Having been implicitly labeled a "petty nationalist" with a "playground mentality" by a nameless writer hiding behind the cloak of anonymity (June 26), may I add one last word to what is becoming a tiresome debate over the role of the United States in the 20th century?

    First of all, let me state that American history books do teach that World War II was, indeed, an Allied effort, and give credit for the victory to those to whom it is due, including the underground movements of France, Norway, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands and even Germany.

    However, it is a fact that in both World War I and World War II, Europeans were fighting Europeans, while the U.S. was hesitant to become involved in large part because of its long-standing policy of neutrality in Old World affairs.

    When the Americans finally did enter these wars, it was with the understanding that when victory was achieved, the next task would be for victors and vanquished alike to rebuild their war-torn lands.  The U.S. did not seek territory, nor did it seek retribution, and countless American men died in these two wars trying to stop Europe from destroying itself.

    Of course, cynics such as Paul Spring ("Europe is displaying good sense" June 26) try to downplay everything that the U.S. did during this time as being for selfish, ulterior motives.  He even goes so far as to lay blame on Americans for not having suffered "invasion, saturation bombings, and [sic] rationing" as other combatants did.  What were they supposed to do, invite the Luftwaffe over to do some night raids on New York?
 

KEVIN SMITH
Tsukuba, Ibaraki

    Some letters on these pages are so embarrassing I wonder how an author could have signed them.  Paul Spring's letter (June 26) picturing me as a jingoistic superpatriot misreads my rejection of Pax Americana solutions to the world's problems.

    His reduction of the complex motivations of not only Franklin Roosevelt but of all 20th century U.S. leaders to the single factor of "practical economics" would shame the most vulgar of Marxists.  His characterization of Muslim mistrust of the West as "instinctive" would bring a blush to the cheek of the most ardent sociobiologist.  It is also revealing of the depth of his understanding of this great world religion.

    "Name Withheld" is wiser, not least in finally realizing that not all Soviets were Russian.  Does he also realize that a high proportion of Soviet battlefield casualties in World War II were from Muslim republics?

    From Central Asia to Senegal, from India to Indonesia and from Yemen to Yugoslavia, millions of Muslims paid the highest price in the world's struggle against Axis aggression.

    What has been their reward?  The same Western powers which heartily enforce Security Council resolutions beyond their mandate against Iraq or Libya sit idly by while aggression and genocide against Muslims go unpunished in the former Yugoslavia.  The U.S. Congress stands alone in supporting the right of Bosnia to even defend itself.

    The increasing fear felt around the Muslim world is neither instinctual nor psychotic.  It is an understandable reaction to the cynical betrayal of Bosnia and increasing evidence that the new world order is directed against Muslims.

    Consider well the consequences of spuring the most Western of Muslims.  The others will have no recourse but extremism.  Kazakhstan has inherited Soviet nuclear weapons.  Does anyone want those weapons to fall into the hands of fanatics?

    To wrap up another matter, I did not initiate this exchange of letters to ignite a "flame war" about who suffered (as opposed to contributed) the most in World War II.  Excessive Soviet casualties are not an accurate gauge of the admittedly important Soviet contribution to defeating Nazi Germany.  They are rather a result of an incredible series of political, diplomatic and military blunders by the Soviet leadership that should be their shame, not their pride.

    I will continue to concur with the conclusion of mainstream historians that Britain, China and the Soviet Union would have fallen like France without help from the American "arsenal of democracy."  Why do you think Pearl Harbor was attacked in the first place?
 

JOHN E. PHILIPS
Yabase, Akita