Observera! Detta är inte en artikel från Reuters 1944 utan en satir, avsedd att
peka ut likheter mellan kriget 1944 och kriget i Irak idag.
Administration Split On Europe Invasion
Washington, April 3, 1944 (Reuters)
Fissures are starting to appear in the formerly united front within the
Roosevelt administration on the upcoming decision of whether, where and
how to invade Europe. Some influential voices within both the Democrat
and Republican parties are starting to question the wisdom of toppling
Adolf Hitler's regime, and potentially de stabilizing much of the region.
"It's one thing to liberate France and northwestern Europe, and teach the
Germans a lesson, but invading a sovereign country and overthrowing its
democratically-elected ruler would require a great deal more
justification," said one well-connected former State Department official.
"The President just hasn't made the case to the American people."
Indeed, some are querulous at the notion of invading France itself.
They argue, correctly, that the German-French Armistice of 1940 is a
valid international treaty, and the Vichy government is widely recognized
as the legitimate government of France, even by the US. (The British
government doesn't recognize it, but much of that is a result of
antipathy to the Germans from the Blitz.) Under this reading, German
forces are thus legally stationed in France, per the request of its
government, and by all observable indications, the Vichy government is
supported by the "French street." More Frenchmen serve voluntarily in the
Vichy militias than join the "underground" organizations supported by
foreign intelligence services like MI5 and OSS.
It was pointed out to this reporter by a prominent former US ambassador
to France that, "President Pétain was legally appointed by the last
freely elected government of the Third Republic, and therefore is the
legitimate democratically-chosen head of state. He has been governing by
emergency decree under the appropriate provisions of the Third Republic
Constitution. Surely there are grave issues of international law in any
aggressive act against France."
In addition, some have proposed that, once the Russians take back Poland,
it might make sense for them to stop at the German border. They argue
that much, if not most, of Hitler's war-making capacity has been
destroyed by the Allied bombing, and after we've taken back the Benelux
countries, he'll only be a threat to his own people, and the ethnic
minorities within Germany itself.
Others, however, contend that as long as he remains in power, he will be
a continual threat to the region, and perhaps even the world, as there
are rumors that he's frantically developing weapons of mass destruction
greater than any the world has previously seen, and is building rockets
with which to deliver them.
"For God's sake, the man is gassing Jews by the millions!" said one
exasperated presidential advisor. "Do you think that he's going to be
content to simply murder his own people if we let him stay in power?"
Concern is great that, in a total German defeat, or regime change, the
results could have unpredictable and far-reaching consequences. Germany
consists of a large number of ethnic groups antipathetic to each other,
including Germans, Jews, Bohemians, Slavs and Gypsies. In the power
vacuum created by the absence of a strong and stable central government,
there is concern that it could split up into a number of fractious,
balkanized countries, with the potential for renewed war and strife on
There has been little public discussion of what kind of government would
replace the present Nazi reich, and many believe that, in the absence of
a plan, it would be foolish to simply go in and topple the dictator.
The Administration has reportedly been talking to German dissidents, but
they're hardly united in anything other than a desire to see the end of
the Hitler regime. Many who know them well feel that there's little
prospect for them forming a post-war consensus German government.
Others say, however, that the German people are well educated, and that
if the shackles of the brutal regime that currently oppresses them could
be thrown off, there are excellent prospects for one that would be
friendly to the US and western values in general. Such a government, in a
region in which it is so dominant, could provide a healthy example for
the populace in some of the other troubled regimes in the area.
But despite such optimism among some advisors, many, particularly in
Congress, are also frustrated by an apparent lack of an exit strategy.
There is a great deal of concern, both within and outside the
Administration, that should the German government be replaced, US troops
might have to be stationed in Europe for five to ten years. Some have
even suggested, improbably, that they could end up being there for decades.
One Senator who has been deeply involved in the discussions within the
Administration said, off the record, that "we can't risk the chaos that
could result from Hitler's removal. He's the only thing holding Germany
"Once we get into Alsace, and the Russians cross the Vistula, what we
need to do is to establish a truce with him, and set up an arms
inspection regime, so that he will never again be able to threaten his
Kolla upp "historien om historien" på www.snopes.com.
When Democracy Failed
>>> till förra sidan
>>> till denna sidas början