Captain's Quarters -

Daniel Pipe's father, who escaped from the Nazi's. Is such a wonderful gentlemen. He was a professor at Harvard. And, actually was called in to work in Reagan's first administration.

And, he wrote a wonderful book! Title escapes me, now.

But he wrote about a trip he took to Moscow, around 1992. The time of the Rodney King Riots.

The KGB thought this would be wonderful TV for the russians, so they showed it, wall-to-wall.

Now, up until that point the russian people had no access to us at all. And, they were told they were better off than people in the USA.

Of course, we knew their shelves were empty. But, they did not know about US.

Ya know? The russians lowered the volume, just to look at the pictures. And, they couldn't believe their eyes. Blacks were wearing NEW JEANS. NEW SNEAKERS! And, they had cars! And, there were stores, here, with enough TV's, that the people could go in and form long lines as each and every TV, stolen, made its debut on camera!

That was the first time the truth dawned on lots of russians. They just didn't know. The truth was hidden.

Then, Pipes, Senior, made another observation. He was on the subway, leaving Moscow; when the train arrived in the station, and the doors wouldn't open. No one got up to help the few who wanted to exit. Broken doors? They had to sit down and move onward with the train.

So, here's the comment:

If you were in NYC, on the subway, at that happened, strangers would come up and grab the doors at the center. STicking their fingers around the rubber; and from both sides people would pull. Until the doors gave way. And, opened for passengers to exit.

Pipes added, for strangers to get up and help; something we in the West take for granted, is not how it is in russia! There no one trusts another! PERIOD.

Oh, and Pipes went on to say, that if you were on a train in Tel Aviv, and that happened? The Israelis would remove the doors from their hinges!

Again, strangers to the rescue.

Way more than the spilling of blood.

But the russians have had this spirit beaten out of them.

Actually, in the strictest technical sense, the United States stayed out of both world wars until acts of aggression were launched against them. It was then and only then that the prominent isolationist movement in the congress and the country could be overcome.

Congress did not declare war on Germany in 1941, Hitler declared against America in response to the US declaration against Japan.

For the United States as well, freedom and liberty were secondary concerns. Americans just happen to be more responsive to rhetoric about the defense of liberty than anyone else.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing...

Captain:

Hear, hear.

The United States is the first imperial power in the history of the world that didn't want to build an empire. All we have ever asked of the nations we have fought in is enough land to bury our honored dead.

Colin Powell said it. You have said it. The moonbats don't want to believe it, but it's out there for everyone to see. The only ones who don't want to admit it have their own political axe to grind.

Our military is the equal of everyone else's combined. We could, if we wanted to, conquer the world without breaking a sweat.

I sincerely doubt that our detractors in the Middle East and Europe would be able to resist the temptation to conquer the world, if they had the same power. Perhaps we should be grateful that they don't.

In the meantime.... They *really* need to read up on the Jacksonians. Hamiltonians, Wilsonians, and Jeffersonians have been in control for the past few years.... but the Jacksonians are beginning to awaken. *No*body wants to piss off the Jacksonians. I greatly fear that may be happening.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_1999_Winter/ai_58381618/print

Things will get very interesting (in the Chinese sense) if that happens.

Thompson makes an insipid argument. Ed's defense is also insipid and misleading. The United States entered the war in 1941 because its Pacific Fleet was attacked and because Germany declared war on the United States. Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939... not because they were attacked, but because they elected to combat Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.

There are better ways to promote the contributions of the United States to freedom and democracy which do not insult those nations who fought longer and at a greater cost than the United States during WWII. Thompson is an arsehole for coming out with such pathetic schoolyard rhetoric.

"We could, if we wanted to, conquer the world without breaking a sweat."

Er... no we can't.

Great post.

It is a great source of continued deppression that "one of our premiere news sources" can consistantly be so inaccurate and publish such absurd tripe.
Little wonder that MSM irrelevance is one of the greatest growth opportunities in the US.
However, if you think they are bad, try the European press- and they continue to be Mainstream.

lexhamfox.... I'm sorry, but you might want to consider Jacksonian viewpoints.

The Jacksonian answer to Iranian saber-rattling would be to send the Marines in to paint the lines for the parking lot on the radioactive glass that would be all that remained of Tehran.

Read the essay I linked. *That* is why I suggest that they don't want to awaken the Jacksonians.

And you might want to check _Jane's_. The USN is the equal of every other navy in the world, put together. The US Army defeated the 4th largest army in the world in 1991, and steamrolled over what was left of it in 2003. Are you suggesting that any other military force in the world could make them break a sweat?

Nations are dragged into wars for many reasons, and freeing other peoples is seldom if ever primary - did the French liberate the American colonies from tyrannical British rule or did they see the American Revolution as a cheap way to tie up the British for a while?

The British involvement in WW1 had its roots generally in a traditional policy of backing weaker Continental powers against the stronger, and specifically in the Edwardian embrace of France vis-a-vis Germany, but the proximate cause of their entry into the war was the German seizure of Belgium enroute to the French side door - so, prima facie, British involvement in WW1 was one of freeing others.

An involvement for which they bled, and bled, and bled.

While history numbers Great Britain among the victors in both World Wars, and while they lost a smaller percentage of their population to war than France or Germany, they were uniquely exhausted by the effort and one result was the dismemberment of the empire.

The US has never sent its soldiers off to die in the numbers the Russians, or the Germans, or the French, or the British did in WW1. Only the Civil War comes close. Our involvement in WW1 was brief, and nowhere in WW2 outside the Eastern Front did casualties approach WW1 levels.

I, shockingly, agree with lexhamfox here. Thompsons statement is juvenile and unproductive.
The contributions by other nations in terms of blood sweat and treasure are considerable. It's not constructive to wave the banner of sacrifice as if we have a monopoly on it.

The US has much to be proud of in advancing freedoms ideal (our Constitution being our gift to mankind) yet we've also done our share of damage in the name of big business interests.

I would suggest to Steffan that before he claims that the US Navy is unbeatable, I would suggest he consider that a major naval standoff between two technologically advanced foes has never occured. The only example we have is the Falklands war, and all you have to do is look at the damage the Brits incurred at the hands of a vastly inferior Argentinian air force (the Argentinian pilots performed with incredible skill and bravery).

I would submit that a naval battle between the US and China or Russia would be a blood bath in which neither side would win. A ship is the last place I would want to be in an era of cruise missiles and long range tactical weaponry.

Hitler and Tojo started wars against the USA. The USA finished the wars. USA finished off the USSR. Only the USA could have done what it did. As for WaPo, well facts have never stood in the way of a WaPo story.

Arguments about what the US military could or could not do MUST take the popular will into account. I shudder to think of what would happen if, over fifteen years, the will of the American people was concentrated on such a project. Doubtless we would overextend ourselves, but it would probably be in ruling, not in fighting. The cost to the world would be enormous, not the least in the loss of aid that flows from the USA daily through both public and private channels.

The basic argument here about American "blood and treasure" being spilled for others can be argued. But there is a very strong case for Fred Thompson's thesis. Soviet Russia rebuild eastern Europe as a bunch of closely monitored satellites. The USA helped to rebuild the shattered states of western Europe, and suffered the machinations of DeGaulle without sending tanks to Paris. And the foriegn aid that flows from private sources via the Red Cross, churches, and hundreds of other groups testifies to the spirit in which America reaches out to the world. A duty and an obligation to the less fortunate, you say? But the very fact of that belief makes my point--and buttresses Thompson's.

Why did the Japanese attack us? Why did Hitler declare war? Don’t you think “we” could have “made a deal” with the Japanese and Hitler…instead of going to war? Maybe we could have told the Japanese to go ahead with their killing/raping of the Chinese and other Asians. Tell them we’ll turn our backs as long as they promise to continue trading with us after they expand their empire…same with Hitler. Let him have France/Western Europe. Let him continue to fight the Russian commies…as long as he’ll trade with us when he’s done? Assuming he would have defeated the Russians (likely but not a foregone conclusion) if he didn’t hold up his end of the bargain wouldn’t we just have had an extended “Cold War” against the Nazi instead of the commies? Sure there would have been millions more of the Europeans who would have suffered under the boot of communism, but maybe that would have helped us more today? Many of the "former communists" are more friendly to us now than are the Western Europeans who we helped keep free of the yoke.

As for “conquering the world” Hugh Beaumont is more correct than others. Deciding who “won” a war is always a matter of perspective and depends on when you want to say the war is “over”. When was WWII over? Weren’t the “Cold War”…the Korean War …Vietnam War somehow connected? How ‘bout WWI “causing” WWII?

Most people would agree with this idea when applied to the current “conflict” in Iraq…but depending on your time perspective, it also applies to the “Great Wars”. History is an iterative process. It’s happening all the time!

Even if we “nuked the world”…would we have “won” the war? Would we occupy the conquered territory – most of it would NOT be radioactive? Or just leave it to fester…and go back and nuke them again every once in a while to keep them from coming back for revenge? Pick just about any two or three European countries. I would submit that the U.S. could absolutely NOT win a war against them if they were allied against us…Regardless of how much of a mismatch you see in the military machines of the countries involved.

Why even ask the question? It’s all academic since the vast majority of Americans don’t want to conqueror anyone. Most don’t even want to fight the ME lunatics. Would rather make a deal with them to leave us alone. Unfortunately, I don’t think that will work though…less so than it MAY have worked with the Japanese/Hitler.

Being a Canook, LexHam always cracks me up with his babble….probably thinks the U.S. is evil because “we” invaded Canada in the 1812 conflict…they beat us back. I’d submit that they could do it again. Even though a couple well armed Cub Scout packs could probably give the Armed Forces of Canada a run for their money…I don’t think we could conqueror Canada if we went to war with them tomorrow. How long would we have to occupy their huge land area before they were pacified enough to not keep fighting back? What do you think the rest of the world would do if we invaded Canada? Do you think they’d help or oppose?

No shipmates. You should take your Q from the majority of Americans who don’t want to conquer anyone. How about we just focus on the conflict we’re already up to our eyebrows in? Maybe we can shape history just enough to make it favor us a little more the next time around?

Let's see...

WWI: Were we attacked? Sort of, but the loss of American lives in the sinking of the Lusitania hardly justified us entering that war. Anybody remember the words for the song "Over There"?

WWII: Were we attacked? Yes, but did we really need to respond in the manner that we did? As Paleocon Pat Buchanan has noted, we surely could've let Europe stew in its own juices. Yet the first thing we did after being attacked by Japan was to send our best men and equipment to fight the Germans. What was that all about? Did the bluster of a German declaration of war really necessitate our involvement? It's not like they were ever going to invade and conquer us. Heck, we were fighting the Germans (illegally) before Pearl Harbor - American destroyers were escorting British ships and attacking German submarines in 1940. Also, the Japanese were hardly in any position to invade and conquer us. Maybe take Wake Island, maybe even Hawaii, but were they really so important that we had to fight the war in the Pacific? Nope.

Korea: Clearly a war for American empire.

Vietnam: Ditto.

1st Gulf War: A war for oil, except George H. W. was so stupid he forgot and gave Kuwait their country back.

Somalia: More empire building.

Bosnia: Empire.

If you look at the big picture you'll see that America's wartime endeavors during the 20th century have largely been altruistic. It sounds like we have a few posters here over educated in historical revisionism. They are wrong, Fred and the Captain are right.

I think possibly the Senator was thinking of more recent conflicts.

Every war up to and including WW II was about each participant's own self-interest and therefore not part of his equation. Until then nobody fought primarily for other people's liberty, each country fought to protect or advance its own territory and interests or solely to defend itself. The "freeing" of other people was only an incidental benefit if it happened at all.

But in the period after WW II his statement is at least arguably accurate. We've fought in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War and now Iraq for reasons that do seem to have at least as much to do with other people's liberty as they do with our own self-interest. And while other countries have participated in the cause, they haven't lost as many people as we have.

The Washington Post? Biased against Republicans? Who woulda thunk it!

This entire line of debate, beginning most prominently with the Post, is silly, because it's an argument about motives. That said, I've actually heard Democrats ask why there's any difference between Iranians helping insurgents to attack Americans in Iraq and the U.S. helping Afghans to fight the Soviet invaders! That's how debased they've become.

Fundamentally, we are a "shining city on a hill". Have we acted contrary to that principle at times? Absolutely. Does the struggle to reach that ideal continue? Absolutely.

Colin Powell said much the same thing as Fred Thompson and they were both right.

If not for the US, would there even be a South Korea today? That might have been a UN effort, but it was the United States who risked its standing army.

Yes, we got involved in WW2 after we were attacked, but the Japanese and the Nazis came after the US because we refused to abandon our allies or our principles.

And when that war was over we rebuilt the countries we defeated and left them with democratic forms of government.

Some time ago I read a letter from an old Polish man who said he liked Americans because they had come to the aid of Poland so many times. The first time he remembered in the humanitarian efforts of the US led by Herbert Hoover during WW1. That was the first time any nation had gone out of its way to provide aid for millions of people not its citizens.

And the end of WW2 the US came up with the Marshall Plan, on the other hand the Soviets were willing to risk war with the US to stop the Berlin Airlift because they were not done punishing the Germans.

Big difference.

I think Thompson is guilty of a bit of an overstatement, but his basic thesis rings true: Americans have not typically gone to war for national self-aggrandizement and empire-building since 1847. Our record in the past century has generally been good: we haven't gone around invading people to steal their territory but rather have either liberated them from an invader (France, Kuwait) or tried to help them defend themselves (South Korea, South Vietnam). Has our record been 100% altruistic? Of course not, but I think we can look with pride at what we did in Europe after World War II and I think we WILL be able to look back with pride at what we've done in A-stan and Iraq. I find it ironic that the same people who throw mud on our record (i.e. libs) are the same ones who think that, to the extent we should have done ANYTHING in Iraq, we should have simply knocked off Saddam and let the chips fall where they may instead of trying to rebuild the country into something better for its people (and, in fairness, us).

What the WaPo misses (either willfully or through stupidity; it could be either with them) is Fred's assertion that Americans have died for liberty. Soviet soldiers, though FAR more of them died than GI's fighting Hitler, were NOT fighting for anybody's liberty. The same cannot be said about the British Commonwealth nations, however, and we would do well to recognize the contributions made to the cause of liberty in the 20th century by the British, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Rhodesians, etc, etc.

swabjockey,

I often muse about our neighbors to the north and their military prowess. The Canadians are usually a most unwarlike people, but if history is any guide, they are among the last people you need to get riled up. This is why I'm so glad that they are on our side in A-stan.

Yes, Woodrow Wilson had the Nation suffer many ships sunk, before the Lusitania. He had also heard of the Armenian Genocide going on from his own Ambassador in the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morganthau in 1915. President Wilson refused to even think of attacking the Ottoman's and was warned by many in Congress and by Theodore Roosevelt that if America did not confront the allies of those that attacked us, we would have NO say in the post-war world. It is not enough to have many grand and grandiose ideas of ethnic homelands and 'just peace' if you are not willing to fight for it across the board. Why did France and Great Britain end up dictating the various peace treaties? Because President Wilson would not do the one thing that would put the US at the 'adult' table of world affairs: fight those that had allied with an enemy that attacked us.

He was one that established that TRADE would bring LIBERTY to the Middle East. We have heard that mantra again and again and again throughout the last 90 years and, looking out at a world that not only has material goods but that has low cost organizations waging predatory warfare unaccountably on all Nations, I really do question why mere physical goods are supposed to promote liberty. That has not worked for 90 years in the Middle East and for over 30 years in China. People who are not free and have no liberty do not own goods they buy: they are baubles that those in authority can take away as they please. The foundation of liberty is understanding one's inalienable rights and then putting one's hard work to just ends as one sees fit to make a better world for yourself and others. That creates *trade* and economies. President Wilson did not want to endanger US oil companies or manufacturing in Ottoman Turkey, and saw no reason why an ally of Germany, supporting and supplying her, would need to be attacked.

In a short ten years America altered her course in regards to government, representation and in foreign policy, shifting off a path of promoting liberty and freedom even if it *did* cost us trade. That is because the value of trade with free people is beyond any material gain or profit from an authoritarian or dictatorial society that provides little or no freedom to her people. This fine multi-culti, no nation can do no wrong world we are in *today* finds its start with President Wilson unwilling to go by the US concept of liberty and freedom making people free FIRST.

For all of his grand and grandiose words of 14 points and working to end the 'scourge of war' he refused to recognize that war is how we keep Nations accountable in this law of nations system. By trying to not fight bad wars or ugly wars, we are now left with the worst wars of all to fight to sustain ourselves and civilization, while many Nations are turning their back on that. And many cheer on that day when Nations fall and the unelected rule over them. That comes from the Transnationalists of the Left, Right and Terrorist persuasions.

America, unless we forget, was built on a Revolution in the affairs of mankind. We are a Nation and recognize that via the law of nations, which was understood even before this Nation was born. The Revolution was that liberty and freedom could be made within a Nation and held by its People via democratic means in a republic. That Revolution was started in 1776 for Liberty and Freedom, so that all of mankind could see the value in having those things and understanding that they, too, can be free. The greatest concept America hands out is: if you want it done, do it yourself. Put your Liberty to work for your ethics, morals and conscience and build that better world around you. Preach if you feel the need, but then put your hard work where your mouth is to demonstrate your values are worth working towards. To those that go out on these lovely marches and demonstrations: what else are you doing to create a 'better world'? If you complain about Darfur, then why do you not organize and seek imprimatur of a friendly Nation and go over there and FIX IT by force of arms against the predators feasting upon the innocent? For all the millions spent on 'awareness campaigns' you could have put hundreds if not thousands of troops on the ground to fight to protect the people there. The US as a Nation is busy right now, trying to figure out why we have a clueless and incompetent set of elected officials who can't figure out what it means to have a Nation state. But *you* can uphold that by showing *your* willingness to fight for the right of others to be free from oppression and you might even get the highest backing of our Nation in that. Well do we have the power to hand out Letters of Marque and Reprisal to citizens facing the ills of the Nation and the world and opposing them.

Americans have done that before in long lists of conflicts: fighting Japan before the entry of the US by volunteering to go to China, fighting in the Spanish civil war, even fighting in the Greek Civil war when she sought freedom from the Ottomans. Regular Americans may not agree with the ideals of those who went, but the question of the backing for those is absolute and applauded. They did not wait for government to tell them what was right to help spread liberty and freedom: they did it. Americans gave and heartily to the Armenians undergoing 'ethnic cleansing' in the late 19th century and Clara Barton stepped foot in the Ottoman Empire and got our donated goods THROUGH the bureaucracy and the Empire so she could tell of those horrors at first hand. Our government dithered,Americans acted. Clara Barton was awarded a medal by the Ottomans for doing that, because of her beliefs and courage in opposition and winning through their obstinacy.

Spare me your 'government action' when our ancestors have shown the way to uphold our beliefs in foreign lands, and often pay the ultimate price in tending to the sick, the needy and educating the poor. That era started to end when *trade* was put in front of working for liberty and freedom. America was unwilling to pay the price in 1917 for a more just world... is it any wonder it became less and less just as time went on?

Cap'n,

Considering we didn't enter WWII until we were attacked by Japan and that there was real fear that if England and all of Europe fell to the Nazis, that the US would be next in Hitler's eye-sights. We entered the war out of self-interest, just as the Soviets did. I'm sure others have noted this, I haven't read the other posts yet.

And Ed, the Post notes the same exact arguments you make against it. It's a perfectly reasonable piece with an unreasonable reaction by yourself.

The unidentified writer

Michael Dobbs, as identified at the top of the page.

How are you linking to that page? The front page of the Post's Web site links here.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/

quickjustice: Fundamentally, we are a "shining city on a hill". Have we acted contrary to that principle at times? Absolutely. Does the struggle to reach that ideal continue? Absolutely.

I think this demonstrates a sort of "glass half empty / glass half full" view of America, our role in the world, and our history. Thompson and many of the commenters here have a very favorable view of our country; we are a "shining city on the hill" despite sins of ommission and sins of commission we have committed in the past. Those of us who have this view naturally bristle when the motives and history of the United States are questioned or sneered at. We are proud of our country's history and contribution to the world.

There are others, however, who do NOT have this view. To them (need it be said that most of them are liberals?), the US is at best just another country and at worst one of the most evil, wicked, malevolent, selfish, genocidal, imperialistic, oppressive, hypocritical, greedy, destructive nations to ever blight the face of the earth. The idea that America would EVER do anything "good" much less altruistic is incomprehensible to people like this. Naturally, they bristle when the motives and history of the United States are praised or championed. They scoff at our country's history and contribution to the world.

Terrye: And the end of WW2 the US came up with the Marshall Plan, on the other hand the Soviets were willing to risk war with the US to stop the Berlin Airlift because they were not done punishing the Germans.

Big difference.

Very well said.

Wash Compost is a division of Clinton Inc. and the DNC. Naturally , any comments made by Fred will be intentionally distorted and misreported to help achieve there socialist world order. Just look at all those wonderful intentional misreported quotes of Greenspan.The Compost intentionally lied and sent out Press releases which were flat out lies on what what he said said about Iraq,Iraq oil, the housing market etc.. , The facts do not get in the way of the Wash Compost desire to push the DNC/ Clinton Inc talking points and trash Bush.For the next two years,the Compost, Slimes, and the ABC networks will throw out every lie and distorted quote they got about Fred or Rudy to get there Queen Hilary crowned !

Tom,

First, you can see where I linked, and when I wrote this, it had no byline. It was in their news section, not the blog.

Japan attacked us, and where did we first strike? North Africa.

Why did Japan attack us? Because we were embargoing oil, due to their brutal occupation of China. We started an economic war against them in an attempt to force them out of their conquests in the Pacific Rim.

Are you seriously going to argue that the Soviets died for the freedom and liberty of people other than themselves? Really? That's a "reasonable" position?

And about my "unreasonable" response -- is Michael Dobbs a college student whose innocence you need to defend? Because this routine is getting old.

No country on the planet has fought longer and harder for freedom and democracy than the United States. In WWII, the Soviet Union was fighting to replace one totalitarian regime with another.

It is refreshing to see some posters recognise other countries sacrifice's in ww1/2.
The usual 'we saved your asses' and 'if it wasn't for us you would be speaking german' has caused saddness and disbelief from our(u.k) old soldiers.
They believe that the hero's are those that were left behind,whatever the nationality.
Some in the U.S then seem to think that because we 'saved' you that gives you right to demand total agreement to any U.S foreign policy,even if it is against the will of their people.
Again, i appreciate the different views posted here and the balanced approach towards other countries history.

I'll note that the Spanish-American war was basically the swan song of American Imperialism.

The assertion that Korea or Vietnam were some sort of American wars of conquest are mindless blather. What did we take from Korea? What did we intend to get from Vietnam? It's as bad as the slander that we went to Iraq to steal the oil. Anyone with a pencil, an internet connection, and half a brain can figure out that the cheapest and easiest way to get it would be to buy it from Saddam. Heck, we care so much about oil that we won't drill in ANWR or off the coast of Florida.

Did the US wait until we were attacked to get involved in WWII? Absolutely. The isolationists wouldn't have had it any other way.

But look at what we did after the war -- no harsh peace terms on Japan & Germany, rather we wanted to rebuild them as functioning democracies. Same with the Philippines & South Korea later on.
Let's see, the Philippines senate voted basically to kick us out of their country and so we revamped the naval base there into a nice commercial port and left. Contrast that with Hungary in 1956 & Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Germany also has a sizable anti-American contingent despite our having 70,000 troops there.

Fred's point is that we don't go to war to seek an empire, but rather to liberate nations from tyrants who threaten the world & harm their own people; which is a damn sight better than what has gone on throughout the rest of history.

Oh, and as for our "late" entry into WWII, it wasn't until August 1945 that our "ally" USSR declared war on Japan.

is Michael Dobbs a college student whose innocence you need to defend?

the quick answer to that would be "I highly doubt it."

Are you seriously going to argue that the Soviets died for the freedom and liberty of people other than themselves? Really? That's a "reasonable" position?

Well, first of all, I call it a reasonable piece in part because it acknowledges the point you counter with within the piece... then it goes on to make its point even without using the Soviets as an example.

But, yes, I will say Soviets died for the freedom and liberty of other people. Those 8 million who died didn't live to see what Stalin did to East Germany after war. I've got to believe most of the Soviet soldiers were fighting to defend their homeland and to defeat Hitler, just like the US soldiers.

I think Hugh Beaumont put it best:

The contributions by other nations in terms of blood sweat and treasure are considerable. It's not constructive to wave the banner of sacrifice as if we have a monopoly on it.

DocJim writes: There are others, however, who do NOT have this view. To them (need it be said that most of them are liberals?), the US is at best just another country and at worst one of the most evil, wicked, malevolent, selfish, genocidal, imperialistic, oppressive, hypocritical, greedy, destructive nations to ever blight the face of the earth.

________________________________

Other than maybe Noam Chomsky and the chick who edits The Nation, who do you know who thinks that?
Not me or any of my liberal friends. Heck, even the hated Markos over at Kos served in the army.

Believe it or not, my liberal husband and I teach our kids to love America, to appreciate the great gift they have been given for the opportunity to live here, to strive to make sure that we live up to that standard of a "shining city" and that there are some fights worth fighting in the world. As do our other liberal Democrat friends.

Maybe you need to expand your circle of acquaintences a little. I promise we won't bite.

Thompson doesn't talk policy, he pushes fluff you suppporters call Red Meat.

If Thompson does nothing but serve up FLUFF, then the Fluff should be fact checked.

OK, Freddie loves his country and is proud to be an American.

What ELSE does he know?

Maybe it needs to be said here that there is nothing wrong with fighting to protect one's own liberty. The Soviets may not have fought Nazi Germany in defense of freedom for others but that doesn't make their sacrifices on the battlefield any less heroic, even if they were motivated solely to protect their own country.

Having read some about the siege at Stalingrad I have to say I think it's a good thing we've never actually had to fight the Russians one-on-one anywhere (that I can think of anyway). Tough people, and motivated as much by their own sense of patriotism as we are by ours.

While I think Thompson is literally correct in stating that Americans "have shed more blood for other people's liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world", the liberty of others has rarely been our primary objective in fighting. With the possible exception of Bosnia we have fought against threats to our own interests. And while some would disagree, there is no shame in that.

I'm sure prisoners of this camp thought the Red Army fought for their liberty:

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

I'm just as sure that the Poles who got "liberated" by the Soviets would have a completely different perspective than yours, Tom. Why don't you ask one how they felt about that "liberation"? Oh, and don't forget, the reason the Soviet Union allied with Hitler -- you know, the one who opened that death camp -- was to carve Poland up and toss it on the ash heap of history.

Unbelievable. You'll act as an apologist for the worst dictators of the world, won't you? Anyone who sees Joseph Stalin as a liberator should ask Michael Dobbs for a couple of those dunce caps.

"I'm sure prisoners of this camp thought the Red Army fought for their liberty:"

Yes Tom, but for how long?

Ed, this is an excellent post, one of your very best.

"Anyone who can't figure this much out has no business writing for a professional newspaper."
Maybe it's because the Post is a professional propaganda sheet

Prior to 12/7/1941 the US was shipping vast amounts of war material to enemies of Germany. We were engaged in naval warfare in the Atlantic involving torpedoes, depth charges and deck guns.

Prior to 12/7/1945 we were also supplying enemies of Japan and had ceased supplying Japan with war material i.e. scrap iron. They had a dire need for steel. Our military fighter pilots were allowed to "resign" their commissions, go to China, and shoot at Japanese zeros and receive fire on their US supplied P40s. The commissions reappeared with promotions when war was declared.

The war didn't start for us on 11/7/1945.

the other burt

Tom Shipley,
Russian soldiers were dying in high numbers because life was very cheap for good, old "Uncle Joe". Many of the Russian solders died from the NKWD machine guns, since they didn't have right to withdraw, under any circumstances... There was even a popular saying in the Russian Army at the time: "There is many of us".
But did they fight for freedom of other nations? Ask some Poles, or Lithuanians, or Estonians, or Fins, or Czechs, or Slovaks, or Hungarians. But watch out when doing it, some may beat you up, even now.

Addendum to my previous post:

I think it's important to note that while, as I have stated, the U.S. has fought first and foremost in her own interests - it is beyond question that where we have prevailed, so too has liberty.

Well, Ed, I'm not acting as an apologist for Stalin, just for Russian troops who fought in World War II, as I noted in my previous post.

But, yes, you and others bring up a good point in that, does it really matter given what the Soviets did after the war? In the grand scheme of things, probably not. But I also do think the actual Russian soldiers who fought in WWII -- when speaking of just their actions -- fought nobly.

You ask many US vets why they fought... what were they fighting for? Many will say they were fighting for the guy next to them. And from what I've seen and read (not first hand experience, mind you), it seems there's a certain bond that occurs between warring soldiers after a war in which there's an understanding their are in the same place. Their fighting valiantly for their country. And in large part, it's not up to them what side they are on.

Now watch how the liberal turns this around and makes it about Iraq... this underscores the importance of our people to make sure our government only goes to war when necessary, for the right cause at the right time. Soldiers follow orders. Democracies need to make sure their leaders are following the people's will when going to war (which is hard when a false case for war is given).

Wow, what a great discussion. Comment threads usually are the habitat of bottom feeders, but these posts show a great knowledge of history and political philosophy. Kudos.

Andrew Jackson is my hero.

I think many of you are missing the point here. The Washington Post, as Capt. Ed pointed out, ignored Thompson's qualifier: Americans shed more blood for the freedom of OTHERS. They totally ignored this, and, thus, their entire criticism is unfair and dishonest. They did not for one moment consider our or anyone else's INTENT in waging war. Whether our intent in fighting WWII was to liberate others from tyranny may be argued (though I believe we clearly had the most altruistic intentions of anyone; we had the least to lose by not fighting and the most reasons not to get involved*), but the fact of the matter is the Washington Post ignored this and only said that other countries lost more in WWII. The Post behaved shamelessly. For anyone here to defend such dishonesty is itself shameful.

That said, Tom Shipley shows himself to be a moral monster by arguing that Stalin fought for the liberty of others in WWII. Really? Where do you find evidence of this intent, Tom? Stalin's words? No. Stalin's actions? No. Stalin and his successors' treatment of Eastern Europe after the war? No.

_____________

* And by "involved" I mean the various belligerant actions we took against Japan and Germany prior to December 7, 1941. Really, all you people attacking Capt. Ed are amazingly ignorant (to say the least) of history.

It is disgusting how many voices here are clearly defeatist and apologetics. Specially voice of Tinian, well above. So, what has happen to our Bosnian empire?
He is an excellent example of the product of the skewed Liberal argumentative pattern: Everything you'll say sounds smart, if it is anti-American, or against the President, and damn all the facts. And don't you dare to be proud of anything US did, or of being an American.

But, yes, I will say Soviets died for the freedom and liberty of other people.

Tom Shipley, are you including the ones who invaded and annexed part of Finland?

Well, I'm Polish and I got to say that the idea of "poland" in WWII is kind of a joke. The area that constitutes modern Poland was fought over and changed hands numerous times over hundreds of years between the Germans, the Russians and the Hapsburgs. Even my great-grandparents who came over in 1914 called themselves "Austrians" in some papers and "Poles" on others.

In WWII they were stuck between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Neither was a great choice especially if you happened to be Jewish. And many Poles blame the Western Allies esp. Roosevet and the US for abandoning them to Russia at Yalta.

Being a Jacksonian type myself, I am quite proud of our country for being so reluctant to get involved in world conflicts. We are slow to anger and our self interest has to be involved -- Africa is a tragedy but is not worth the blood of our sons. We ignored the Middle East (the doctrine was called: benign neglect) until they attacked us.

We do spend our blood and treasure to liberate others, and that's the point the Hate America revisionists ignore. Whether or not we became involved out of self-interest, the fact remains that we liberated rather than conquered.

We could have conquered and made those countries our possessions. The fact that we did not means we are unique in all the history of the world. Fred Thompson understands that. The WaPo refuses to.

Teresa,

And they were right to complain, because that's exactly what we did to Poland and Eastern Europe.

BTW, my great-grandfather came from the same area. He called himself "Austrian", but spoke Polish and came from Lvov.

I think both sides make good points. The US has never tried to conquer other nations after a war, even if they were driven to war for reasons of self-interest.

But, I think Dobbs makes good points in his article as well. And I think Hugh Beaumont summed up why Thompson's claim is ill-worded and unwise. I think Thompson probably has a good point to make, he just used the wrong rhetoric in making it.

I'm no Tom Shipley apologist but I think it's not all that helpful to denigrate the Soviet contribution to our success in WW II. We could not have won without them, I think all historians would agree on that, or at least not without even more of our blood being shed.

Did they fight for noble reasons? Well, they were attacked and they fought to defend themselves. Maybe that's not a noble enough reason as "freeing others", maybe it's what Stalin deserved for allying himself with Hitler in the first place. But it doesn't change the facts, a whole lot of Russians (soldiers and civilians) alike died in the war to defeat Nazi Germany. So to set ourselves up as more noble, I don't know if it's such a meaningful exercise.

One other point, while it is true that we implemented the Marshall Plan and rebuilt Japan, I don't know that it's helpful to see these acts as driven only by enlightened benevolence. I believe we calculated that it was necessary to do these things to avoid a repeat of what happened after WW I when the conquered countries were left to their own devices. And in that there may well be a lesson for our current conflicts (as we already learned after leaving Afghanistan to its own devices once the Soviets pulled out in 1989).

All I know is that millions of other nation's soldiers and civilians died fighting Hitler's Germany in addition to American's who fought and died in WWII to free Europe from Nazi tyranny. Thompson's boasting about who's the most virtuous is nothing more than mentioning our past "good wars" to support Bush's war in Iraq. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Anyway Ed, the country that most deserves credit for defeating Germany is Britain, which could have folded in 1940 but instead stood alone and fought. Numbers alone don't tell the whole story. As Secretary of War Henry Stimson put it, IIRC, without England in the war the U.S. might not lose everywhere but it might not have won anywhere either.

I'm no Tom Shipley apologist

I would hope not. He is a moral monster, after all.

Anyone who believes that Joseph Stalin's Red Army ever fought for anyone's liberty should go to the library and read some Solzhenitzyn.

Alexandr Solzhenitzyn was a Red Army captain in WWII when he was arrested for writing a letter critical of Joseph Stalin and sentenced to eight years - a virtual death sentence.

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch (1962) is a short narrative that follows a Zek, a prisoner in a Siberian labor camp, describing in detail the daily struggle to stay alive. It won him the Nobel Prize.

The First Circle (1968) is set in a prison in the suburbs of Moscow where engineers and mathematicians were given better living conditions in exchange for their work, in this case on a voice print machine. The inmates progress is closely monitored by the KGB who want the device to identify an anti-Soviet speaker. The ironic conclusion drawn is that in the Soviet Union, only the prisoners are free.

Cancer Ward (1968) follows a terminally ill cancer patient who is a former Zek through the post-war Soviet medical system with its privileged status for members of the Communist Party. The parallel between a human with cancer and Russia under communism could not be more apparent.

Gulag Archipelago Volume I (1973) was smuggled out of the USSR to Italy when another copy of the manuscript was discovered at his secretary's home. She was so distraught, she hung herself. All three volumes detail the secret world of political prisons and provides a stunning attack on the butchery of Stalin. When I read it I could not believe the Soviets would allow him to live, much less write.

All of these books are first hand accounts of "Liberty" in the Soviet Union.

Starfleet Dude,

I am always amazed at the lengths people go to in order to disparage the great contribution the US made in winning Worl War II. This ability to ignore history and interpret facts as one sees fit seems to fill some great psychological need.

Dude, did you ever ask yourself what two thing were the sine qua non of Britain's ability to "stand alone"? For example, did it ever occur to you that they were, in fact, NOT alone?

Captain Ed -- My great grandparents only spoke Polish too. Not to hijack this thread but I can't help but think of them during immigration debates. My great grandfather came over illegally, they lived in an all Polish speaking area of Baltimore and never learned to speak English. (I remember visiting them in the early 1970's and listening to all the old ladies chat in Polish on their door stoops to one another.) They did work hard all their lives in a factory, raised seven kids (two of whom served in WWII) and their grandkids served in Vietnam. By the time the grands came along, they could speak no Polish.

Bennett,
You have to decide: could US win the war with Germany without Soviet input, or not.
Using Soviets soldiers (by sending them emergency war supplies when they had non) was very smart, since it saved our soldiers and made Germans fight on two fronts, with long supply lines.
As per Marshall Plan you don't have to be sarcastic ("enlightened benevolence"), I'd rather be proud for this great act of kindness.

Dude, did you ever ask yourself what two thing were the sine qua non of Britain's ability to "stand alone"? For example, did it ever occur to you that they were, in fact, NOT alone?

England certainly had its empire, but in 1940 it was Britain that put itself on the line against Nazi Germany, and no one else.

Ed: The Washington Post should be embarrassed by their historical and rhetorical illiteracy, and should offer an apology for calling Thompson a liar.

How about offering an apology to the American people as a whole, past and present verterans especially?

A Senator named Truman was of the opinion that we should let the Soviets and Nazis fight it out and then go after the weakened victory. It was a stroke of fortune that FDR croaked when he did.

While to the Russian people, it was the Great Patriotic War, Stalin was a monster. He had far more patience than Hitler and spread his evil system over most of eastern Europe and merely shifted the direction of flow of plunder.

Stalin had his apologists in frauds such as Howard Zinn and Walter Duranty.

The United States was being drawn into the conflict long before Peral harbor was attacked. FDR found a way to circumvent the Neutrality Act (a ploy later attempted in Iran-Contra). We were at war in the North Atlantic and American sailors were dying ('Reuben James' was more than the name of a ship) and American 'Mercenaries' called 'Flying Tigers' were fighting Japs in China. The Pearl Harbor attack was was the natural reaction of Tojo to an oil embargo and the transfer of the Fleet from the West Coast to Pearl Harbor. While these acts may have been seen as 'provocative' in Tokyo, they were rather modest countermeasures to Japanese aggression in China. This aggression included the Rape of Nanking as well as the Panay Incident.

Those in thralldom to revisionist professors may have a very distorted view of history.

OK, Tom. OK.

Maybe you're not a "moral monster." Sorry.

How about a "moral idiot"? "Amoral"? A "morel"?

And they were right to complain, because that's exactly what we did to Poland and Eastern Europe.

Ed, short of starting another war against the USSR there was nothing the U.S. or Britain could have done about Poland or the rest of Eastern Europe.

Below is a disputed Sir Winston Churchill quote published by an American reporter. If Sir Winston said it, and I doubt he did, he did so tongue in cheek. This line of thought is popular with today's leftists.

Blame America

"If you hadn’t entered the World War we would have made peace with Germany early in 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by communism, no break-down in Italy followed by fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned nazi-ism in Germany. In other words, if America had stayed out of the war all of these “isms” wouldn’t today be sweeping the Continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over 1,000,000 British, French, American, and other lives."

Winston Churchill
Congrssional Record
8 September 1939.

BTW, we entered WWI because of the Zimmerman Telegram, a plan to have Mexico attack the US in support of Germany.

And they were right to complain, because that's exactly what we did to Poland and Eastern Europe.

Our policy of 'containment' was criticised from two points of view. Some felt that we needed to be more vigorous in pushing back the Soviets. Others were afraid that we were provoking the Soviets. The latter view was held by Wallace and Stettinius and both quit their jobs in protest.

We did intervene militarily in a Civil War in Greece. We did sent a fleet to the Eastern Med. Whe were not cowed by the Berlin Blockade and did not run in Korea. NATO and the Marshall Plan had their effect.

Politics is the art of the possible, whether in the local or global domain.

Starfleet Dude,

I had asked you, "What two things were the sine qua non of Britain's ability to "stand alone"? For example, did it ever occur to you that they were, in fact, NOT alone?" You replied, "England certainly had its empire, but in 1940 it was Britain that put itself on the line against Nazi Germany, and no one else."

Wrong. The two things I was looking for were "will" and "the United States."

First and foremost, to fight a war a people need the will to fight. Without that all is lost. England had the will. France, for example did not. As for the second reason, perhaps you forgot about "Cash and Carry," exchanges of US destroyers for leases for UK bases, Lend-Lease, "neutrality patrols," freezing of German assets, Atlantic patrols and escorts, US protection of Greenland (Danish territory) and Iceland, US Marines relieving UK military in Iceland to free up UK soldiers, etc.

A "morel"

TomB: what sarcasm? We didn't implement the Marshall Plan to be nice. We did it to keep another Hitler from rising up from the ashes of what was left after Germany's devastating defeat.

I see nothing wrong with enlightened self-interest and it was in America's interest to create conditions in Europe after WW II which would result in a stable continent, one where we would never ever have to sacrifice American lives again if we could possibly help it (having had to make that sacrifice twice in 25 years was more than enough).

The idea that America should or would run around the world bestowing its kindness on others and for no other reason is, respectfully, rather absurd.

And I have no idea what you are talking about "using" Soviet soldiers. The Soviet Army pushed the Nazis all the way back to Berlin while we pushed them back across the Rhine from the other side.

Given what happened after the war, I'm not so sure about who was using who. But that's not my point anyway. As to the war itself, the war against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan (the original axis), it was won by the Anglosphere AND Russia (if I've left somebody important out, sorry!).

Teresa,

I'm judging people by what they've written here, both in this thread and others. Are there libs who do love America? Of course. But I think it's MUCH more likely to find that Americans who DON'T love America are libs. It's all part of that "citizens of the world" crap that seems to have infested quite a few minds since the '60s. Libs seem to be the first to throw mud at America and the last to admit that we've EVER done anything worthwhile in our history (Howard Zinn is a hero and icon to the left, NOT the right).

Teresa: Well, I'm Polish and I got to say that the idea of "poland" in WWII is kind of a joke.

As it happens, a good friend of mine is first generation Polish-American. One afternoon, I had the opportunity to talk to his father about how he and his wife came to America. The Soviets - you know, those peace-loving freedom fighters - played a prominent role in the story. When Hitler and Stalin decided to divvy up Poland in 1939 like a couple of gangsters splitting up their loot, Mr. W's village was on the Soviet side. You'll never guess what those lovable Bolsheviks did! They rounded up everybody in the village, herded them into rail cars, and shipped 'em out to one of the 'stan Soviet republics where they were dumped out in the middle of nowhere to starve to death. Happily, the Poles were rather more hardy that the Soviets thought, and Mr. W eventually made his way to Iran (courtesy of Winston Churchill and the British) where he joined the RAF. After serving in the RAF until after the war, he found that others of his family had survived being guests of Stalin and had made their way to America. He joined them here, met a female Polish immigrant, fell in love, and the American dream repeated itself once again.

I don't think it's an exageration to say the Mr. W hates the Russians to this day. Too bad, given that so many of them died for his liberty. /sarcasm

I also don't think he regards Poland before World War I as "a kind of a joke". For that matter, neither did the Soviets... or the thousands of Polish officers massacred by them in the Katyn Forest. I'd say that the Poles left to die while fighting the nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto by the Soviet army also shared that view.

Tom,

Done. You are a morel. Your brain is like a spongy fungus.

First and foremost, to fight a war a people need the will to fight. Without that all is lost. England had the will. France, for example did not. As for the second reason, perhaps you forgot about "Cash and Carry," exchanges of US destroyers for leases for UK bases, Lend-Lease, "neutrality patrols," freezing of German assets, Atlantic patrols and escorts, US protection of Greenland (Danish territory) and Iceland, US Marines relieving UK military in Iceland to free up UK soldiers, etc.

Leaving aside the fact that the U.S. Neutrality Act required England to virtually empty its treasury buying the supplies it needed from the United States, and how it was FDR who worked behind the scenes to support England in the face of isolationist opposition in Congress, it's still the case that after May, 1940 and Dunkirk England really had little military capability left to fight Germany if an invasion had been launched. Hitler would have gladly accepted a peace deal with England if one had been offered and been free to attack the USSR with impunity, but instead the decision was made, by Churchill but also by others in the government, to not offer peace feelers but instead fight on. That was, as has been pointed out by many historians, among them Ian Kershaw in his recent book "Fateful Choices" a turning point in the war.

Doc -- I meant a nation state called "Poland" in WWII was kind of a joke in that the borders of Poland were CONSTANTLY changing for hundreds of years prior to WWII. And people who lived in Poland did not necessarily recognize themselves as "POLISH." That is not to denigrate in any way the poor people who lived in that area which was run over by armies of every stripe since the dawn of civilization and included many of my relatives.

I am no Stalinist apologist -- just pointing out that between the Germans and the Russians the "Poles" were between a rock and a hardplace. (Which is why my own grandparents skipped to America before WWI got in high gear.)

Your brain is like a spongy fungus.

I've certainly had mornings when it's felt like one.

I think of these words, when those who would denigrate WHY we fought WWII, and have the temerity to compare it to the Soviets of all people:

Walter, this D-Day has a very special meaning for me. On D-Day, my own son graduated from West Point. But on the very day he was graduating, these men came here -- British and our other allies and Americans -- to storm these beaches for one purpose only: Not to gain anything for ourselves, not to fulfill any ambitions that America had for conquest, but just to preserve freedom.

Said by someone who might've known something about what he was talking about---Dwight David Eisenhower, on the beaches of Normandy, twenty years after D-day.

Ike gives proper due to our allies from the Free World (e.g., Brits, Canadians, Free French), and distinguishes them from those who fought to give the oppressed people of Europe new oppressors.

Tom Shipley: But, I think Dobbs makes good points in his article as well. And I think Hugh Beaumont summed up why Thompson's claim is ill-worded and unwise. I think Thompson probably has a good point to make, he just used the wrong rhetoric in making it.

I think that's fair.

For those who would argue that Stalin fought for the liberty of others (by displacing Hitler), I guess then we should raise statues to Mobotu, Marcos, Chiang Kai-shek, Park Chung Hee, and Pinochet, all of whom fought for the liberty of others against Communism, eh?

"Those of my generation in Britain have special cause to remember the unimaginable sacrifice the Russian people made to defeat fascism in the Second World War," she said.

"Nothing — not even the fact that our countries became estranged in the war's aftermath — has ever dimmed our memory of the scale of your loss. That experience should continue to inspire us as we seek to build a more peaceful and secure world."

Queen Elizabeth in remarks on the occasion of Putin's visit to Britain in 2003. She knows something about WWII as well.

skippystalin,

Ever heard of lend-lease? Ever heard of convoys? Ever heard of the flying tigers?

We were in both wars long before we were "in". While officially neutral at the outset of each war, we weren't. The above three are examples of our government's official involvement in the wars prior to an official declaration of war. In both wars, the majority of Americans were isolationist at the outset, but the government participated anyway.

Now, as for unofficial acts by groups of Americans, consider the Lincoln brigades in the Spanish Civil War and the American contigent which fought in Israel's War of Independance (which included US ace pilots fresh from WWII).

Starfleet Dude,

Very interesting but not really responsive. A red herring actually. The fact of the matter is, the UK was not alone. The US aided them with arms and material. The US acted quite belligerantly towards Germany long before December 1941(the UK was not at war with Japan until December 1941, like the US). Roosevelt and Churchill had met and discussed when (not if) the US would enter the war and agreed that Germany would come first, not Japan. This was called the Atlantic Charter. The United States was effectivly at war with Germany well before the attack at Pearl Harbor. The US aid to Great Britain was real and it was substantial.

The UK was most definitely NOT alone.

How many "death camps" did the United States maintain during and after WWII? Russia?

What nation exercised wholesale slaughter and rape of civilians on the ground or utilized massive retribution killings of civilians on the ground during and after WWII? The U.S.? Russia?

What nation had the largest number or percentage of Prisoners of War were returned home almost immediately in most cases after cessation of hostilities in WWII? The U.S.? Russia?

How many nations did we invade and keep a stangle hold on for years and years, arresting or forcibly relocating dissenters, religious groups, ethnic groups? Russia?

How many countries did we invade and then steal or ship back home the best of their hardware, factories, and technicians under force of arms, denuding their possibility of rapid re-development? Russia?

To which countries did survivors of a great war willingly flock to in droves after cessation of hostilities? The U.S.? Russia?

Which country aided and assisted defeated or conquered nations to establish free governments and encourage the development of post-war industries at the expense of their own economy in the long run? United States? Russia?

Which country was intent on maintaining colonies or subjugated nations across the globe after cessation of hostilities in WWII? United States? Russia? Great Britain? France?

Which nation before and during WWII made treaties with the Axis that promised them a portion of the conquered world after "victory?" United States? Russia?

We have NO reason to apologize for the sacrifice we as a nation made in the 20th Century.

The let's-not-be-judgemental attitudes inculcated in our youth and in our population over the last 40 years of NEA-sponsored liberal "education" is showing itself all across the nation, and even here, within the Captain's online forum for wayward boys and girls.

The Wapo article is one of those let's-not-be-judgemental screeds that are more common than not in today's journalism.

The United States for most of the 20th Century was the best thing since sliced bread to enter global politics and economy. And there are those still who deign to apoligize for our actions?

As one, among many, who risked life and limb to assist small backward nations (former colonies many of them) in the darker parts of the world to rise to threats to their sovereignty and security of their peoples not to occupy but to enable the most basic rights we seem to hold as a given, I find it beyond contempt that there are those who view Russia as some sort of altruistic liberator and the United States as an also-ran. The United States did not keep millions in conquered lands under draconian occupation for forty years after the war. Russia did. The United States did not stifle dissent, imprison dissenters, prevent the free flow of ideas and learning in those areas we liberated. Russia did.

In the aggregate, listing each participant in wars throughout the 20th century, seems the United States comes out with a distinct better track record.

Thompson is right, perhaps a bit simplistic, but essentially correct. The WaPo? Wrong on all counts if you look at the internals. Thompson, again, may be simplistic, but I've got to wonder, what and where has complex and nuanced gotten us in the past fifty years?

And the complaint that the US charged the UK for the war material, and thus bankrupted the country, is such a load crap. This is a favorite complaint, and it is stupid and mean-spirited. It is always employed by people wielding their anti-American bludgeons. The US lost money on Lend-Lease. Lend-Lease was a gift freely given and an example of the greatness of this country, not its shame.

I'm very puzzled by the comments here regarding Soviet losses.

Yes, the Soviet Union suffered gruesome losses during World War II. Soviet troops fought bravely. They did so for a variety of reasons (much as troops have fought and died throughout history for a variety of reasons).

That they were an enormous factor in the defeat of Hitler's Germany is not in question. More German/Axis divisions were deployed on the eastern front than on the western and Italian fronts combined.

What is at issue is whether they fought for "liberty."

Consider that China suffered arguably comparable losses to the Japanese. Partly because the war in China lasted longer (beginning in 1937). Partly because the Japanese occupied more of China.

Are those who argue that the Soviets should be considered to have fought "for liberty" (a grotesquely Orwellian concept) be just as prepared to grant that Chiang Kai-shek fought "for liberty"?

Would they argue, then, that Mao Zedong also fought "for liberty"?

What does the word "liberty" mean at this point? Somehow, I don't equate liberty with the right to starve kulaks, Ukrainians, or your own peasantry to death by the millions.

Your mileage may vary.

Shipley: Given your impassioned defense of Soviet Russia during World War II, you really should read "No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945", by Norman Davies.

From Adam Kirsch's review in the N.Y. Sun on September 5, 2007:

"This is a revisionist history of World War II, designed to shake the complacency of British and American readers who are accustomed to thinking of it as the "good war". . . [Davies's] purpose, rather, is to remind the world of two truths [about World War II] that, while well-established, he believes are not sufficiently reckoned with.

The first is that, in military terms, the World War II in Europe was predominantly a war between Germany and the Soviet Union; the contributions of Britain and America, while crucial, were not of the same order. The second is that, when Nazism and Communism fought over control of Eastern Europe, there was little moral difference between them. The Soviet Union was one of the Allies, but it had less in common with Anglo-American democracy than it did with Nazi tyranny."

This haunting passage from the review illustrates the point: "Worse, because totally irrational, the Soviet state continued to destroy its own people even when the war was at its height. During the first year of the [German] invasion [of Russia], the Red Army issued 800,000 death sentences to its own soldiers. Evey unit had its commissar, who had to countersign all military orders, and who could condemn anyone to death for an impolitic word. No wonder that, as Mr. Davies writes, "the front-line zone maximum physical danger" became for the Red Army troops "a zone of psychological liberation, even of gay abandon, which no doubt contributed to the willingness of the 'Ivans' to rush to their deaths with a hurrah on their lips."

In short, Soviet Russia was as monstrous as Nazi Germany in prosecuting the Second World War. Its elevation of communist ideology over human life on the battlefield and everywhere else negates any suggestion that its motives, principally self-preservation of the communist regime and extension of the Soviet Empire to Eastern Europe, were benevolent.

Bennet,
This is exactly what I am talking about, no credit for US kindness, doesn’t matter what (everybody intelligent knows is for oil). How to explain food send all over the word to all the countries who can’t feed themselves? It is all for oil!! What about those countries who DON’T have oil, but we still send them food? But they MIGHT have oil in the future!
Frankly, seeing world through the oil clad glasses may sound politically correct, but it is a big crock.
To understand what I mean by “using” Soviet soldiers to defeat Germany you have to go to some basic history books, so here is just a brief of a brief. At the beginning of the war Russia was being conquered up in the hurry, since soldiers didn’t have almost any weapons to resist and hero Stalin was in panic (“But they promised they wouldn’t attack”). US send them a lot of stuff (does Murmansk convoys sound a bell?) when they didn’t have anything and fortunately on time too, so they could defend Moscow (ever heard of “Aircobras”?) and started bleeding Nazis. This way we helped them to help themselves, and us. This is what I call “Using” Russian soldiers to defeat Germany.
And you too should be proud of it.

This comment thread is unbelievable. I really cant believe that there are Americans that would argue, to the extreme as shown in these comments, that this country has not shed its blood and youth for the benefit of others. To compare the US to the Soviets is so patently and inanely absurd that it merits no response, really.

I suppose that pitting American against American, brother against brother, in Civil war to free slaves is no example of America's sacrifice for others either, right?

It's simply amazing how far a little hate for one's own country will go.

Val, If I'm not mistaken, that's one of the reasons they're called "Moonbats".

I am always surprised by how people on both sides of the argument fail to understand that the reason WWII took the course that it did was the Hitler-Stalin alliance from August 1939 through the end of June 1941. Hitler's ability to defeat France so rapidly in the spring of 1940 was directly related to this alliance. With Stalin in his pocket Hitler was able to denude the East of forces that could be used in France. Even the conquest of Poland in 1939 would have taken longer and the Germans would have paid a higher price had Stalin done no more then sit on his hands.

We must also remember that while allied with Hitler, the French Communist Party worked to undermine morale of the French Army and sabotaged industrial production during the "Phony War" period. And one more thing:. No Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, no Holocaust.

The bottom line is that you cannot discuss the Soviet Contribution to winning the War in Europe without reference to the effect of their alliance with Nazi Germany at the beginning of the war.

TomB: nowhere in my comments do I mention the word "oil" nor have you otherwise responded to my argument.

The United States is not required and should not be required to act kindly towards the less fortunate people of the world simple as an act of beneficence. We have the right, indeed the obligation, to act in OUR own interest. You may wish for American blood and treasure to be expended on charitable causes simply so you can feel kind. I do not.

I have no difficulty with feeding the hungry, freeing the oppressed and saving the whales --whatever is your favorite benevolent cause of the moment-- but only so long as America has something at stake besides your warm and fuzzy feeling at how kind and generous we are.

As to your comments about the inadequacies of the Soviet Army, there is no point in discussing it further. If you are convinced that the Soviets were our needy rearguard in WWII then nothing I will say could possibly change your mind.

Nomennovum, while it's true that the U.S. did support Britain my point still stands that it was Britain alone who remained at war against Nazi Germany. While U.S. support certainly mattered, it was not a decisive factor in the decision to fight on. And contrary to your later assertion, Britain's treasury was indeed drained by buying what it needed for the war, which was why the so-called "Lend-Lease" business ever came about in the first place. From Wikisource:

By late 1940 Great Britain was increasingly unable to pay for and transport the war materials it needed in its fight against Nazi Germany. Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill appealed to President Roosevelt to find a way for the United States to continue to aid Britain. FDR proposed providing war materials to Britain without the immediate payment called for in the Neutrality Act. ...

Pebbles:

I don't think anyone here is in anyway trying to denigrate or downplay the significant role that the UK played in the defeat of Nazism. In fact, the UK carried that torch much longer than they should have. Canadian and Australian soldiers have long had the respect of our military. They were with us on D-Day and fought bravely.

Make no mistake that, while we are proud of what we have accomplished on behalf of the world that we also remember that unlike us, the UK bore the brunt of WWII prior to us entering.

I personally believe that there are several countries that we would help first and (mostly) ask questions later: UK, Canada, Australia and Israel (though in Israel's case the right would have to force the hand of the left).

So thank you, Pebbles, and the people of the UK for doing the right thing alone for much longer than you should have.

What everyone seems to be missing here is that the Allied Powers had no difficulty with partnering up with Stalin after Germany invaded Russia. They had to make a choice and they made it, better the Communists than the Nazis. Do you think they were concerned with Soviet motivation at the time? Well yes, possibly so but not enough to avoid the alliance. And not enough not to give Stalin pretty much what he wanted after the war ended.

To sit back now, 60 years after the events and say, well we were more noble, we fought to free others, the Soviets fought only for domination, how is this meaningful? It certainly didn't matter to Roosevelt or Churchill at the time.

Maybe it helps to remember that if we were that intent on liberating others we wouldn't have abandoned Eastern Europe to the Soviets after the war.

Kathy from Austin,

Well said!

Starfleet Dude,

You said, "And contrary to your later assertion, Britain's treasury was indeed drained by buying what it needed for the war, which was why the so-called "Lend-Lease" business ever came about in the first place."

I never said,their treasury wasn't depleted by the war; I said that the US didn't cause it. Britain had to pay for its arms from ANY source -- US, UK, anywhere. The "Cash and Carry" amendment to the Neutrality Act was important to the UK. That means it was helpful, Dude, which means Britain had help from outside and was not "alone." Dude, a nation always needs to spend its treasure to wage a war. Who do you think pays for our war making? Santa Claus? What I mean is: After the fall of Europe to the Nazis, GB n