|
|||||||||
Posted August 14, 2001
Happy Ignorance
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of August 10, "Harry Truman, War Criminal":]
The
surest path to irrelevance for an anti-interventionist today is to go
on and on about WWII. As a historian, the arguments about FDR's duplicity
and relative beautification in the eyes of the political/academic establishment
interest me, but they are beside the point. Justin Raimondo should learn
from Pat Buchanan's example -- do not let your message get drowned out
by being labeled "an apologist for National Socialism/Japanese
atrocities." Stick with telling the truth about politically correct
forms of imperialism and you will go far, but don't get sucked into
endless debates over the good/evil intentions of Tojo.
Personally,
I find the stark contrast between the endless German brooding over the
past and contemporary Japan's happy ignorance about their grandfathers'
war troubling, and Mr. Raimondo along with the historians who caused
an uproar at the Smithsonian a few years ago only excuse this attitude.
~ Charles Ganske, Ft. Worth, TX, UT-Austin c/o 2004
Justin Raimondo replies:
Mr. Ganske warns me about getting sucked into another debate over the true origins of World War II, and then invites me to engage in yet another one.
I agree that it would be a mistake to overemphasize the point, but World War II and its origins are closely bound up with the War Party's propaganda techniques. How many times has a contemporary figure, such as Saddam Hussein, or Slobodan Milosevic, been compared to Hitler? The Kosovo war was fought amid recurrent images of the war against Germany: alleged "concentration camps," war crimes, and now a Nuremberg-like Tribunal.
Inevitably, the advocates of a noninterventionist foreign policy are confronted with the question: "But surely you would have intervened to stop Hitler?" So we must make the historical argument, as well as all the other arguments -- political, moral, economic, military, etc. -- against the idea that the US must become a global hegemon.
No one is making any excuses for atrocities, Japanese or whatever, and I don't believe there is one iota of that in anything I have written: my main interest is to set the historical record straight, and show why the "good war" wasn't so good after all.
Roosevelt Knew
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of August 10, "Harry Truman, War Criminal":]
I have just read Justin's article, and was astounded to say the least.
Let me give you some background on myself. I grew up in southern Ohio as a conservative Republican back in the '60s. My grandfather was a wonderful laid back school teacher who was a Republican Central committeeman. These were the real conservatives, not the people posing as conservatives now! For months as I lay recuperating from a horrible car wreck, and he was dying of cancer, he intimated to me most all of Justin's facts in his rebuttal of Tom Ambrose!
He had seen documents that proved Roosevelt knew in advance that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. It was eerie to read that article -- here the man I most respected, telling me this and much more that has come to pass, and now I know where to reference these facts! I read Worldnet Daily, and thank God I do, they did publish the link to Justin's article -- that's how I found it!
I quit the Republican party three months ago, and like the movement in the Reform party, and am considering starting a Conservative party. If Justin, or anyone has any thoughts, e-mail me back.
~ Bill McClure, Publisher, Roanoke Journal
Terms of Surrender
The
opinions of your writers on Iraq are just amazing. They seem to have
forgotten that Iraq initiated the situation. That to stop their aggression
the UN had to form a coalition and defeat Iraq. The no-fly zone
is a component of the negotiated surrender. Whether they like
the no-fly zone or not it is something they agreed to in order
to end the devastation of their country. They also agreed to free and
uninhibited inspections.
The mistake the US has made is not returning fire. It is in not enforcing
the terms of the surrender to the letter. First time Saddam refused
to allow a facility to be inspected it should have been destroyed. The
first time there was an incursion into the no-fly zone the Iraqi aircraft
should have been downed.
Iraq is in full control of the situation. Comply with the terms of surrender
and no airplanes get shot down, no facilities get bombed, and sanctions
get lifted. Since when do we allow enemies to negotiate one set of surrender
terms when they're getting shelled and let them negotiate a second set
of terms once our troops have withdrawn, the fighting has stopped, and
they've rebuilt their forces?
~ R. M. Russon
No Santa Claus
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of August 10, "Harry Truman, War Criminal":]
You've got it right. Roosevelt and Truman were both criminals. Some people talk about Roosevelt as if he were a kindly old grandfather or Santa Claus. The man was evil, through and through He indeed "lied us into war." Thanks for writing so clearly on the subject.
No Sense of History
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of August 10, "Harry Truman, War Criminal":]
...Again, you are articulating a point of view that to my way of thinking is right on the mark. Americans have no sense of history, and the media and those "inside the beltway" are helping them stay that way. I love to read your articles. Keep it going, my friend.
~ T. Schinkel