MacHamish wrote:

"" <russj41@concentric.net> wrote...

Actually, he's innocent; I wrote that!

> Is it any wonder that there was a strong strain of isolationism in
> the US in the aftermath of WW I?

The *aftermath*?! WWI broke out in 1914. Woodrow Wilson was reelected
president in November 1916 with the campaign slogan, "He kept us out of the
war". It was not until April 1917 that the US finally got involved.

> As the new conflict unfolded in Europe, it looked to
> Americans like those crazy war mongering Europeans
> were at it again.

As indeed they were!

>  After all, it wasn't the US that imposed the harsh conditions
> of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.

Woodrow Wilson was one of the three major players in brokering that treaty
(the other two being Lloyd George and George Clemenceau). Sure, neither
Woodrow Wilson nor Lloyd George really wanted the harsh terms insisted on by
Clemenceau, but nevertheless they conceded to them.

And, going back to your comment about US isolationism after WWI, the main
by-product of the Treaty of Versailles - and, I think, the real reason why
Woodrow Wilson went along with it - was the creation of the League of
Nations. The extraordinary paradox is that, having fought for the creation
of the League of Nations, America then crippled it from the word go by
refusing to join it.

> Nor was it the US that gave rise to the "isms" that arose in
>  Europe in response to the collapse of the old socio-economic
> order over there.

You mean that because the US didn't give rise to nazism, fascism,
authoritarianism and the like it was under no obligation to bother about
them? Did Britain give rise to any of these? How would history have been
different if they, too, had simply left those "war-mongering Europeans" to
get on with it from 1939 to 1942? And did the US take the same view when it
came to communism? Why not?

> I realize that some of my countrymen are a bit too self-congratulatory
when,
> out of ignorance, they make those strident statements about the US single
> handedly saving Europe from Nazism

I would call them arrogant rednecks, but I suppose your more tempered way of
putting it is at least a step in the right direction!

> but on the other hand, the criticism that the US was reluctant
> and slow to enter the fray demeans the contribution of the
> US troops who fought bravely and died in helping to snuff
> the horrid regime of Herr Hitler.

No it doesn't. The impact of US involvement is as uncontestable as the date
on which it began. I certainly wouldn't want to belittle the contribution of
the US military in either WWI or WWII, and I am well aware of how greatly US
involvement in the latter boosted the Allies' morale, and how crucial it was
to the struggle against totalitarianism.

It disturbs me that you would try to discourage someone from posting what
is, essentially, little more than a timeline of events of WWII on the basis
that it is demeaning. That comes very close to being a suppression of truth
for propagandist purposes, rather like the Japanese right, which insists
that any self-critical examination of Japanese militarism in the first half
of the 20th century is a form of masochism.

> As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the
> two extremes.

There was nothing "extreme" in what I wrote. It was, as I say, essentially a
timeline of events in WWII, i.e., a simple statement of undisputable fact.
It has no bearing whatsoever on the performance of US troops on the
battlefield, and it is as wrong of you to imply it should be suppressed it
as it is wrong of the Japanese to issue textbooks that leave out crucial
details of Japan's history just because they are unpalatable. As a Brit, I
learned about the Slave Triangle, the Opium Wars, and other unsavoury
aspects of British history at school, but I still think I didn't learn
*enough*. No country, in the end, does its citizens any favours by trying to
suppress the truth in favour of nationalist mythology.

You would perhaps do better to point out that critics of the US seem to want
both to have their cake and eat it; they criticise US involvement in world
affairs on the one hand and its isolationism on the other. Unlike the view
that the truth should be repressed because it is somehow disrespectful,
which is frankly a non-starter, that might lead to some fruitful and
interesting debate.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com