“[W]e dropped a real one on Hiroshima, and the Japanese still did not surrender. It took a second bomb on Nagasaki, and even then it took them several days to surrender.”

I’m sorry to say Don, but, if you believe that, then I’m affraid you’ll fall for anything these days.

The facts are, the Japanese authorities were still mounting a hugh rescue operations, they didn’t even have enough time to assess the carnage in Hiroshima before the US hit them with another bomb.

“We could have blockaded them, but many more would die of starvation than in the bomb attacks.”

This again, is not true - you talk about the US authorities during WW2 as if they were flower power hippies, as if they cared about Japanese civilian. I think your either being very naive, or worse, completely ignorant of the facts.

The facts are, throughout the pacific war the Japanese were constantly depicted as rats or monkeys, there could never be a good ‘Jap’; the whole race was apparently malignant - so, why would they care about malignant Japanese civilians?

The idea that there is a justifiable defense of the terror bombings of Japan is actually sick and perverse - indeed, the idea turns history upside down on its head. There is plenty of evidence that the US authorities knew of the emanate demise of Japan, yet they still went ahead and slaughtered some quarter of a million people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a bat of a eye lid.

The evidence suggests that there was no need for an atomic bombardment of Japan, but they bombed them anyway. Don’t take my word for it, even the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Dwight D Eisenhower confessed to Newsweek in an interview back in 1963 that ‘the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that damned thing’.

http://hnn.us/articles/172.html

President Harry S Truman and his generals already knew that Japan was about to surrender. The historian and political economist Gar Aplerovitz, author of the book ‘The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb’ argued that President Truman had known that Japan was at the point of surrender four months before he decided to blast Nagasaki and Hiroshima off the face of the earth. Even to this day, the US military have been unable to refute the claims made by Alperovitz. Aplerovitz’s book was armed to the teeth with declassified documents that included Mr. Truman’s notes on the Potsdam Conference that were discovered back in 1979.

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96spring/sp-essay.htm

There’s plenty of evidence, if you care to take a look. Those who still defend the barbarism of Hiroshima, are really modern day barbarians themselves - you should think about that.

Best wishes.

Courtney

When the US entered WW1, the Brits wanted US troops to serve in Russia supporting the White Russians. There was little US support for this, including in the Wilson administration.

Further, the US forces in Russia did not engage in an offensive campaign against the Reds. One of the most effective forces against the Reds, were, in fact, the Czech Legion, which was trapped in Russia during the October Revolution, and which the Red’s attempted to disarm and murder.

You are also incorrect when you claim the Bolshevicks overthrew the Czar; they murdered him, but he was deposed in the Feburary Revolution, not the Bolshevik October Revolution.

The Bolshevics were a vile evil from the beginning. Lenin approved the mass rape of bourgeois women as a form of state terror.

Are you suggesting we should have fought the Red Army for control of Korea in ‘45? Saving lives that way?

Are you clueless?

Ho Chi Minh and Mao were on working terms with the U.S. during W.W.II.

There was no way we would work anything long-term with Mao, any more than we could have been friends with the Soviets.

Ho Chi Minh of course once appealed for US help, but it is far from clear we would be able to forge a real friendship.

It is highly unlikely the U.S. would have handed back the keys to the European colonialist’s with our army on the ground, in control, . . .

We supported the French in Indochina, if ya didn’t know. US arms and advice. IIRC, we once supported the Communists, in order to get rid of the organized crime gangs in Vietnam, only to have the Communists become a significant power. Again IIRC, we did this via the French.

But in Korea and China, your views are simply nonsense. Further, if we invaded Japan the Red Army was going in too.

We defeated Germany before the bomb was ready.

A friend of mine thought we should do a demo drop of the atomic bomb. But we dropped a real one on Hiroshima, and the Japanese still did not surrender. It took a second bomb on Nagasaki, and even then it took them several days to surrender. Many in the Japanese military still wanted to fight to the death.

We could have blockaded them, but many more would die of starvation than in the bomb attacks.

The other thing is that the Red Army would have been involved in an invasion of Japan. The Japanese were terrified of the Red Army, knowing full well that 1) they couldn’t face them and 2) of the Red Armies’ rape and attrocities. But I’m sure Ho would be happy if we had a North and South Japan . . .

In any case,

The reason is because you should judge the architects of Hiroshima by their own standards. The use of a weapon of sheer terror is a war crime, and so too is the wanton destruction of a city. Even by their own standards, Truman was a war criminal.

Indeed, caputured Nazi officers were prosecuted under the Geneva Convention for ‘the wanton destruction of towns and cities’, in places like Greece and France.

The bombing of Japan, was nothing but the worst mass racist attack in human history. America battered the Japanese like no other country.

If you truely believe that the atomic bombardment of Japan was suppose to be some sort of ‘humanitarian gesture’, then why didn’t the U.S. drop the ‘White Mans Bomb’ on Nazi Germany?

I was reading Bookworm’s blog and I came across a question concerning Truman’s decision to bomb Nagasaki. I did some further research, Neo, and I think you might be interested in the results that I found.

Hiroshima was a lesson to anyone that thought that the United States of America was too hamstringed to use nuclear weapons.

It was also a lesson to anyone that thought the US was not ruthless enough to protect our people’s lives.

It is also a lesson to the Japanese, that their defunct codes of honor no longer are superior anymore. Their human wave attacks may have worked on the Chinese and other undisciplined peons, but to the United States of America, human wave attacks were simply cannon fodder to be destroyed and cleared.

The word “clear” in Japan, has a unique connotation.

The first test has been passed, the test whether America valued our goals more than the enemies and the critics. The second test will be, will we usher the resolve to do so again, to make an example out of a nation to prevent the foolish self-destruction of a people and a world given the deadliness fully cognizant of in the power of nuclear weapons?

The Cold War was a limited dry run test, the War on Terror will be the true test of American resolve.

The Japanese viewed surrender as the greatest of dishonor. We showed them that the greatest of dishonor is through committing suicide for no gain.

We forced the God Emperor himself, to admit the failure of Japan when he gave the order. Surrender became not dishonorable anymore, simply because the God Emperor has said it to be so.

What became dishonorable was the entirety of Japan.

Our WW2 allies were the UK, France & Poland. There was no betrayal of them. The US did not join any “European effort to regain their colonies.” The US did not “start a bunch of other wars in the process.”

The US did not betray any wartime allies. The US stood by US allies & fought with them to win WW2, but that’s what really gets you, isn’t it Ho – that the US & its allies won but you hate America so much that the US winning anything, anywhere, anytime enrages you. So you have to rustle up a pathetic little theory to show how it just wasn’t so. The US sold no allies “to [sic]thier colonial masters.”

Ho writes that Roosevelt had “countless discussions and meetings with Chiang and Stalin” & “they always approved.” “Chiang and Stalin” approved? I guess if Chiang & Stalin approved, well then, the US should have just gone right ahead because, well, Chiang & Stalin approved, & you know if Chiang & Stalin approve of something it’s something really good.

Ho goes on to claim that at numerous “press conferences Roosevelt made the problem clear.” Ho, how old are that you would remember “numerous press conferences” by Roosevelt? Considering Ho’s past problems with, er, ‘accuracy,’ I think I’ll take that remembrance with, shall we say, a grain of salt? Readers, I am not sure(because sometimes it is really difficult figuring exactly what poor Ho is driving at) but I think Ho is proposing that at WW2’s end that Chiang, Stalin & Roosevelt(irregardless of any objections from our allies) should have sort of carved up all of Asia – I’m guessing with the lion’s share going to the Communists - & that would have soothed those nice fellows, especially that nice Stalin fellow, who was very nice & would never have turned into the murdering bastard that naughty people accuse him of being. Readers, Ho trips the light fantastic with heavy boots.

Ho thinks that the US should have offered a protectorate to Vietnam. The only entity that could offer Vietnam the status of protectorate was France & when they offered it Ho Chi Minh turned the down. Vietnam was clearly not interested in being any country’s protectorate.

Oddly when General Stillwell returned to the U.S. (steaming mad like he almost mostly was) he was put under house arrest and never allowed to speak to the press. Six months later he was dead.

More conspiracy theories from Ho. Stillwell loved Mao & hated Chiang & so he was killed by … who? Truman, I guess. Was it Truman, Ho? Was it Truman that killed Stillwell? You can tell us, Ho.

At any rate aiding Chiang certainly didn’t help to these ends.

Naturally you would think that, Ho. You would never think the US should aid those that fight Communism, because that gets those nice Communist fellows mad & it turns them into Totalitarian states & then they murder a bunch of people, which they wouldn’t have done if it wasn’t for the US. Right?

The war obviously wasn’t over, as the Chinese, Korean and Vietnam War’s might suggest.

Ho, I think most would agree that the war was over in 1945. I’ve heard of the Korean War & the Vietnam War but what is this “Chinese” war to which you refer? Are you referring to the civil war that China had?

We were on the greatest war footing in the history of man and you say there wasn’t enough material or man-power?

Yes. War is expensive in manpower & material.

Ho, maintaining that Papa Joe Stalin didn’t want to take over Europe: ”No, yours is. Read our own analysis, and Soviet history. They match up pretty nice. Not that it wasn’t later [sic]politicised to ratchet up our “Cold War” “containment” efforts. But they never had “eyes on western Europe”, utterly ridiculous. Reader’s Digest bull-shit.”

Naturally, I disagree. Papa Joe Stalin wanted all of Europe he could get his murderous, greedy hands on. NATO was formed expressly to stop him.

I will submit that Roosevelt was probably mistaken to allow Stalin ascendancy over Central & Eastern Europe after WW2. That occurred at Yalta & could possibly be an example of an unwise US leader’s decision that ended up costing lives in the long run & the US(& others) spent the next 50 years regretting it. But there were extenuating considerations: Roosevelt was by that time sick & very tired of war & so was the US populace. Stalin had demonstrated that he was ruthless by reason of Russia suffering an ungodly amount of casualties on the Eastern front & of course Roosevelt knew that. He did not want a war with Russia. In defense of Roosevelt the Yalta Agreement did mandate democratic elections for Soviet-occupied Europe. In fact it was when Russia rigged the elections & enforced Soviet rule in Central & Eastern Europe that folks began to get wise to what Stalin was up to.

Ho blandly writes of the Soviet “sphere of influence” & US influence in Europe after the war as if they were equivalent. US influence was benign & democratic – Soviet “influence” over Central & Eastern Europe was autocratic & murderous.

In an earlier comment I wrote: Our post-WW2 alliances helped to contain the Soviet Union – a very good thing in my opinion.

Ho replies: I would agree with you, but I believe our post-WW2 alliances and policies were the same one’s that 100 years earlier helped create communism IN THE FIRST PLACE. We backed the colonial powers, that is colonialism.

Ah yes, here we go again with the ‘US created communism’ theme. One of the hallmarks of the Blame America Club is that Communist or other regimes are never held responsible for their actions. If for the BAC it becomes impossible under the weight of accumulated historical fact to deny their enormity, then no problem, the argument just switches to a claim that the US ‘caused’ them to be that way. This is Ho’s theory in condensed form: The US is responsible for all the world’s ills. The rest, all the prattle about meetings, conspiracies & alliances betrayed is just window dressing.

Ho writes: I was speaking of Mao-Chiang, or friendly relations with Ho Chi Minh and his group, and a scattering of [sic]indiginous groups that sided with us against the [sic]Japs, only to be sold out to their previous colonial masters.

The above is a continuation of Ho’s cockeyed theory that the US should have occupied all of Asia, kicked the English & French out of Asia, been better buddies with Mao & Ho Chi Minh, etc. I’ve already refuted it.

Ho writes: No great nation sells out it’s war time allies, particularly to colonial slavery. What could be more Un-American than that?

It would do little good to protest to Ho that colonialism, while not benign, is not equivalent to slavery. Such distinctions do not exist to those of Ho’s persuasion. I’ll repeat: The US stood by all of its wartime allies.

Earlier I wrote: I would even agree with you that U.S. “strategic interests” can coincide with U.S. economic interests, but the difference in our interpretations is that I find nothing too damning in that fact.

Ho replies: As long as you keep in mind that killing, and [sic]conspirying to kill is not capitalism, it’s just murder and theft.

I wrote nothing about “capitalism” but Ho probably just let the word slip out because he doesn’t like capitalism. A Freudian slip. More railing against the US, using the words “killing,” [sic]”conspirying to kill,” “murder and theft,” your standard Blame America Club canard.

I wrote earlier: I want U.S. leaders to look out for U.S. economic & strategic interests – I think they are elected to do, along with other tasks, just that.

Ho replies: Me too.[Yeah, I’ll bet] But project a policy that we would like projected on us by a nation more powerful (if there was one) while we’re doing it. Such a foreign policy will foster peaceful relations, not the spectacle of brutal Imperialism we’ve seen (and still are).

The above is more vague, nebulous, accusatory platitudes against the US. It’s mostly easy to debate Ho, but sometimes he is so vague there is nothing a debater can sink their teeth into.

I wrote in an earlier comment: Can you offer to the readers any country in which the leaders do not see to their country’s economic & strategic interests?

Ho gets really mad: Defending one’s interest’s is not the point, it’s killing. Especially if you make yourself the “world’s policeman”, WE, MORE THEN ANYONE, SHOULD OBEY THE LAW. If we don’t, what the hell kind of example is that for the rest?

Ho realizes he painted himself into a corner by implying in a previous comment that it is not the business of a country’s leaders to look out for their country’s economic & strategic interests, so he resorts to shouting(with the caps) & more vague accusations. Ho, we are waiting – when are you going to get around to naming that country – eh, buddy boy?

Ho gets really obscure with this passage: You missed the point again. We don’t have to do anything other then create a [sic]favourable business climate for our investors, markets, resources etc. The [sic]facsists, that is the brutal types that can become fascists, exist in every society. The only difference is when a Henry Ford or Lord Deterding, or a [sic]representitive of the U.S. government sits down to lunch with them that we have to start worrying about them. That is what I mean by “create”, elevating them to a position they can really do some harm.

I’ve got to admit I have no idea in hell what Ho is blathering about in the above – as far as the details go. And when Ho gets disturbed like this, syntax goes out window, so again it’s difficult to translate this into anything debatable. Overall, of course, it’s ‘the US causes all the worlds ills’ theme again.

Earlier I wrote: Ho, Fascism is not very conducive to political stability. And I have been right here where I am, observing that Fascism is not politically very stable.

Ho, still a bit excited: I disagree. When it comes down to a foreign country deciding whether to [sic]nationalise their resources, determine other domestic business and social strategies that are first [sic]benificial to them or foreign interests, fascism (the rule of the club) has always proven more stable then [sic]democarcy (the rule of the people, mostly poor and hungry). This is why the U.S. has backed so many fascists and hardly ever [sic]demoracy (until the socialists or communists were first purged that is). And why U.S. credibility in [sic]thew world is at way below zero at the moment. Only fools like yourself believe the U.S. stands for anything moral.

The above diatribe is difficult to fathom in that it has within it so many provisos, conditional statements & stipulations that it ends up saying very little despite a plethora of words. I’m sure Ho worked a long time on the thing but he really needs to get himself to a writing classroom, preferably one that emphasizes grammar, syntax & spelling. One thing does become clear when you wade through his awkward verbiage: It is evident that Ho doesn’t believe that Fascism is inherently volatile. Actually, I’ll accept that as a valid stance on the subject. Some fine thinkers(maybe Orwell?) have believed that state imposed control over all aspects of life(one definition among many) could be a condition not possible for a society to overcome. But I believe the human spirit would never, could never allow that total control to last. Our species is too subversive to allow Fascism for any significant length of time. My vote for most stable politically in modern times goes to democratic republics.

Earlier I commented: “Maybe some suspected[Stalin’s intentions], but they didn’t know the full extent of the starvation & murder going on.”

Ho retorts: Again, plenty of info, from numerous diplomatic missions, was coming in. Don’t forget, before 1933, before Hitler became Chancellor, foreigners could move and mingle freely in the Soviet Union. After it was forbidden and became more difficult, but reports kept flowing.

Me again, now: I really don’t think too many people in America were very concerned about Communism until the USSR & China started their expansion tactics. Sure, some Western thinkers & leaders(such as Churchill) probably despised Communism when they thought about Communism, but it wasn’t until it was evident that Joe & Mao had Communism & Totalitarianism in mind for the entire world that everyone started to get really worried. For instance, Churchill’s famous speech in Fulton, Missouri, in which he coined the term “the Iron Curtain,” is widely considered a warning to the free world. Warnings are not given to an audience that is already alarmed. The CNN.com description given below is standard thinking on the subject:

In 1946, Winston Churchill delivered his “Iron Curtain” speech to an audience at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. Although today it is regarded as one of the most influential speeches of the period, the speech was not well received at the time. Some thought Churchill was seeking an Anglo-Saxon alliance against the Soviet Union — something the general American public felt unnecessary at the time.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/02/documents/churchill

Me again, now: Before WW2, during the 20s & 30s when most of the murder by Stalin occurred, the U.S.(& Britain) had its intelligentsia busily assuring everyone that Papa Joe Stalin was the nicest fellow you could possibly imagine & not to believe those scurrilous rumors about people starving & being murdered in Russia because Papa Joe was making the Soviet Union a heaven on earth & the world a better place. Intellectual after intellectual traipsed over to Moscow & was given the tour & came back with faces shining with happiness & joy. There were a few old lefties even up to the 90s that would swear on Das Kapital to that. Google “useful idiots,” & read & read & read.

Ho asserts now: How about not aid Hitler? (Don’t tell me you never heard about it)
As it might tarnish our sparkling national image I didn’t think you heard about it, and for good reason. Read the newspaper’s of the era. Our government communications. Read history. Charles Higham is a good author to start with, “Trading With The Enemy”, “American Swastika”, and others. There’s a wealth of information, you’ll be amazed at how much has been blocked out of our national memory. Again for good reason.

I’ll pass on the Higham book, Ho. He’s just another conspiracy theorist. We have so many of them in this country. JFK, Lincoln, Area 51, you name it, there’s a conspiracy theory about it. In fact, Higham wrote a book about the Lincoln assassination. Wouldn’t you know it? CNN reviewed it & not favorably, either:

“His evidence is sketchy at best. He fills the air with allegations that one or another Northern merchant was growing fat from what he calls “trading with the enemy” (which he also calls “traitorous”). He examines in minute detail the often-inept exploits of the Southern operatives based in Montreal.”

“The links between them are tenuous and Higham tries to obscure his lack of proof with bluster.”

“Higham claims the foundation of his allegations is a long-lost congressional report on wartime smuggling. Yet he cites the report on only seven pages of his 250-page text.
The author’s celebrity biographies have done little to establish his reputation as a careful researcher. “Murdering Mr. Lincoln” will do nothing to improve it.”

Ho, I thought you were talking about government aid to Hitler. Silly me. It was just another of your crackpot conspiracy theories.

I wrote in an earlier post: Where do you get the “dispatched U.S. troops”/Czarist/European assault on Bolsheviks thing? I’m completely mystified as to what you may be referring.

Ho strikes back: It’s called history, the Russian Civil War, 1918-22 (23?). At least 9,000 U.S. troops joined the White Russian’s (The Tsar’s army), with contingents from France, England, Poland and Japan. Russia’s communism was always a war communism, with all that entails. This is not an apology, just reality.

Me now: The US never sent troops to Russia, Ho. You can swear to it until you are blue in the face but you are going to have to cite some credible historical source to make me believe it. And I don’t mean another Higham book.

I wrote earlier: Ho, you are forgetting that it was mostly Western nations that brought Hitler & Nazism to their end?

Ho writes: Like we brought Saddam to his end? I say one shouldn’t brag about bringing a tyrant down when they first helped bring him to power in the first place. That’s not helping anyone, ..except [sic]ourseoves perhaps. ..Ever read Machiavelli?

Me now: More of Ho’s blather. Whatever any murderous regime does, it’s always America’s fault. Ho & his ilk sing only one tune.

That’s not it. Our policies that brought communism down are the same ones 100 years earlier that caused people to become communist’s in the first place. In their eyes our actions continually proved them right. Why it [sic]spiralled out of control.

Me now: America caused communism, same old accusation, same old logical fallacy – blah, blah, blah.

“For the U.S. to not have left most of Asia fairly quickly would have been interpreted as the U.S. making its own move toward colonialism”

That’s exactly how the European’s saw it. All I’m saying is we could have set these country’s up with independence and some form of democracy and left them to go on their own way. What we did do was betray our W.W.II allies (and our own principles) and join the European effort to regain their colonies, and start a bunch of other wars in the process. Now who the hell is un-American here, me or Truman?

“The U.S. stayed in those places in Asia where it was diplomatically viable to stay – in the Philippines & Japan.”

Exactly, any place we wouldn’t step on Europe’s “toes”. The Phillipines was already “ours”, wasn’t it. I say we should have called the European’s bluff and stood up (for once) to the democartic principles we espouse ad nauseum. We betrayed our war time allies and sold them out to thier colonial masters. MacCarthur called this “the most ignoble kind of betrayal”.
Me too.

“Ho, your logic astounds me. But don’t you think China & the USSR(along with the French & English) would have also had objection to such a scheme?”

In countless discussions and meetings with Chiang and Stalin they always approved of Roosevelt’s plans for Indochina, independence under international advisory (Vietnamese, U.S., Russian and Chinese). At numerous press conferences Roosevelt made the problem clear: The English. “If Indochina achieves independence then Burma will want it too”, etc.
The dominoe theory backwards. If independence is achieved the colonies will all fall to independence (democratic or communist didn’t matter).

“Look what happened when the U.S. tried exactly that in South Vietnam a few years later.”

Obviously completely different circumstances, primary of which Ho Chi Minh was our ally after W.W.II, and wanted Vietnam to become a U.S. protectorate etc. And after thirty years of broken promises and treaties, and millions of deaths, maybe time for talk was long over?

“As for a “Mao-Chiang alliance,” such a thing never existed.”

Not true, U.S. aid to Chiang hung on it happening. Clearly no loved lost between these two, it could have continued, ewspecially as Chiang’s survival hung on it. Almost all top U.S. military personell in China, that is those who knew Chiang, supported Mao. Oddly when General Stillwell returned to the U.S. (steaming mad like he almost mostly was) he was put under house arrest and never allowed to speak to the press. Six months later he was dead.

“There wasn’t anyone or anything in the world at that time that could have prevented the struggle in China between the Nationalist & the Communists”.

See above. At any rate aiding Chiang certainly didn’t help to these ends.

“You see, after you win a war the usual thing to do is send most of the boys home, not keep them all running around Asia.”

The war obviously wasn’t over, as the Chinese, Korean and Vietnam War’s might suggest.

“There was not “plenty of man-power and material to re-deploy.”

We were on the greatest war footing in the history of man and you say there wasn’t enough material or man-power?

“Ho, if you think Russia never had designs on Western Europe then your thinking is way, way off in the wild blue yonder.”

No, yours is. Read our own analysis, and Soviet history. They match up pretty nice. Not that it wasn’t later politicised to ratchet up our “Cold War” “containment” efforts. But they never had “eyes on western Europe”, utterly ridiculous. Reader’s Digest bull-shit.

“NATO was expressly formed to keep the USSR contained to the European countries they had already taken over.”

Taken over? They were given these territories, as we were given territories, under the Potsdam, Yalta, and other agreements. They were as much under the Soviet sphere of influence as the west was under ours.

“Our post-WW2 alliances helped to contain the Soviet Union – a very good thing in my opinion.”

I would agree with you, but I believe our post-WW2 alliances and policies were the same one’s that 100 years earlier helped create communism IN THE FIRST PLACE. We backed the colonial powers, that is colonialism.

“It is hard to understand exactly what you are saying, for example, who is “them”? And “forging alliances” between what entities?”

I was speaking of Mao-Chiang, or friendly relations with Ho Chi Minh and his group, and a scattering of indiginous groups that sided with us against the Japs, only to be sold out to their previous colonial masters.

” You imply the U.S. was/is not a “great nation.”

Not in this instance. No great nation sells out it’s war time allies, particularly to colonial slavery. What could be more Un-American than that?

“I believe you are mistaken, but of course as an apologist for the Great Satan”.

You’re a fool.

“I would even agree with you that U.S. “strategic interests” can coincide with U.S. economic interests, but the difference in our interpretations is that I find nothing too damning in that fact.”

As long as you keep in mind that killing, and conspirying to kill is not capitalism, it’s just murder and theft.

“I want U.S. leaders to look out for U.S. economic & strategic interests – I think they are elected to do, along with other tasks, just that.”

Me too. But project a policy that we would like projected on us by a nation more powerful (if there was one) while we’re doing it. Such a foreign policy will foster peaceful relations, not the spectacle of brutal Imperialism we’ve seen (and still are).

“Can you offer to the readers any country in which the leaders do not see to their country’s economic & strategic interests?”

Defending one’s interest’s is not the point, it’s killing. Especially if you make yourself the “world’s policeman”, WE, MORE THEN ANYONE, SHOULD OBEY THE LAW. If we don’t, what the hell kind of example is that for the rest?

“But the Great Satan must always have his “return” on his investment & only his lap-dog Fascists, which he creates from the fires of hell enable him to earn his devilish, “primarily economic” profits.”

You missed the point again. We don’t have to do anything other then create a favourable business climate for our investors, markets, resources etc. The facsists, that is the brutal types that can become fascists, exist in every society. The only difference is when a Henry Ford or Lord Deterding, or a representitive of the U.S. government sits down to lunch with them that we have to start worrying about them. That is what I mean by “create”, elevating them to a position they can really do some harm.

“Ho, Fascism is not very conducive to political stability. And I have been right here where I am, observing that Fascism is not politically very stable.”

I disagree. When it comes down to a foreign country deciding whether to nationalise their resources, determine other domestic business and social strategies that are first benificial to them or foreign interests, fascism (the rule of the club) has always proven more stable then democarcy (the rule of the people, mostly poor and hungry). This is why the U.S. has backed so many fascists and hardly ever demoracy (until the socialists or communists were first purged that is). And why U.S. credibility in thew world is at way below zero at the moment. Only fools like yourself believe the U.S. stands for anything moral.

Regarding who knew what about Stalin:

“Maybe some suspected, but they didn’t know the full extent of the starvation & murder going on.”

Again, plenty of info, from numerous diplomatic missions, was coming in. Don’t forget, before 1933, before Hitler became Chancellor, foreigners could move and mingle freely in the Soviet Union. After it was forbidden and became more difficult, but reports kept flowing.

“Amazed, Ho asserts now: How about not aid Hitler? (Don’t tell me you never heard about it)

“Resigned, I now key this: No, I haven’t “heard about it,” but I got a funny feeling you are going to fill us in on it.”

As it might tarnish our sparkling national image I didn’t think you heard about it, and for good reason.
Read the newspaper’s of the era. Our government communications. Read history. Charles Higham is a good author to start with, “Trading With The Enemy”, “American Swastika”, and others. There’s a wealth of information, you’ll be amazed at how much has been blocked out of our national memory. Again for good reason.

“Where do you get the “dispatched U.S. troops”/Czarist/European assault on Bolsheviks thing? I’m completely mystified as to what you may be referring.”

It’s called history, the Russian Civil War, 1918-22 (23?). At least 9,000 U.S. troops joined the White Russian’s (The Tsar’s army), with contingents from France, England, Poland and Japan. Russia’s communism was always a war communism, with all that entails. This is not an apology, just reality.

“Ho, you are forgetting that it was mostly Western nations that brought Hitler & Nazism to their end?”

Like we brought Saddam to his end? I say one shouldn’t brag about bringing a tyrant down when they first helped bring him to power in the first place. That’s not helping anyone, ..except ourseoves perhaps. ..Ever read Machiavelli?

“That he (Hitler) was an anti-Communist proves nothing.”

You’re right. But to an inquirying person, considering anti-communism
WAS THE DEFINING THEME OF THE 20th Century, it might set off some sparks in your brain and wondered,
“hell, we backed hundreds of anti-communist goons all over the planet, why wouldn’t we back Hitler too”, and maybe check it out.

“My earlier attempt to synthesize Ho’s theory: “..by opposing communism the U.S. is responsible for all the world’s misery.”

That’s not it. Our policies that brought communism down are the same ones 100 years earlier that caused people to become communist’s in the first place. In their eyes our actions continually proved them right. Why it spiralled out of control.

“..So your theory is England & France wanted Hitler to succeed? To thwart Stalin? Ho, I can’t figure out if you are left or so far right that you come full circle & bump up against the left.”

Don’t trouble yourself, it’s not about left or right, it’s about making money, what ever it takes.

“Me now: I’ll accept they were anti-Communist, but not that they were pro-Hitler. Not when they were fighting Hitler with everything they had. Ho, you do realize that to be anti-Communist doesn’t automatically mean a pro-Hitler bent, don’t you?”

I believe it was a balancing act forced on the west by the precarious finacial-political realities of the time, depression, and Europe, particularly Germany making a radical left turn. To policy makers it’s a chess game.

“Me now: Yep, Stalin was wrong & Hitler was foolish. Now, if you could just hold that thought.”

And you might add we sat by, having armed both sides and set them on a collision course, and watched them destroy each other. Like Iran and Iraq? Read Machiavelli, the way modern diplomacy has worked for 600 years.

“Me earlier: “historians tell us neither country intended to uphold that pact.”

I disagree, it was primarily a business agreement, trading resources for machinery etc. If the Russian’s weren’t serious they wouldn’t have gone through all the trouble of hammering out a political agreement first. They saw no sense in a business deal if it was only going to lead to war. Read about it yourself, by the people who were there, the Russian’s and German’s, Graf von Schulenberg and Molotov for instance. Both sides say the same thing. Or do you only read U.S. historian’s?

“It’s all so simple, I don’t know why I couldn’t see it before! The anti-Communist pro-Hitler crowd were the real puppeteers! What a great trick idea! Build Hitler up so he could take on Stalin, but not enough to rule the U.S. The sheer brilliance!”

What’s so suprising, it’ the way power politics has functioned for thousands of years. ..You poor little boy.

“Me now: No Ho, I’m not naïve anymore, thanks to you, good buddy. Your cogent analysis of history has led me to the realization of the error of my ways.”

Sorry I woke you from your dream (of America standing for anything). But it still could, ..if idiots like you woke up.

“I really don’t think too many people in America were very worried about Communism until the USSR & China started their expansion tactics.”

You can be sure many were, right from the start. Standard Oil lost it’ oil reserves in the Cuacasus, which we’ve only just now got access to again. Monarchy, Religious, business and financial interests all across the west reacted in exactly the same way we did after W.W.II. Worse, again we acted directly, taking part in the Russian Civil War, 1918-22.

Clear after W.II, when Russia was greatly armed (and angry ) after Hitler, the fear grew proportionally, but it was always there, right from the start, to kill communism, only radicalising it along the way.

As for “creating” communism, I mean the idea of collective thought was born out of a time when only a few owned and ran everything, feudal colonialism. In that context the injustice and cruelty at the time spawned communist thought.

Very much like colonial English laws prohibited American ownership of guns, a free press, freedom of speech, an army etc., these were immediately remedied and written into our constitution as soon as we achieved independence. All the things the the English denied us we
took. All the things colonialism denied humanity the communists tried
achieving. Difficult on a constant war footing, ..with the colonialists. Unfortunately that included the United States.

As for radicalising someone or thing, I can’t think of what could
help them along that path more then trying to kill them (or it). It’s not rocket science, but for some peculiar reason beyond comprehension to the Consrvative American idealogue, blinded by his own lies and misconceptions.

Ho responded with this: Who said we had to stay? We could have set up an independent Vietnam like Roosevelt had been talking about for years (he hated the French), and everyone agreed on, except the English (and French). And the U.S. had already brokered a Mao-Chiang alliance.

I respond to that with this: For the U.S. to not have left most of Asia fairly quickly would have been interpreted as the U.S. making its own move toward colonialism & alienated European allies which were important to have as part of NATO. You’ve heard of NATO, haven’t you? The U.S. stayed in those places in Asia where it was diplomatically viable to stay – in the Philippines & Japan. As far as “everyone” agreeing upon setting up an independent Vietnam, except the English & the French – its like saying to a matador everyone will not gore you, except the bulls. Ho, your logic astounds me. But don’t you think China & the USSR(along with the French & English) would have also had objection to such a scheme? Look what happened when the U.S. tried exactly that in South Vietnam a few years later. I like creative, independent thinking about history but you need to not let your imagination get the best of you like it seems to do. As for a “Mao-Chiang alliance,” such a thing never existed. There was only a short-lived truce that fell apart very quickly after Japan surrendered. There wasn’t anyone or anything in the world at that time that could have prevented the struggle in China between the Nationalist & the Communists

I said this on an earlier post: “I’m not sure they would have been wrong if such a far-fetched hypothetical had actually happened.”

In response Ho said this: So we agree the long term presence of U.S. bases represents imperialism, and not only in this example.

I respond now with: Not necessarily, especially when the U.S. military presence is requested. Also, “imperialism” is a very loosely used term, so a fuller answer to you would depend on your definition of the word.

I said this in a previous post: “I say far-fetched because we didn’t really have the resources in manpower or material to keep a large military force throughout Asia since we were rather busy post-WW2 keeping Papa Joe out of those parts of Europe he hadn’t already taken over.”

Ho now asserts back with this: With the European War over there was plenty of man-power and material to re-deploy. The Russian’s never had eyes on western Europe.

I fire back: No Ho, economically & politically the U.S. could never have covered most of the world with a military presence. You see, after you win a war the usual thing to do is send most of the boys home, not keep them all running around Asia. It was practical & necessary to keep a U.S. presence in Europe & a few other places. There was not “plenty of man-power and material to re-deploy.”
Ho, if you think Russia never had designs on Western Europe then your thinking is way, way off in the wild blue yonder. I think today even a totally Marxist historian would admit as much. NATO was expressly formed to keep the USSR contained to the European countries they had already taken over.

I previously posted this: “You could have thrown many of the U.S. post-war alliances out of the window if we had tried something like that.”

Ho retorts: If our alliance is built on colonialism I say good riddens.

And I retort: And I say bad riddance. Our post-WW2 alliances helped to contain the Soviet Union – a very good thing in my opinion.

I offered in a previous post: “As it was, Russia among others, hurled the charge of imperialism at the U.S. because of the forces we kept in Japan & that was just one Asian country.”

Ho now offers up: If our Asian alliances, primarily Chinese and Vietnamese, could have been maintained after W.W. II we wouldn’t need troops in Japan.

My response now is: Ho, you live in an historical dream-world.

Me, in a previous post: “What other business would the U.S. have had in keeping a large military presence throughout the rest of Asia, a rather large area of real estate, than imperialistic designs on that area?”

Ho now believes this: Helping them achieve independence, forging alliances, –acting as a great nation.

I now respond to the above: It is hard to understand exactly what you are saying in the above, for example, who is “them”? And “forging alliances” between what entities? You imply the U.S. was/is not a “great nation.” I believe you are mistaken, but of course as an apologist for the Great Satan, that is only to be expected of me.

I said earlier: “I know, I know. The U.S. loves to promote cruelty & revels in brutality, the more ruthless the better. Why? Because the U.S. loves to torture all those who oppose us, but also because Amerika is the Devil – the Devil I tell you!”

Ho kicks my butt with this: We don’t “love it”, but posses a marvelous capacity to rationilise the use of violence and even torture to protect our strategic interests, primarily economic.

I rebut with this: The “use of violence”? You mean like WW2? Yes, Ho the U.S. is not perfect. I would never claim perfection for the U.S. & yes, the U.S. occasionally descends even into the use of torture. I would even agree with you that U.S. “strategic interests” can coincide with U.S. economic interests, but the difference in our interpretations is that I find nothing too damning in that fact. I want U.S. leaders to look out for U.S. economic & strategic interests – I think they are elected to do, along with other tasks, just that. Can you offer to the readers any country in which the leaders do not see to their country’s economic & strategic interests?

I earlier posted this: “Yes, yes, the U.S. is responsible for Fascism. Fascists are simply our lap-dogs & we created them so our international investments could bring more return to our unprincipled capitalists. Why didn’t I see this before? It’s so clear now – all so clear.”

Ho now pokes me with this: Responsible for facsism? No. But fostering and promoting facsist types (which are every where) when it serves our interests. Again primarily economic.

I now have fun with this: Yes, yes, they are “everywhere,” the.” This very minute there are a bunch of “fascist types’ peering through my window, staring at me, their eyes glittering with greed & malice. Their corrupt whispers fill my head! If only the evil “Uncle Sam” would stop creating them, they might stop tormenting me. But the Great Satan must always have his “return” on his investment & only his lap-dog Fascists, which he creates from the fires of hell enable him to earn his devilish, “primarily economic” profits.

Ho swings with this: And if no one ever told you, political stability is the primary requirement for international investment, yesterday, today, and most likely tomorrow. ..Where have you been?

I rock with this: Ho, Fascism is not very conducive to political stability. And I have been right here where I am, observing that Fascism is not politically very stable.

Earlier I posted: “I don’t think Roosevelt or Churchill or many people outside of Russia before WW2 knew the full extent of Stalin’s deadly brutality.”

Puzzled, Ho now posts this: That’s strange, every diplomatic mission in Russia was reporting wide spread, internal political repression, and the sad state of the country-side.

I reply now: Maybe some suspected, but they didn’t know the full extent of the starvation & murder going on.

Earlier from me: “Churchill didn’t trust him, true, but as far as what was actually known … But what could the U.S. have done if the U.S. had known, declare war on the USSR?”

Amazed, Ho asserts now: How about not aid Hitler? (Don’t tell me you never heard about it)

Resigned, I now key this: No, I haven’t “heard about it,” but I got a funny feeling you are going to fill us in on it.

Earlier from me: “Before WW2, during the 20s & 30s when most of the murder by Stalin occurred, the U.S.(& Britain) had its intelligentsia busily assuring everyone that Papa Joe was the nicest fellow you could possibly imagine”.

Ho now in response: Some perhaps. Then there were others who dispatched U.S. troops to join the European (and Czarist) assault to topple the Bolscheviks, from their inseption, before they had done anything wrong (other then overthrow their abusive King). This mistake certainly radicalised their regime.

Me now: “Some,” hell – most of the intelligentsia was rabidly pro-Stalin. According to them Papa Joe was just what the world needed. Where do you get the “dispatched U.S. troops”/Czarist/European assault on Bolsheviks thing? I’m completely mystified as to what you may be referring.

Me earlier: “Ho, you are forgetting that it was mostly Western nations that brought Hitler & Nazism to their end?”

Ho now: It was also western “nations”, powerful sectors of them anyway, that aided Hitler from beginning to end. Why? Because he was anti-communist. Appeasement? I don’t buy it. “We” wanted him (Hitler) to be there. He was an anti-communist that wanted to purge bolschevism.

Me earlier: “How can you say the West was not interested in doing that when the historical facts are exactly the opposite?”

Ho now: The historic facts are exactly the opposite. Hitler was an anti-communist with powerful friends in the west. Germany was a bulwark against communism after W.W.II, why on earth wouldn’t it be before W.W.II? Because there was no Communist threat? A most ridiculous assumption.

Me now: The U.S. joined in a war that brought Hitler & the Nazis to ruin. That’s not aiding Fascism, that’s killing Fascism. Hitler was anti-everything. That he was an anti-Communist proves nothing.

My earlier attempt to synthesize Ho’s theory: “..by opposing communism the U.S. is responsible for all the world’s misery”

Ho’s clarification now: Not the U.S. But we did an admirable job of taking over the torch of European Imperialism, the cause of communism in the first place.

Me now: Ho, you wander confused in a historical dream-land of speculation, conspiracy theory & paranoia.

Me earlier: “But look up the sequence of events: A formal military alliance was concluded between the UK, France and Poland in 1939, after which the USSR initiated alliance negotiations with those 3 countries without success.”

Ho now: First England and France stood by as Hitler goobled up a good deal, even handing him over Czechoslovakia, then the worlds no. 1 arms exporter, a country he couldn’t have taken even if he wanted to (not to mention their gold). As for Russia, unlike westeners quite aware of Hitler’s vehnement anti-bolschevism, immediately sought to forge a western alliance against Hitler, that is, from 1933, not 1939.

Me now: So your theory is England & France wanted Hitler to succeed? To thwart Stalin? Ho, I can’t figure out if you are left or so far right that you come full circle & bump up against the left.

Me earlier: “Go ask the UK, France and Poland why they wouldn’t accept Russia into the alliance”

Ho now: It was clear why they didn’t. They were anti-communist, pro-Hitler (certain factions an