.

From the beginning of time, wars have been fought to settle disputes of wealthy rulers.

Those same rulers record details of battle and circumstance to further justify their own agenda.

Those Native American Indians were savages. With their maze and hide tanning skills and threats to conserve nature's resources...I mean their propensity to scalp white folks.

It would be a big surprise to see anything on the September 23rd airing that did not portray the US as beacons of hope and fighters for freedom.

Our myths regarding our wars go all the way back to the Revolutionary War. That was supposed to have been led by religious freedom seekers. The reality is that they were landowners and businessmen who wanted to protect the resources they needed to fulfill their "dreams'.
Read Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" to get an idea about what our military is used for.
Hoa binh

Any significant discussion of the Second World War would require talking to Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, and Paul Fussell (alas, Kurt Vonnegut has moved on in the cosmos). I'm sure they'll discuss Jackie Robinson as a sort of nexus of african-american experience; have gay veterans or the children of peace workers been interviewed?

It'll probably be a Ken Burns Product -- how the flawed but ineffaceably decent americans were reluctantly drawn into saving the world from Evil, with little attention paid to the imperial ambition to take over where the British were leaving off . . .

All those myths are bad, but I feel the worst is number three, that we won on our own. Hubris. Ask young Americans about this and they are so confident and brash in the truth of that, so arrogant, like the rest of the world was just bumbling around the Nazis until the Yanks came along and showed 'em how it's done. Bulls**t! The Soviet Union won that war more than anybody else. America gave up a lot, but nobody gave up like the Soviets. The Cold War is over so we shouldn't be afraid to say it aloud. That mis-informed hubris made it easy for us to get into Vietnam and Iraq. So long as it continues, our picture of the world and the need to cooperate will always be askew. The truth? We need our friends!

i highly recommend "the best of i.f. stone," a collection of his columns written over a span of decades.

one piece of particular relevance to this thread reveals that the cold war had its origin in the conference called to establish the united nations. mind you, the war was not yet over, and the soviet union was still our nominal ally; but there was a powerful faction which felt its interests were threatened far more by communism than by fascism, and this group's agenda prevailed.

so even as truman bloviated about the new project to ensure lasting peace, he was preparing to fight world war 3, and had already decided who the enemy would be.

The US fought against a few German divisions in 1943, eventually (along with the Brits and Free French) against about 60-70 in France in late 1944.

The Soviet Union fought against more than 200 German divisions (aided by military units of Italians, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Spaniards, French, Cossacks and others) for 4 years.

I beginning to think that WWII was a war we really had no business fighting. Many Americans shared Hitler's view of a superior white race. Many Americans were also anti-Semitic. Heck Roosevelt turned away many Jewish refugees, the phony. And who forget when some of America's "greatest" generation were bashing the heads of Pachucos (zuit suiters) in WWII? Was American racism or anti-Semitism better than Hitler's? Was it the "good" racism as opposed to Hitler's "bad racism"? The war was a control for the oil fields in the Mid East and the Rubber plantations in the Far East. Had nothing to do with fighting evil. If it did, there wouldn't be awful groups like the KKK or awful individuals like Strom Thurmond. We even imprisoned people that were Americans (the Nissei) in concentration camps. What was accomplished in WWII?: Well we made the world safe for Stalin and later for Mao. Eastern Europe was turned into a Soviet colony thank you very much. It led to wars in Korea and Vietnam wasting more human lives. It turned America into an international busy body that won't mind it's own business. It also married up corporate America with the military creating the military-industrial complex. What a sham. And they call it America's greatest generation.

namvet67, you're correct except that the "religious freedom seekers", started this game further back in our "pious" history when the the early colonists massacred 100's of Pequots at Mystic. The Native People were shut into a large wooden structure and burned alive, men, women, and children. They were getting in the way of their "dreams" as far back as 1636. Even the somewhat militant Narragansetts were horrified by the spectacle of colonial brutality.

ken burns had to be forced to include the contributions of hispanics in w.w.2. now anything the man has done or will do is suspect.
hindsight is twenty twenty. the four myths are true. they are not holding the water any more. do not fall into the myth of rewriting history to the standards of today lest you become the people you cuss.

"In war, truth is the first casualty"

Marctileston made a great point, and I wish I could go back to my 5th grade history class and tell my teacher who REALLY wins wars when she asked that question. I wonder if there's a study to see how rich blacksmiths and gun makers got during the Revolutionary War?

And to add to Kali, I think most people overlook the fact that half of America was still segregated!

I love it when George Bush tells us how we need to return to the "values of the 1950s." I guess he means when people with different skin colors couldn't drink at the same water fountain and women had to stay home and cook dinner. Leave the thinking to us white menfolk!

The last I checked, there were no extermination camps in the US during the War.
Surely there is enough real injustice and horror perpetrated by good old Freedom's Land, without resorting to phoney comparisons which only weaken your case.
In my life Castro, Saddam, several Iranians, a couple Koreans, Hugo Chavez, and plenty more have been called "the new Hitler."
Enough with the Hitler of the month or year nonsense. These analogies should be scraped for reality. That is task enough for any peoples.

Let's go back to St. Augustine and his views on "just war".

I figure that a churchy fellow had to come up with something, because Augustine's religion was now Official Religion and had to say something nice about the State.

States you see, have the habit of going to war, which entails a lot of killing and Augustine's religion, like so many others, if not most, don't think killing is nice.

Augustine had the brains to put together a nice sop to what rulers are going to do anyway -- so, I think it must be said that there is No Such Thing As a Just War.

There may be wars that must be fought -- but there is no justification for war, no war is right, or just. Never.

Also, Russia had defeated Germany before America even declared war on Germany (and Germany on America)... Everyone knew then that Germany no longer had any chance of winning- even without America.
That's another little myth that goes unacknowledged.

30 Million Russians died in WWII, compared with what, 400,000 Americans? The Russians are LARGELY to credit for defeating Nazi Germany.

Operation Barbarossa, and Hitler's stupidity are also to blame for the Nazi defeat. He, like Bush now, didn't learn their lessons of history. Napolean tried the SAME EXACT military invasion of Russia, and it failed miserably. And both strategies relied on caputuring Moscow the capital, which both dictators thought would break apart Russia and dissolve the resistence. Yet in both cases, it only made the resistence stronger, and emboldened them.

It really sounds a lot like today. Hitler and Bush are both delussional, and simply will not listen to their generals- and even fire the generals that don't tell them what they want. They both think their respective militaries are invincible. I'm reminded of the story of the battle of Stalingrad, for months several German divisions (half a million troops) tried to capture Stalingrad, but were met with relentless and stiff resistence. Casualties were heavy on both sides, and even heavier on the Russian side. But the Russians were relentless, and kept on pouring manpower, firepower against the Germans. German generals kept sending messages back to Hitler in Berlin that the German Army was being slaughtered, and could not take the city-let alone hold it even if they were to take it. Hitler, much like Bush, pretty much ignored his generals' requests and gave them the middle finger. Such an ignorant attittude cost Hitler dearly.

And today it really is like watching history repeat itself. You have a disconnected corperate/fascist government in the white house which is convieniently oblivious and ignorant to the situation on the ground. MORE IMPORTANTLY (maybe) and one thing to consider is how our media/news outlets propogandize and keep us oblivious and ignorant to the truth of the situation and the war. And even more so during the lead up to the war, same thing happened in Poland- before Germany's invasion, you'd see headlines "Poland masses an army 2 Million Strong!"

Our media too is owned and operated by the corperate government to spread it's propoganda, brainwash Americans, and manipulate the public just as it did in Germany.

Stilba has it right.

By the time we invaded at Normandy, the Soviet Union had turned the tide, totally erased Germany's Sixth Army, tossed the remaining Wehrmacht back hundreds of miles, and was sweeping through eastern Europe.

BTW, one growing and all too fashionable myth among some right-wingers (eg: Pat Buchanon) is to minimize the impact/extent of the German death camps; and to hint that we may have even fought on the wrong side.

Changing the subject, a fresher and more salient lost lesson was the Viet Nam war. How many times had we heard that fighting a war "with one hand tied behind our back" was the cause of failure. But our actual mistake was to fight the same people we were purportedly defending. Obviously, we rejected this lesson.

Vets I am not letting you off the hook on that one. According to a movie called "Broken Rainbow" narrated by Martin Sheen, Hitler got the idea of the concentration camp from what the US did to the original inhabitants of North America. What the hell do you call "the Trail of Tears". I call it ethnic cleansing American style. Look, I don't mind rebuttals to my posts. But you really need to think before you respond, because you come off like an freakin' idiot!!!

Psst--American big business made money hand over fist supplying both sides of WWII through their overseas subsidiaries!--Pass it on!

Especially the big three auto-makers and IBM.

kali - Fine by me, Don't let me off the hook...
Where exactly did I mentioned in my former post the word "concentration camp"?

I said very clearly "Extermination camps".

There is a huge difference between concentration camp and death camp.

Now who is the "idiot"?

I just can't wrap my mind around the "good war" concept.

But I can predict that Ken Burns will glorify America the great, and our devine intervention in WWII.

Ed Graham

mastershake - I agree about what you wrote with regard to the USSR. However I have some minor corrections:

1. Germany declaired war on the USA, and not the other way around.
2. Russia had not defeated Germany when America joind the war in December 1941. The turning point was a year later at the battle of Stalingrad.

mastershake--

Not only was Russia already winning, we didn't even invade Normandy to defeat Germany. It was to make sure all of Europe didn't fall to those evil, godless, anti-American, child-eating communists!

kali--

Hitler also said he admired the American South's Jim Crow laws and modeled many of his anti-Semitic laws off of that.

basically, our public is as stupid, uninformed, and blind as Germany's in 1933-45, and we're just as timid, apathetic, paranoid, fearful, ignorant.

I had a discussion with a co-worker, was about Iran. I explained to her

"Our Government, and the media are now claiming that Iran is supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq" (you like that? it's not a resistence, rebellion, revolt, or revolution occuring in Iraq- it's an insurgency- more propoganda from the ministry of information)

in any case I continued to explain the government's story "And as 'Evidence' our government and media is claiming that Iranian labels are on some of the weapons. IN essence, Iran, who our government thinks is secretly supplying weapons to a n Iraq patrolled by the US military, just simply up and "forgot" to take the labels off the smuggled items."

Our government wants us to believe this. The government can't even come up with a rational or logical lie. This shit won't fly, or so I thought...my coworker responded

"How does that not make sense?"

I replied "Iran whose secretly supplying weapons to the insurgents simply forgot to take of the labels bearing the name and source of the weapons?"

and she said "Yes, because they (the Iranians) are stupid."

And it's that level of ignorance, stupidity, and brainwashing that has gripped the American public. When you have 40% of our country believing Saddam was not just involved, but "personally involved" in 9-11, and when you have 50% believing we have proof Iran is supplying weapons to Iraq, truly and quite blatently we are collectively brainwashed, manipulated, and herded like a bunch of sheep.

(source for public opinion www.pollingreport.com, see Iraq, Iran, Terrorism etc.)

I always hear that our war against Germany was justified by them declaring war on us.

Okay, they declared war on us. They were so busy fighting Britain, Free French, and the USSR that there was no way they could have fought us at the time!

"2. Russia had not defeated Germany when America joind the war in December 1941. The turning point was a year later at the battle of Stalingrad."

Barborossa, which includes Stalingrad, is almost unanimously considered the turning point of WWII. My point was, before America even signed on to the war, let alone mobilized over to Africa, Britain/Europe etc Russia was beating back the Nazi's. But yes, what you say is correct STalingrad was 1942-43 (winter).

mastershake- As I said before, I agree with most of your points. Including the one about Iran.

mastershake,

"...Russia had defeated Germany before America even declared war on Germany.."

I wouldn't go that far. True, the Wehrmacht was stalled at the outer suburbs of Moscow as the brutal '41/42 winter unfolded. But it was hardly "defeated".

Further, am not inclined to assume that Operation Barbarossa, of itself, forced the Reich's downfall. Tardily launched in June '41, and when then overconfident Germany's economy was still on a peacetime footing, Barbarossa was directed at the Reich's largest, most accessible and most natural adversary.

Had so much of their armor not been tied up in the Balkans in early '41, and had Germany (drunk from fresh victories against far more modern armies) appreciated the ever expanding scope of Barbarossa; history could have easily been very different.

marctileston got it right all the rest of the commentary is pretty much beside the point.
One would believe that in the the largest most successful capitalist country it would be second nature to just follow the money - who profited from the/this/that war.

First Nations peoples were slaughtered for their land and the Africans were enslaved to work the stolen lands - that is the history that needs to be resolved and no one appears to have the wherewithall to do so. Certainly not the education system from what I have read above!

How does one protest in a fascist state?

I have often wondered how a great nation like Germany home to the some of the greatest writers, philosophers, musicians, builders of all time could be seduced/extorted/blackmailed into such a relationship with Herr Schicklgruber's
murder party. Is what the USA is doing now the same thing? Judging by the millions of dead around the world it seems to be heading in the same direction. How did the Poles feel as they watched the Germans getting more and more enmeshed in the Nazi web of lies and deceit? I ask of the Poles because they were neighbors to and the largest trading partner of Germany at the time. Sort of like the Canada/USA relation today. Is there cause for Canadians to be concerned? Should Canada start an Atomic weapons arsenal of her own?

Russia and England bore most of the casualties against the German army because they are right next door to Germany. The US was there to ASSIST our Allies in their conflict. Sorry to disagree with you Sean but we DID win mostly on our own against Japan. Where were the Chinese naval vessels during the Battle of Midway? Where were they at Leyte Gulf? Where were the Chinese during the battle of Iwo Jima? Where were they in Okinawa? Chinese helped us out by letting us launch airstrikes from Kunming and Mingaladon as part of a handshake between Chiang Kai-shek and FDR (mostly to help China not America).
It's also retarded to suggest that there is a comparison between WWII and the Iraq debacle. Iraq isn't even a war. It makes me wonder if Mr. Gonsalves has any clue what he's talking about.

No one has mentioned that the Soviet Union was Nazi Germany's key ally and supplier of raw war goods until June 21 1941, nor the fact that the U.S. supplied them with massive amounts of material- without which they may not have survived. We could not have easily defeated the Nazi's without Russia - the same as they could not have defeated Germany without the U.S. and Britain. As far as the Americans and the Nazi's being the same,(concentration camps, ect) I would suggest that you ask someone who lived under both occupations. I doubt you would have many votes for the Germans

Happystead is right. This whole arguing of who is the lesser of two evils is counter-productive.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

(So don't vote Democrat)

It's fairly easy to compare countries to one another. With well over 3,000 years of history fairly well-known, man's inhumanity toward man is readily apparent.

The question is, what are we going to do to end the cycle?

Prosecuting all American war criminals and war profiteers would be an excellent place to start.

Peace to you and yours.

Benihaha said: "It's also retarded to suggest that there is a comparison between WWII and the Iraq debacle. Iraq isn't even a war. It makes me wonder if Mr. Gonsalves has any clue what he's talking about."

Apparently, you're not very familiar with the column. The author has written repeatedly over the years that comparing WWII to Iraq is ludicrous. But that's exactly what many Iraq war supporters do regularly, most glaringly members of the Bush team. While the above piece doesn't go into detail about China's role in WWII, I think you are misreading the thrust of where this particular piece is coming from.

Not to mention:

1. the imprisonment of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps by the US government

2. the nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities filled with civilians

2a. the firebombing of Tokyo and the annihilation of Dresden (again, both filled with innocent civilians)

3. the birth of a new US empire which led to 50 years of cold war and millions dead (most notably from the wars in Korea and Vietnam)

4. the US government failing to halt the genocide against Jews in Europe and turning back boats full of refugees

Here's a more thorough analysis of the myths behind "the good war." http://www.isreview.org/issues/10/good_war.shtml

Also not mentioned:

The Japanese killing of 17 million Chinese civilians, 4 million indonesian civilians, 1 million Indochina civilians, 1.5 million India civilians, 1 million Manchurian civilians, and 500,000 Korean civilians. Other than that, they had great success with their Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Mastershake, Stilba, Jumperpin:

Good points. Ever since I began to understand how WWII really happened, I've been struck by the irony of the fact that western democracy was on the ropes in 1940, and was essentially saved by the efforts of Communist Russia. There's an excllent book by Richard Overy that makes this point in some detail -- I think it's called "How the Allies Won World War 2", or something like that. Well worth reading. One of the interesting points it makes is that the Soviet Union was the "real" loser of the war -- it just took about 45 years to fall over. Can't say that I miss the Soviets, but it's important to remember how important the sacrifice of the Russian people was to saving our hides.

" Sir Melvin Cleophus August 13th, 2007 1:29 pm

It is the "winner" of a war that determines who is "good" and who is "bad" after it is done. What if Germany and Italy "won" WW2? What if Japan claimed victory over the USA and the Americans did not have the atomic bomb, nor could stop them. The world would indeed be different, but one should not judge on whether this was good or bad, because ....

..."

That seems like an okay reasoning in part, but from what I've read, U.S. President FDR KNEW that the Japanese were going to strike, such as at Pearl Harbor, beforehand, and stayed SILENT about this in order to ensure that the U.S. population would fully support the U.S. govt being wholly launched in to WWII; kind of like when President LBJ in 1969 BETRAYED the crew of the USS Liberty when the Israeli govt had its forces launch a strong strike, given it had learned that the crew of the Liberty had detected what Israel had really done or been planning to do against Egypt, and both of these cases being Israeli aggression. President LBJ made sure no US military intervention would come to the rescue of the crew of the Liberty, or at least not in an as timely manner as could have otherwise happened.

It's what I've read, and plenty of sources on the Web provide this information, all of the above.

SO, Sir Melvin Cleophus is hereby mistaken; there definitely were very BAD, evil parties, and ya just need to look in the direction of the White House, as again applies today, and many times before; including the 1999 U.S. gangster war of aggression against former Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic and the people of the Kosovo area. All for natural resources and geopolitical strategizing for "simply" economic predation, OF COURSE.

There is also definitely bad among soldiers when they know what the laws and conventions applying to them are and wittingly transgress against these laws and conventions. F.e., every U.S. military service member has the U.S. military law which stipulates that the c.-in.-c. is NOT above the Constitution but to be held ACCOUNTABLE to it, and it additionally renders intl laws and conventions supreme to itself, TO BOOT.

" marctileston August 13th, 2007 1:52 pm

Yes to the victor go the spoils and the right to write the hitory. All wars are lost except to the elite who plan and profit from them.

..."

False and true; the first and second quoted sentences, respectively. The first is definitely false for it employs 'right' instead of hegemon's 'privilege' or simply ability. That they have the ability is an obvious fact; while them having the right to exercise that ability is nonexistant, it's instead a WAR CRIME punishable with either VERY LONG prison sentences and/or death.

NO ONE has a right that that person denies to others, so to LIE IS NOT A RIGHT; it's only something people have the ability to do. And if this was not true, then we would have NO grounds for saying that psychopaths are not exercising their rights when they murder, rape, pillage, launch wars of aggression, etc. We only have rights if these are common with others. Privilege is a distinct matter; not the same thing as a right. And ability is also distinct from privilege, although some people have the ability to grant or self-grant privileges. We can't do that with respect to rights, for then psychopaths could claim that they have the right to commit their crimes, given that they self-grant these rights.

" namvet67 August 13th, 2007 1:58 pm

Our myths regarding our wars go all the way back to the Revolutionary War. ...

..."

That's a poor understanding of history, and I'm not historian. The myths regarding U.S. wars date further back, and given that Americans were Europeans, oh, now Americans were descendants of peoples that had been making up myths about their wars for thousands of years, already. Just because these Americans had left Europe to live on a different continent, this did not mean that they had not taken what they had culturally learned before with them to North America.

The same happened in Canada, where First Nations Peoples have had roughly 500 years of being aggressed, subjugated, etc., and there were surely plenty of myths made up and spread by and among the European invaders throughout.

The same surely also happened in Haiti and possibly other Caribbean countries, as well as in or across South America, by again Europeans who have an obviously VERY LONG history of lust for other peoples' lands, natural resources, and BLOOD.

marctileston mentions the taking of scalps from enemies, but I really wonder if this was first done by the First Nations Peoples of the continental U.S.A., or if they hadn't started doing this because it was being done to them and while they were NOT enemies of the invading and ruthless Europeans who committed such acts, either first, or later. That Europeans schmucks started doing this at some point is minimally reflected in the story of Geronimo anyway; when whites massacred First Nations peoples, scalped them, and then sold these, as a way of "earning a living", and supposedly doing it only to Apaches, but doing it to any other and saying that they were Apache scalps.

At least when the FNP did it, it wasn't to enrich themselves materially; only doing it out of strong anger against the slaughtering aggressions against them and their populations.

Quote: "Scalping is the act of removing the scalp, usually with the hair, as a portable proof or trophy of prowess in war. The practice has been known in Europe, Asia and Africa. Scalping is also associated with frontier warfare in North America, and was practiced by Native Americans and white colonists and frontiersmen over centuries of violent conflict.

..."

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/scalping

I think that that should give a good little intro. on the topic. :))

I think the writer and most of the posters are missing the point. The goal of the Axis was to enslave and conquer the world. Please tell me what good came of Hitler marching his army though Europe and Japan trying to conquer Asia? Do you really think the world would have been better if they won the war? The allies DID win the war. Colin Powell said it more eloquently than I could when he addressed the World Economic Forum in Switzerland during January, 2003...
"And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are."

Honest discussion? God's honest Truth? Here we go. Hitler was a creation of British and American bankers in the same way that Saddam Hossein was a creation of the CIA. British and American bankers wanted a new war in Europe at any price. So, they armed the mad man Hitler to the teeth and set him loose for a while. Then they stepped in and destroyed him according to plans. Everything went along according to plans laid out when FDR came into power. Hitler was not an accident, he was not a surprise. He was there to serve a purpose. When his time was up, he was destroyed. Same thing with Saddam. Who won? The warmaker, of course, the USA. Let us be honest with history.

Here in Europe the myth that Americans were our liberators after the Second World War is still so persistent that many European governments don't dare to criticize anything the U.S. government does, even after more than 60 years.
Myself I was not there at the time, but I heard stories that the allied forces have also been fighting a lot against local resistance fighters who were perceived as 'communists', especially in Southern Europe, and of course there are all the stories about former Nazi's whose methods (and some of the people) have been incorporated into the CIA. (I'm sorry that I am not able to provide more accurate references). The city where I lived for many years in Holland had been bombed by the Americans by mistake as a 'collateral damage'.

Of course the most important issue of beating the Nazi regime was real, but in a war, things are not as simple as just black and white. The Americans and Allied Forces made many mistakes and also many dubious strategic choices. The whole myth is about celebrating war and idolizing victory. It is a myth that is common to all wars that have ever been fought.

After sixty years, I must say that the present-day German government is of a higher moral standing than the present U.S. government. Things are changing and it is sad that these myths help to maintain the situation where internationally nobody dares to criticize the U.S. government.

nodupe - "they armed the mad man Hitler to the teeth and set him loose for a while. Then they stepped in and destroyed him according to plans. "

Are you claiming that the USA and Britain had installed Hitler and supplied him with armed?

Can you provide any evidence to support your claim?

And ho would you explain the concession made to Hitler during the The Munich Agreement 1938?

This discussion is like arguing that slapping a person or blowing him away with a .45 are morally the same. They both involve wrongs against a person after all. The allies (at least the british and americans)WERE the good guys in World War II. They did a few morally questionable things (allowing the Russians to overrun Eastern Europe, locked up japanese-americans, firebombing Dresden, refusing to allow in a greater quota of Jews, ect) Balanced against the 50 million civilians killed by the other side however, there can be no question that the right side won the war. All this moral relativism (Well, they may have killed 23 million chinese but we only wanted the rubber plantations!) is not helpful and not true.

To understand the causes of the US war with Japan is a complex task and I can make no claims to have a complete understanding. But at first glance, the treaty arrangements made in the 1920s between US/British and European naval forces on one side and Japan on the other seem to favor an imperial agenda by the West. So much so that from the Japanese point of view, they thought they were being set up for domination and withdrew from the key naval limitation treaties in 1936. (The Japanese slogan during WWII was "Asia for Asians.)

Here is an overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty

And the text of they key treaty:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html

The overall fact that naval tonnage allocated to the US/UK was a 10 to 3 ration over that allowed for Japan would suggest that Japan didn't even have enough of a navy to protect themselves from the imperial desires of European powers who had already conquered much of China and the pacific, such as the US conquest of Hawaii in about 1900. With French and Italian naval forces considered the European/Japanese balance was nearly 14 to 3.

If the US/UK/French/Italian group had wanted world peace with an umbrella of the global rule of law--instead of empire, favoring them--they wouldn't have maintained an attitude of domination. Perhaps they could have avoided WWII, just as we can now institute the global rule of law with a democratized UN system (but presently resist) in order end the current conflicts with the Muslims and others.

The choice then as now is clear: domination by the powerful or the global rule of law. The former choice is characterized by actions to continue domination as usual with the US and the other great powers ignoring international laws whenever they want to. The latter choice seems wise, given the realities and parities of modern WMD-type weapons, so it is a great time to pursue a framework to prevent war and prosecute those who initiate it illegally.

Winnetou: "myth that the allies were liberators"

I guess the Dutch were just biding their time before they threw the Germans out themselves. My Uncle (battle of Arnhem) must have been doing something other than driving the Germans out of Holland. (and paid with his life). Thanks

The point of the piece wasn't to get caught up in arguing about how precise the myths are but to simply point out the fact that WWII history is shrouded in myth; and to extent that these myths form the basis of U.S. foreign policy thinking, it blinds PRESENT DAY policymakers and war supporters from understanding the nature of warfare in general, and the guerrilla war and occupation in Iraq. It's not about moral relevatism. It's about understanding the hidden assumptions in America's war posture, which is a good thing for both those who want to put an end to this madness and, actually, for those who want to "fight better."

War ain't about one land against the next--it's poor people dyin' so the rich cash checks.

(The Coup, "Head (Of State)" from the album "Pick a Bigger Weapon")

The myths surrounding WWII require amnesia of the events preceding it. Japan was a supporter of the League of Nations and was a member until 1933, when it resigned based on the league's criticism of Japan's occupation of Manchuria. However, one interesting quote in relation to the League of Nations (which the US refused to join) and Japan is of Senator Chamberlain of Oregon, who had been chairman of the Military Committee of the US Senate during WWI. In response to a proposal that the constitution of the League of Nations forbid racial discrimination with regard to immigration, Chamberlain said that he "would defeat the treaty and witness another great war" with Germany, Russia, and Japan, rather than allow the league to "take away a single fundamental American right," that being the right to discriminate based on race.