A STIFF NOTE ON JUNE 6 1944.
TO ERADICATE WAR, ONE HAS TO ERADICATE ITS DEEPEST ROOTS.
Abstract: Great Franco-Americano-British-Canadian mutual celebration about D-Day in Normandy. The funny part, rich in wisdom, is that D day would never have happened if the USA had done its duty as republic, democracy, and progeny of France and Britain, right from the start. Instead of waiting for Hitler to call it to order. The lesson has not been drawn: apathy allowed plutocracy to get away with murder.
Sarkozy said "we" will never forget the children of the USA that fell in Normandy, and that "we" owe them our freedom, etc... True enough for those who fought on the Allied side in 1944. A slight difficulty though, is how we got there. OK, an infection of fascism in Germany was the main ingredient, certainly in 1870 and especially in 1914. By 1939, many Germans, at least in the military, had learned their lesson, but still, W.W.II happened. American plutocracy made the difference, as it turns out, and that lesson was not learned, because it is little known.
The soldiers of D day were heroes, etc. Sure, and thank you. But why did the American army not disembark, four years earlier, on May 6, 1940? It would have been easier; they could have used any French port, and they would have been welcome with flowers and big smiles. The Nazis would have been crushed quickly (the German generals would have revolted against Hitler). So the big question is: why did the USA come so late into the war? The first American soldiers saw combat against the Nazis more than three years after the French did. When the Americans engaged the Nazis seriously, the later were much weaker, having endured gigantic defeats in Russia (Moscow, Stalingrad), and had been decimated from massive British long range bombing at night, which drove them crazy (and forced them to keep more than one million men mobilized for ineffectual air defenses).
The atrocious behavior of the Nazis was well known by May 1940. Some will say; no. But those holocaust deniers don't know anything. For example, people love to claim that the extermination camps were a big surprise (and that is why, they say, nothing was done against them before). Nice; OK, suppose nobody could understand what the French authorities had been saying about the deliberate massacre of civilians, including at least 700,000 Jews, by October 1940. Please explain how to hide more than 20,000 camps? Remember, the USA was a practical ally of Hitler, and Americans could go all over Germany. All the Americans were going around Germany with their eyes closed, except when Hitler was offering them the Order of the Great German Eagle, and they adored him with their eyes? (This was a snide remark about some top American bosses: Ford, Watson, etc...)
Because, indeed, amazingly, there were more than 20,000 camps of concentration and extermination all over Germany. In the best cases, people were treated as slaves. The major camps, like Auschwitz and Buchenwald (just visited by Obama), had galaxies of camps around themselves. Buchenwald had at least 117 such secondary camps. Some, such as Auschwitz, were mixed up with factories managed by Americans (Bush with the American Silesian AG), or outright created by Wall Street (such as IG Farben, the world's largest chemical monopoly, maker of extermination nerve gas).
In truth, people often know only what they want to know. The USA was not interested in Hitler's bad behavior. After France fell, the ambassador of the USA, Kennedy, declared that democracy had proven to be an inferior system, and that it was also finished in Britain and the USA. He made no mystery that he would make it so that his sons would soon command-in-chief.
An excellent example of knowing only what one wants to know is Obama's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is a strict extension of the strategy pursued by the USA since 1945: using a religion, Islam, to keep people subjugated. But now the Islamists, ironically, have figured it out, so they are fighting back with the very instrument that was used to oppress them, Islam. This is getting confusing. What to do? Well, simplify. Use forever 9/11 as a pretext for great American outrage, justifying the Forever War. Never mind that the USA killed at least several hundred times more civilians in the Middle East than was killed during 9/11, since 9/11.
There was no such outrage in 1940. During the 6 weeks of the Battle of France, about 5,000 people died every single day. Two 9/11 a day, Two 9/11 a day in beloved republican, democratic France, every day, for five weeks, and what did the USA do? Nothing. Proportionally to the size of France then, and of the USA now, it was around the proportional equivalent of TEN (10!) September Elevens, every day single day, for five weeks.
Yes, Auschwitz had been open for business (exterminating Poles) for more than six months. In May 1940. But no outrage in the USA. Good business, through: direct investment of the USA in the Nazi Third Reich, had augmented considerably since the racist Nuremberg "laws" had passed in 1935. Great racist minds invest alike.
The USA did not intend to go to war in 1942. Fortunately, Hitler declared war to the USA on December 11, 1941. Thank you, Adolf!
Ah, and why were France and Britain defeated by the Nazis in 1940? Well, American military and industrial technologies played a fundamental role. So the problems with Wall Street did not start in 2008. Wall Street had financed Wall Street massively, and corporations of the USA had signed monopolistic treaties, transferring for example artificial rubber and oil, and computer tech to the Nazis, so secretly that they were not supposed to transmit said technologies to their own war department.
Another point: Americans know about Omaha Beach. 2374 Americans died there. Nobody knows about the simultaneous attack in Vercors, a high giant plateau in the French Alps, 70 kilometers long, 50 kilometers wide. The French resistance was asked to seize it, and it did, and to prepare a runway. The assumption was that the disembarkment would be there. But it was a feint made to divert large Nazi reserves. The heavy weapons that had been promised never came. Instead, after many weeks, four elite Nazi divisions landed and parachuted and attacked the flanks of the mountain. The more than 20,000 elite Nazi troops deployed there were as many not deployed during the battle of Normandy (where the Nazis were always a division short of throwing the allies in the sea). The battle of Normandy was long and terrible (until 29 August). But it killed far less than the Battle of France of May-June 1940.
Meanwhile the Nazis deployed enormous means for the battle in Vercors. About 1,000 resistants and civilians died, completely betrayed. By the way the French resistance destroyed 500 bridges in the night before D day (to hamper Nazi movements, and thus the Nazis could only bring a trickle of armor to the beaches). There were 50,000 Nazi soldiers for 135,000 Allied soldiers (which, by the way, included slightly more Canadians and British soldiers than American ones; the American sectors had the two beaches of Utah and Omaha, way west, so they were not in contact with the Brits and Canadians and their three beaches, and may have thought they were liberating France all by themselves; the front extended over 80 kilometers).
Answering my own question: the USA did not collaborate with the democracies, Britain and France, against fascism, because of flaws it is still exhibiting today (albeit fewer, hence the importance of celebrating D day for Americans: it reminds them that their culture at some point dropped the ball, and the price was heavy).
OK, the USA collaborated when with Britain and France when it was forced to (by Hitler).
There were two main flaws in the American character, as Hitler engaged in his holocaust of Europe, and they are related.
One was that many American plutocrats collaborated extensively with Hitler, and made a fortune this way (the Bush family being the most famous example; but there are many such examples: IBM had 35 factories in Hitler's Reich, one of hundreds of large American corporations that boosted Hitler). That was bad, and that mentality of American plutocracy to have no restraints whatsoever still shows up in the economic troubles of 2008-2009. The American plutocracy is still influential enough to have requested and received 13 trillion dollars of gifts, loans and guarantees, so that it can stay rich, owning the world. That was just in six months, and it's equal to the GDP of the USA. So Americans have decided to serve their lords, an interesting twist on the concept of serfdom. When serfdom appeared in the Middle Ages, it was not by choice, and the lords had duties.
In 1939, American plutocracy brought us the Second World War: 73 million killed. Right now it is just bringing us the Forever War in the Middle East-South Asia area. Only a few millions killed so far. Does this means it is getting reasonable?
Some will say I exaggerate, and I distort. But, without American (plutocratic) support, and push, the Nazis did not have a chance, and the German generals would have revolted (as they did on a chronic basis, but they would have done it earlier, and, more carried by enthusiasm, they would have succeeded.)
The most fundamental reason why the USA was not involved in 1939, 1940, and 1941, was APATHY. Apathy is a master emotion because it makes people cool until there is nothing for them to do, or learn. And it subsumes the preceding one. Indeed, plutocracy is strong in the USA because people don't care, or don't care enough, about what they ought to care about. If the plutocracy wants them to watch sport on TV all day long and have no health insurance, so be it... (An example of apathy: Obama seems to be conniving all alone to provide Americans with public health care: but he gets no support from massive demonstrations).
Conclusion: Parrots repeat the history they know, making lots of noise. But it does not mean they got it right. True, WWII and its 73 million killed happened in first order because of fascism in Germany. But, instead of talking about Munich, one does ask the proper question: Chamberlain gained time to build a modern Air Force, instead of the obsolete one Churchill wanted to mass produce right away. Munich was about whether Paris and Prague would fight Hitler alone, or whether France would wait until Britain had some combat capability (Britain had made a pact with Hitler in 1935, and was defenseless). These were details. The big picture about Munich was that the USA was not there. Its brain was completely missing. Lack of intellectual activity, that is what apathy is. A-pathy: no-pain, no emotion.
The brain gets richer in a richer environment, but this environment, the brain itself can create. Those who only obsess about sport scores and reject intellectual debate as "arguments" (a pejorative term in the USA), fabricate for themselves an intellectually poor environment.
Apathy is still around, in the refusal to consider many important things (hence impoverishing one's mental environment). This is what has to be fought now. The fight starts by shunning facile conventional wisdom, which can be as wrong as wrong can be. Obama just celebrated "Holy" books which have caused more people killed than any other ideologies, and that should get intellectuals going: was it good to kill all these people, was it "Holy"? After all, Hitler just renewed with the Catholic program against the Jews (among others) during the period 380 CE to 580 CE (the Jews, the Franks, and the Visigoths of Spain were the only ones to survive).
Inquiring minds will want to know what "Holy" means.
Another example: was giving as much money again to those who stole just as much, just before, crucial to the functioning of civilization as Obama knows it? That, and bombing Pakistan?
And is fighting the greenhouse by burning ever more carbon, never taxing it, the American way to cook the planet? Or is it the way to organize the next holocaust, same as the old one, just way bigger?