“…parroting the line it was a good war.”
Why, I wonder, would I prefer to accept John Keegan’s and Gerhard Weinberg’s analysis of the moral issues involved in WWII rather than yours?

Your skewered analysis of the Second World War and its aftermath is a perfect example of a particular mindset that is just beyond my comprehension. You, and others like you, zealously devote all of your talents and energies into trying to undermine the moral foundations of your country during a time of its greatest peril — both then and now. And you feel good about yourself for doing it.

Your points in the above comments are coherent, well-structured and totally bogus. However, I believe that it would be utterly pointless to enter into a debate with you about America’s moral integrity. It appears that you have already made up your mind on the subject.

Its doubtful that America could have entered the war against Germany except for Hilter’s declaration of war against the US.

As for the Japanese there were a number of actions that were aimed at their national security from the freezing of their assets to the embargoes. What would the US do today if a Muslim dominated Europe embargoed the US and froze America’s assets?
Think about it.

Add to this FDR disregard of the Neutrality Act not only arming the Chinese but sending US mercenaries to fight there-an act that required such citizens to lose their citizenship-a law still on the books today.

How would we view Americans fighting for the Tailiban? Are you going to say its different, okay then how about Americans who are the employment of Blackwater. How does the Left paint them?

Just as ourt involvement in WWI resulted in buyers remorse Americans should consider what WWII accomplished.

We said we weren’t fighting for land but the map of Europe was redrawn by our allies.

The original cause, an independent Poland, was negated by the USSR which enslaved all of Eastern Europe.

Democracy did not expand but contracted as Western European Empires collapsed under FDR’s pressure reshaping the world and providing us with our current situation. Yeah the world benefitted.

The menace of Hitler was replaced with communism. Gee wasn’t this wonderful. Seems like the reds outdid the National Socialists by a factor of about 20 in the genocide role but hey who quibbles, WWII was a good war right?

Exactly what was accomplsihed that benefitted the US that wouldn’t have resulted if the US hadn’t entered the war?

Did we have a free Europe or China following the war. Was the world a more stable palce?

Anyone familiar with the conduct of the allies in the aftermath of the war would have a hard time convincing any intelligent person of the advantages of the war or parroting the line it was a good war.

This might be of interest to you.
I have been fortunate enough to have corresponded with both Sir John Keegan and Prof. Gerhard Weinberg about WWII. At one point I posed the following question to them both:
Despite all of the revisionist history which has been written since the end of that monumental war — much of which tends to reduce WWII to merely a conflict of competing national interests (all of which have some merit) — do you still believe that WWII was a battle between Good and Evil?
Both of these ackowledged WWII experts answered with an unequivocal Yes.

!

The Baker book is filled with all sorts of things, I’ve never heard before. And of course Uncle Pat’s book, is what I expected. A full on history lesson, from an America frist lens.

The main point of Uncle Pat’s book is, was it a good war, for the Pols, West Germany, and a whole host of other things that “Uncle Joe Stalin” did. Arguably more insane and murderous than Hitler. As well, did we really need to enter into WWII.

Both books, and another book called “The Myth of Pearl Harbour” have been making me question the Governments offical statement on WWII.