redawn said:
The British have enslaved one third of the World, and you speak of lives spent to free someone? No soldiers die to free anybody, they always die for their country; and no country does war to make anybody free, they only do war for their own interests.
The Italians were the ‘liberators’ of Abissinia, the Americans the ‘liberators’ of Europe, and now we are the ‘liberators’ of Iraq! Just propaganda.
Wait a moment before charging me with heresy.
The Abissinia was an invasion, the Europe was... Well, with WWI, USA had the occasion to become a major power, so it joined the war, and grew rich by renting to its allies money, troops and materials. After the war, Europe was devasted by inflaction to pay these debts, but our brave liberators didn’t care of that. And with WWII they saw the opportunity to become the first power in the World, and they didn’t lose such an occasion. In the truth, WWI and WWII were overall a single european civil war. By the end there was a major winner, the USA; a few minor winners, like USSR, China, Canada, Australia; a couple of losers, Europe and Japan; and a lot of major losers, the unlucky inhabitants of the former colonies, who were abandoned to their doom. You’ll say that Germans were brutal, that we needed to be saved from them. May be that’s truth, but the Soviets were equally brutal: didn’t merit the Soviet people to be liberated as well? Why to choose the Soviet side rather than the German side? Because the best profit was into baring down Europe, that was rich, not into bearing down USSR, that was poor. No, Europe had not been helped, it had just been destroyed, invaded, and then rebuilded; with this process, our money passed in american hands. Only this was our liberation: an horrendous, macabre bargain.
And about Iraq, we are there for oil and security, not certainly to free a people.
But I agree with you, the war between Italy and UK was a mistake for both. Mussolini didn’t wish at all to be allied with Germany, but he felt forced to by the hostility of Chamberlain before, and of Churchill then.
Unfortunately, europeans were not able to see the sad fate that expected all of them in the end of such an escalation of war. And this is because they didn’t understand that their were fighting a fratricide clash, blinded by the decrepit dreams of a past era of national dominations.
War is a crude matter, so crude that we humans need to find a superior justification for it, to be convinced that blood has really good a reason to be spread. And in thousands of years of wars, we have learnt really well this art. The winners are always the good, the generous, the right; the losers were always so baddy, as not to merit to live. Isn’t it? But try to read history imaginating the reasons of the losers –I say the soldiers, the peoples (for no book will tell you their true ones)– because they too fought a war, and they too must have had some faith and beliefs to do that, and they too were humans just like the winners. You will then guess that reasons were the same on both sides: country for the combatants, profit for the nations. Injustice and violence are never on a single side, thus you should not use them to condemn your enemy: the right side is but, and always, the side of your country.
Sorry to have broken the dreams of glory and heroism of someone.
And forward with the European Union!
