I say, old chap.  I found your article Long article, but worth the read … quite entertaining.  Sterling job, although ever so windy, don’t you think? 

The outline of the conflict with Nazi Germany is reasonably accurate, with some interesting detail to keep the reader’s attention. If you would permit me, however, I must differ with you on a few small technical points.

  • WW II is considered by most historians to be a continuation of WW I, known as "the Great War" at the time, following a two decade armistice.  
  • The WW II part of the continuous “Great War” is traced to the treaty of Versailles where the Germans were saddled with horrendous war reparations.  The Germans felt that they had not lost the war and were treated harshly in the armistice agreement.  
  • “World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a ‘whimper’ in 1928.”  Not really.  The Japanese invasion of Manchuria and other parts of Asia were the beginning of the conflict in the Asian-Pacific theater, but not the beginning of World War Two. 
        •  
  • It is not quite correct to say that the United States, with its Pacific fleet based in Hawaii, troops stationed in the Philippines, at Midway and on Wake Island halfway across the pacific, had no interest in the "Asian war".  In fact the donnybrook out there was precisely about Japan’s claim to a sphere of influence that was being threatened by the Western powers, especially the United States, in Japan's opinion. 
        •  
  • Bushido, the code of the samurai, was a bastardized version of the original code by the time of the Second World War.  An interesting book, which includes the story of George Bush Senior’s heroic role as a naval aviator who was shot down, is Flyboys by James Bradley.  The Japanese soldier was as victimized by this corrupted code as were his victims. 
        •  
  • Russia was not an ally of the Allies until attacked by Hitler.  In fact, Stalin entered into a secret pact with Hitler that divided Poland between them.  Stalin agreed not to intervene in Operation Barbarossa in return for half of Poland, and other considerations.  When the NAZI war machine flooded into Poland and the Polish army was no more, the Communists Russians occupied their half of the country. 
        •  
  • This secret pact was a surprise to the allies, and was felt to be a betrayal of an implied common stance against Hitler.  It left Hitler with a free rein on his Eastern Front.  Russia became an “ally” of the Allies only after the Wehrmacht was on its way to Moscow.  This incidentally caught Stalin by surprise and immobilized him for a couple of days while his army reeled in front of the German Blitzkrieg. 
        •  
  • Your implication that the United States initiated hostilities with Nazi Germany leaves the wrong impression.  The Triparite Pact formalizing the Axis powers, was a three-Power Pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan.  Signed at Berlin, September 27, 1940, it required the other signatories to come to the aid of any member attacked by an outside party.  Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, and that resolved Hitler from any responsibility to declare war on the United States.  Hitler nevertheless, over the strenuous objections of many of his generals, did declare war on the United States.  It was only in response to that that the U.S. Congress subsequently declared war on Nazi Germany. 
        •  
  • Your point that Russia gave the United States, known as “The Arsenal of Democracy” time to build its war strength, is well taken.  Nazi Germany and Japan were the world’s military superpowers, geared up and well prepared for war.  Today the United States is the world’s military and economic superpower with the finest military in the world, while Iraq is a third world power.  Are you suggesting some comparison between the situation then and the situation now?
     
    This last point got me thinking.  I must confess that I originally read just the first part of your article, old boy.  I must say, it is a fairly lengthy tome, and I must have fallen asleep and dropped through the last half of it thinking I had read it all.
     
    But I digress.  Your comparison of England and Iraq, and America and Nazi Germany got me thinking.  Upon returning to the article and taking up where I apperently dozed off, I was surprised at your tenuous logic.  I must say you have quite an imagination. 
     
    I can’t for the life of me accept your comparison of merry old England’s trials and travails during the Great War and World War Two at the hands of the German superpower with your current President Bush’s bully war of naked aggression and garrisoning in Iraq.  To be sure, old boy, that was a stretch.
     
    England was fighting for her life against a ruthless regime that was intent on invading it and subjecting it.  I suppose you can say it was attacked without provocation, as was Iraq, but there I suspect you would argue that any similarity ends. 
     
    Today, unlike a half century ago, the United States does not need Russia or any other nation to buy time for it to gear up its military-industrial complex for war.  Indeed it would seem that its situation and role in today’s world, quite the opposite of what it was back then, could not even have been imagined back then.  To imply a similarity is ludicrous.
     
    Oh yes, and apology accepted for taking up so much space.  In retrospect I do laud the article for using large type.  While it took up more space than necessary, it did seem to make the article shorter than it really was, a saving grace.  Thank you.
     
    Well, ta ta old fellow.  Better luck next time.
     
    P.S.  You aren’t shilling for this fellow AA, are you?
     
    Tally ho the fox!