Please allow me to comment on the letter "Some simple facts about America" (May 29) purporting to enlighten us on the fallacies of a previous letter from John E. Philips concerning America's contributions to the world.

    It would appear that the unnamed author himself (herself) is in dire need of enlightenment.  He/she would have us believe that World War II in the European theater was fought on only one front: the Russian front.

    The writer's understanding of world history is quite narrow if he or she actually believes that the Soviet Union nearly single-handedly defeated Nazism  Apparently he/she has never heard of such militarily important engagements as the Battle of Britain, North Africa, Anzio, Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge, none of which were fought by the Russians.

    If one were to ask anyone living at that time in the overrun countries of Western Europe (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.), "Who liberated you from Nazism?" not a single solitary one would answer that the Russians did.  While it is true that the Russians did most of the fighting on the eastern front, they subjected most of the nations that they "liberated" from Nazism to an equally horrible fate almost immediately after the war ended.

    It is also true that the Americans did not suffer as many casualties as did the other participants in the war, but this is entirely understandable when one considers that they entered the war relatively late and that the only battle fought on American soil was the one at Pearl Harbor.

    However, Americans more than compensated for this with tremendous infusions of aid through the 1940 Lend-Lease Act, and men and materiel when they actually entered the war.  However, equally if not more important were the Marshall Plan in Europe and similar programs in Asia.

    These were generous outpourings of American money and supplies to friend and foe alike which helped to suppress the potential revival of Nazism and its various other sordid forms in the postwar era.  Never before in human history had a victor nation so graciously and generously extended the hand of friendship to those it had vanquished.

    Finally, American reluctance to enter both world wars should come as no surprise to the student of American history.  In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington warned his countrymen to avoid "entangling alliances" with foreign countries, sound advice which guided the United States for more than a century.  World War I was a European war from the start, resulting in part from the "entangling alliances" that Washington had remonstrated against; therefore America was initially unwilling to become involved.

    Today, after having already fought in two wars to save Europe from itself, Americans are quite reluctant to become militarily involved in Bosnia, yet another European conflict.  Given the respective histories of Europe and the U.S., I am not surprised.
 
 

     I'm sure there are going to be numerous comments concerning the letter, "Some simple facts about America" so I decided to give my two cents worth, too.

    Anyone who wants to have a journalistic style should learn not to use words like "military fact," "simple fact," and "simply objective fact," when he obviously has not done his homework and just wants to strengthen his point. I have the facts!

    The nameless, factless writer states "America . . . nearly lost the world to Germany and Japan . . . its miniscule casualty rates reflected its actual contribution to the conquest of Nazism" and "How does it get so tired when it loses not much treasure and very few lives?"  He also states that America likes to "trumpet its victories after the event when they feel sure their own people are not going off to die."  All of this is hogwash.

    I am not waving a patriotic flag, I'm just talking real facts.  In World War II, here are the death totals: Allied losses - Russia, 7 million; China 1 million; U.S. 405,000; U.K. 271,000; France 200,000; Poland 107,000; India 50,000, and on down.   Considering China was mostly at war with Japan, the tragic fact is America was second in lives lost for the Allies.  Axis losses - Germany 3 million; Japan 2 million; Austria 247,000; Italy 160,000 and on down.

    The nameless, factless writer also made a strange comment: Vietnam . . . most casualties taken by S. Vietnamese . . . only two-thirds of the foreign combat units were American."  Now if my math is correct, that's 66%.  I'd say that's an overwhelming majority.  I know Vietnam was a controversial war, but to say Americans took few losses is wrong.  We were trying to preserve democracy and repress communism.

    I agree with many of John E. Philips' comments (May 22).  They were from his heart and mind.  He wasn't throwing out facts about certain wars without any real knowledge himself.  Yes, I'm tired of America always getting involved in other countries' affairs.  I know there are times when we must support our beliefs abroad, but we must learn to draw the line.

    I feel many countries are getting annoyed with the U.S. sticking its nose in their business.  Just ask South Korea.

    I don't have all the facts to argue against the nameless, factless writer concerning Bosnia.  I don't know, maybe America doesn't have any troops facing any real danger there, but I wouldn't use words like "casualties . . . Americans taking almost none" unless I knew the number.  How many is almost none?

    I just wanted to set the record straight.  Americans were not "walking by on the other side," we were heavily involved.  In listing  the above countries and their loss of lives I in no way associate this with their contribution to World War II.  All countries took a severe loss and this horror should not be repeated again.  The number for lives lost by the U.K. also represents its colonies, of course including Australia.
 
 

    The letter "Some simple facts about America" from "Reader" (May 29) gets it so wrong a reply is demanded.  In this case a simple review of the difference between facts and opinions should be enough.  But an error also needs to be corrected.

    Error: "Russia . . . saved the world from Nazism."

    Fact:  Russia as such played no role in the defeat of Nazism.  The territorial forces were abolished in the Soviet Union when it (under a Georgian dictator) invaded Poland with the help of Nazi Germany.  When Adolf Hitler turned on his erstwhile allies, the United States gave $10,982,089,000 (and the United Kingdom gave 428,000,000 pounds) worth of supplies and equipment to the Soviet government.

    Opinion: "Reader" (May 29) thinks this aid was insignificant.  Considering the quality of Soviet manufactured goods I think it was indispensible.

    Fact: When genocide broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina, voices warned that if it were not stopped and punished it would surface again elsewhere.  Shortly after the war-crime trials were quietly concluded, even more terrible genocide broke out in Rwanda.

    My opinion: Hutu extremists were watching Bosnia.

    Reader's opinion: "America . . . is the only one . . . capable of ensuring a victory in Bosnia without massive casualties to all involved."  This is actually characterized as an "objective fact."

    Fact: No one knows what would happen if the U.S. intervened in Bosnia.  Maybe the killing would end, maybe it would turn out like Vietnam.  Right now we can say that the arms embargo prevents the democratic Bosnian government from defending its citizens, while a minority of enthusiastic "ethnic cleansers" backed by Serbia seem to have all the weapons they want, even taking back heavy artillery they were supposed to have handed over to United Nations "observers." No one knows what would happen if the Bosnian government were given the means to defend its territory and people.

    My opinion: The West African force in Liberia and the Japanese in Cambodia did much better than the U.S. and Pakistani forces in Somalia, largely because they understood the local culture better.  The same person who led the U.N. to success in Cambodia is now leading it to failure in Bosnia.  If Europe wanted to defend democracy and freedom in Bosnia, it could.

    Fact: The U.S. Congress has supported letting the Bosnians arm themselves.  The three permanent European powers on the U.N. Security Council refuse to agree.

    What are they afraid of? Muslims? Secular states?

    My opinion: End the Bosnian arms embargo now!  It is not humanitarianism to tie a person's hands and feed them while another person pummels them to death.  More is at stake than a few lives, and more ethnic violence will break out elsewhere if something isn't done soon.