Marolt’s historical ignorance
While reading Roger Marolt’s column in Friday’s Aspen Times, I came across a line referring to “people’s expectations rise faster than white flags in Paris,” an implication that France was a cowardly country that had given in too fast to the Nazi blitzkrieg.
As a result of this invasion the French lost 100,000 men, the Brits were also defeated, and some escaped at Dunkerque back to Britain. While this was going on we were still trading with the Nazis.
I don’t want to charge Mr. Marolt with having bad manners, particularly in a column in which he complains about the state of manners in present-day Aspen, but only with perhaps an ignorance of the history of this period ” a condition certainly shared with too many of his contemporaries and young people in the U.S. today. This may be the result of an inadequate school curriculum supported by governmental prejudices.
Inasmuch as we have been bombarded with anti-French statements emanating from Washington and certain elements in the media, we can ask questions as to our conduct in the time leading up to our entering W.W.II.
Why, for instance, did we maintain a pro-German ambassador in London during this time? The story pushed by Washington and its good friends in the media, that we fought against the Nazis to “Save France,” is fiction. Even though Churchill lobbied long and hard to persuade Franklin Roosevelt to join the war to keep Britain from going under, we didn’t do anything except lend/lease some pretty obsolete equipment.
It took a massive communications foul-up and a Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, sinking a good part of our fleet, for us to join W.W.II. We forthwith declared war on Japan, upon which Germany declared war on us. We did not join the war to “Save France” nor to “save democracy.”
We went to war to save our and Britain’s butts.
Richard B. Veit