Subj: Re: What the US wants in Kosovo...
Date: 99-04-19 17:05:41 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Carrara)
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Im not saying WWII was the best thing to do but, the axis forces DID in
fact
> surrender after Hiroshima/ Nagasaki even though it COULDVE happened in
> other ways. So I'd like to know what everyone on this list thinks what an
> IDEALISTIC United States would've done to stop the war given the chance.
> What would have been the best way to prevent a situation like that,
> w/o violence. Im just saying I don't know what else wouldve worked... in
> terms of violence vs. trying to work it out peacefully...
Hopefully this will answer your question, to the best of my capabilities due
to time contraints.
First off, from a preventive angle, the U$, along with France and England
could have not done such a wonderful job of appeasing Hitler and Mussolini
throughout the 1930's. I'm sure you know that the reason for U$ intervention
in WWII had *nothing* to do with Hitler's anti-Semitic policies nor did it
have anything to do with his proclamation of the supremacy of the Nordic
"race." After all, that would be rather hypocritical as the U$ was still
segregated, including within the army where they even went so far as to
segregate their blood samples and blacks were kept below the deck near the
engine rooms away from the fresh air (reminiscent of the day blacks were
shipped on slave ships from Africa). I also recently learned in my Native
American Indians class that many Indians were led to believe that the ships
they were being loaded onto would be taken them to reservations, when in fact
they were being shipped to Europe to fight for the same country that once
committed genocide against them.
Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull had the chance to publicly
criticize Hitler's anti-Semitic policies in a resolution introduced in the
Senate in 1934 asking the President to express "surprise and pain" at what
was happening to the Jews in Nazi Germany, the resolution was buried. When
Mussolini invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the U.S. continued to send oil to Italy,
oil that was essential to Mussolini carrying about with his fascist plans.
Then of course there is Spain, for when the socialist-liberal government took
place, the U$ developed a neutrality act that acted to allow Hitler and
Mussolini to give aid to Franco and his fascist opposition to the newly
elected socialist government.
Then there is Japan, and the "Open Door Policy" which shared the exploitation
of China with Japan, until the U$ felt threatened that Japan was getting a
little too greedy and powerful with their exploitation, at which point the U$
created a total embargo on iron and oil in 1941, shortly before Pearl Harbor
(the *only* reason the U$ ever entered WWII). The U$ knew damn well that
this embargo that devestated Japan's economy would have severe consequences,
one Congressman even stated that the actions that the U$ were taking against
Japan were "widely recognized in Washington as carrying grave risks of war."
Another White House conference two weeks before Pearl Harbor showed that the
U$ was already anticipating a war and were discussing how it should be
justified. So there's just a few examples of preventive measures that could
have been undertaken in the first place.
As for the atomic bombs falling on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as ending the war.
Italy has been defeated an entire year before the bombs were dropped, Germany
shortly after Italy. Japan had reached a conditional surrender with their
ambassador in Moscow, under the condition that the Emperor, an extremely
important holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place. This is the *only*
condition, a simple request if you ask me, but the U$ would not budge, they
wanted an unconditional surrender. Why else did the U$ drop those bombs?
Well one thing that has been said is that too much time and money had already
been invested in developing this atomic bomb, they *had* to drop it (remember
Albright's statement to Powel, "what's the point of having the most powerful
military in the world if we can't even use it"). This argument has merit,
but even more so is the fact that the U$ wanted to destroy Japan so that they
could instill their imperial powers before Russia did. For if Russia were to
destroy Japan before the U$, Japan would have surrendered to Russia, and they
would have complete control to Japan, as we did post-WWII. Russia had said
(promised) that they would enter the war with Japan exactly 90 afters after
the European war ended. Germany surrendered on May 8, making August 8 the 90
day mark that Russia had promised to enter into the war against Japan. The
first bomb fell on Hiroshima August 6, the second bomb fell on Nagasaki on
August 7, literally day(s) before Russia had promised to enter into the war!
Is this a coincidence, I think not! A former Secretary of the Navy said
about Secretary of
