Unnecessary war?

* In his column Colman McCarthy engages us in praise of conscientious objectors (NCR, Oct. 26). He nitpicks the Ken Burns extravaganza "The War" and generally deconstructs U.S. involvement in World War II. Then he quotes an Air Force veteran saying that World War II was not "necessary" at all, the premise of his column.

Mr. McCarthy hangs his argument on a statement by a veteran asking, "Can we try to imagine instead of a six-year war a 10-year or 20-year period of resistance--of guerrilla warfare, strikes and noncooperation; of underground movements, sabotage and paralysis of vital communications ...?"

Let me see if I have his argument right.

It's Dec. 8, 1941. Franklin Roosevelt addresses the House and Senate. "My fellow Americans, even though we have received a stab in the back on this day of infamy, we will not make a massive commitment of our military might to defeat the Japanese. No, I prefer to seek a path of low-level harassing actions that through sabotage and destruction of communications will assure a minimum of U.S. casualties as well as a minimum of Japanese military and civilian casualties. This may take six, 10 or 20 years but I'm certain this is the strategy that will bring lasting peace. I will ask my secretary of state to open a conference with Gen. Tojo and the emperor in an effort to reach a peaceful solution."

I guess Mr. McCarthy regrets the lost opportunity for all of us to learn Japanese or German.

ERNEST RATTERMAN

Powell, Ohio

* Colman McCarthy comments critically on Ken Burns' PBS documentary about World War II and argues that were you to agree with its necessity, you would have to accept the necessity of firebombing various German and Japanese cities and dropping atomic bombs. He doesn't seem to feel obliged to explain why resisting the malignant evils of Nazism and the rapacious conduct of the Japanese military would require these attacks against civilian populations.

Reasonable people argue against these actions, but virtually all reasonable people know that both dictatorships needed to be stopped. Not all methods employed in defeating these death-dealing armies and bureaucracies were defensible, and even those that are defensible find many rational critics.

Devastation began with the military arm of the dictatorships, with mass civilian bombing, mass murder and rape of civilian populations. Those governments were enthusiastically supported by their civilian populations. Though that does not justify our reciprocating their depredation, they certainly worked hard to earn our enmity. The horrors of that war prompted the cautious adventurism of the Soviet Union, which, faced with our promise of massive retaliation, kept the "Cold War" cold.

ROBERT SWEGLE

Bellevue, Wash.

COPYRIGHT 2007 National Catholic Reporter
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning