Limey cousins,

fellow Anglophiles Martin and Greg:

Here is a long piece I sent to "John Bull" whose column appeared in "Right Now" squabbling over some things he said about the US and its policies toward Britain.

Sam Dickson.........

Dear John Bull,

Only tonight did I get around to reading your farewell peace in the last issue of "Right Now."

I am an American. A real one. One whose ancestors were here - with only one exception - long before the War for Independence.

One who served in the Army and whose ancestors fought in every single war this country has fought.

While like most Americans whose ancestors have been here for a longtime I am a mutt - with more French Huguenot blood than real English - I and my family have always been Anglophile Americans.

I was born a couple of years after WW II. My father sent his sister my baby picture. Under it he had scrawled, "This is my answer to Hitler.> Another Anglo-Saxon is born!"

Well, maybe not entirely or even predominantly Anglo-Saxon with a father whose Christian name was "Bonneau" for a French Huguent martyr from whom he claimed descent but you get the picture of where the heart lay...and still lies.

Anyway, that's the background.

Given all that, I read your comments under "A Result To Celebrate" in complete unanimity with the sentiments but with considerable dissent from some of the historical details.

You are absolutely right - alas! - about the fact that the American government is Britain's enemy and has been for generations.

One of the first things that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor was to issue an executive order changing the terms of Lend Lease. Since he didn't have to worry any more about Britain making a separate peace with Germany, he ordered that effective immediately Britain was to receive no industrial equipment, no tools, no petroleum drilling equipment. No.The ONLY thing Britain would receive henceforth was guns and bullets with which to enable British soldiers and sailors to do the dying.

(This is related, surprisingly enough, in a book published by Penguin entitled "Post War Britain.")

The intent of this - as with FDR's conditions for Lend Lease imposed on his lap poodle from the get-go that Imperial Preferences had to be abolished so as to enable American industry to steal your markets - was to insure that after the war Britain would be an economic basket case.

So much for the "special relationship" and the "Franklin-Winston> friendship" the history books and media gush on and on about.

However, you might be surprised that this kind of sentimental gushing is just as prevalent on this side of the Atlantic as on Mother England's side.

Not one American in a hundred knows any of this. If you tried to tell this to the average American, he would be indignant and think you were a liar. He believes as sincerely and naively in "the special relationship"as his silly, besotted cousins in the Old World.

Furthermore, unfortunately you are wrong - quite wrong - in some of the fact statements you make about American entrance into World Wars One and Two.

For instance, you said:

"The US only entered these wars when she was herself attacked, and she did not enter to help us but to serve her own interests."

The first half of this statement is simply wrong. The second half -if it were only true! - would scarcely be surprising. Nations do generally act in their own interests.

Let's take a look first at whether the US only entered these wars when she was attacked.

World War I:

You cite the sinking of the Lusitania as the attack which led the US to enter the war. However, as you correctly note, the Lusitania was sunk in 1915. This was 2 years BEFORE the US declaration of war on Imperial Germany.

While the lies of the "Hun barbarity" in the sinking of the Lusitania were certainly used by the anti-German media in America to stir up hatred for Germany, it can scarcely be seriously contended that a German submarine attack on a British munitions ship in 1915 constitued a German "attack on the US."

Wilson lied about the sinking of the Lusitania, of course, to make cynical use of the dead American passengers in order to move America closer to entering the war, a goal he had set from almost the beginning. But it scarcely qualifies as a German attack on America when the Lusitania was not even an American ship but a BRITISH ship.

You are correct when you say that Wilson ran for re-election on the slogan "He kept us out of war" but even the official histories admit (or rather gloat) that this was just a smokescreen to deceive the gullible two-legged sheep to re-elect him. He didn't believe a word of it. And it means less than nothing in telling us why America entered the First World War.

Why then did the US enter World War One?

What event finally brought America into the war on the Allied side?

It was not any interest of the native born American farmers in South Carolina like my ancestors alive at that time. Nor of American workers nor really of "American" businessmen.

The answer to the question of what brought us into the war is the Balfour Declaration.

The Allies promised Palestine to the Zionists. The Zionists promised America to the Allies.

Who says this? Some wild, rabid anti-semite? The newsletter of the American Nazi Party?

Hardly. For one thing, they don't have sense enough to tell this story.

Chaim Weitzman, the first President of Israel says it in his autobiography. And he should know. He was there at the time and, as he tells us, he was involved in the Balfour Declaration up to his eyeballs.

The America of the naive, simple, trusting WASP farmer, worker and professional classes was simply bought, sold and delivered by the Jewish minority we so generously and kindly admitted into countrty...with full rights of citizenship the minute they stepped off the bagel boat from Poland.

This was their repayment to us for our generosity and kindness.

Louis Brandeis and the handlers of President Wilson - of the same cloth as the current neo-conservative handlers of poor dumb Bush - guided their stooge into the war. And it paid off handsomely for them.

But in terms of any real American interest, there was none.

There was simply no reason at all why America should have entered World War One.

Contrary to what you wrote, America DID enter World War One without ever being attacked. We simply declared war on a Germany which had never done one thing to us...except to enter into negotiations with Mexico about a possible defensive alliance after years of American hostility towardGermany had made it evident that the US was going to declare war on Germany eventually regardless of how blameless Germany was.

Real Americans got zilch from that war. Nothing. Nada. No national interest in it for us at all.

WORLD WAR TWO:

Well, then! What about World War Two?

Pretty much the same.

The only difference being that with Hitler personifying Germany, it's so much harder to discuss such matters objectively. The Kaiser just never rose to the same level of bogeyman as Hitler so after World War One there was a much greater cooling off period in which for a few years at least Americans caught on to how Wilson had cynically and corruptly worked with his non-American handlers to involve us in something which was none of our business and of no benefit to us.

In saying that the US only entered World War Two after it was attacked, you are fortunate in having a superficially clearer case, at least to the average American's or Briton's mind, in Pearl Harbor as opposed to the clearly untenable Lusitania sinking in World War One.

But this clearer case dissolves upon examination.

First off, the US had already entered the war on Britain's side long before Pearl Harbor.

Granted, this was not done by open, honest, public declaration of war on Germany but by covert, dishonest, secret maneuverings.

Long before Pearl Harbor FDR entered the Second World War on Britain's side by, among other things, the following:

1. Landing US troops in Greenland and Iceland to take over those countries, deny access to them to Germany, free Britain from the necessity of tying her own troops up there and to insure Britain the use of Iceland in her sea blockade of Germany.

2. Stationing US troops in Ulster so as to free up British troops there. Yes. This did happen. The average American didn't know then that it was happening and doesn't know it today. Nowadays, he is so brain-dead he wouldn't understand what this means anyway and would be happy about it. Sending troops to Ireland to replace British garrisons so they could be freed for combat against Germans is an act of war.

If Iran had sent troops to the Kurdish areas of Iraq to free up Iraqi units to fight Americans in Bush's war in 2002, this would have been rightly regarded by the US and Britain as an act of war. You can't station troops on the soil of one belligerent to free up garrisons for combat without being justly deemed to be yourself a participant in the war.

3. Even clearer: FDR issued orders to the American Navy to monitor any German ship encountered on the high seas, to track such ships and to do so ostentaciously (obviously trying to concoct an incident) and to radio information to the British Navy so they could come in and sink them.There is, I believe, even some evidence that FDR actually had American ships sink German subs if the British couldn't get to them. But that isn't as clear.

Nevertheless, a country which acts in concert with a combatant to sink the ships of another beligerent is no longer a neutral.

Such a country has gone to war. Such actions are rightly deemed to be acts of war justifying a declaration of war by the country whose ships are the targets.

So FDR did enter World War Two before any act of hostilities on the part of the Axis. Pearl Harbor came much later and was an answer to his prayers when Hitler would not oblige FDR with the declaration of war he tried so hard to provoke.

What about America's interests in World War Two?

Did we have any?

Even asking such a question is politically incorrect today because of the Holocaust. It is now simply admitted that America owed it to the Jews to stop the alleged genocide and to go to war for that reason.

But let's leave political correctness to others. We are free born Anglo-Saxon adults talking to each other about grown-up business.

Real Americans had as little interest in going to war against Germany and Italy in World War Two as they had in going to war against Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War One.

Why was FDR so hot to fight?

One can't help but observe that he also was surrounded by his own version of Wilson's Brandeis and House and Bush's neo-cons. Morgenthau of the infamous Morganthau Plan. Harry Dexter "White." And legions of others around him and his odious blood-thirsty wife.

You are right about FDR. He was no sentimental anglophile.

FDR hated Britain and probably felt the same way about Churchill.

But he was no cynical, ruthless American nationalist. He could get down right teary-eyed and sentimental about some matters.

People and things like Uncle Joe Stalin and - to use one of his favorite phrases - "the Soviet form of democracy."

FDR was only too happy to further the interests of the Soviet Union even at the expense of his own country's.

What did the average WASP American whose sons did the fighting inWorld War One get out of Yalta?

Nothing but decades of crushing taxation, a huge bloated standing army maintained by the drafting of 2 generations of young Americans. Endless tensions and confrontations.

That's all Yalta brought us.

But Uncle Joe sure hit pay dirt with it!

And I'm sure FDR would have had a warm glow about it had he not had his cerebral hemorhage and dropped dead in April, 1945.

Before we leave off hair-splitting about factual details, it must be said that you are absolutely right on the Suez affair. But once again America was acting in unison with the Soviet Union and against not merely Britain's interests but also the genuine interests of the founding stock of our own nation. Isn't it interesting that Ike and the Soviets were cooperating together at Suez at about the same time that (a) Soviet troops were crushing the Hungarians and (b) Ike was dispatching American troops to confront the children of his own citizens at bayonet point in Little Rock, Arkansas? This sure doesn't seem to fit the image of America as the Cold WarCrusader Against Communism, does it? Poor average American dumb-dumbs. They just don't seem to get the picture.

Enough, enough.

Let's end on a happier note, something you and I who should be comrades and friends and not disputants will both approve.

The outbreak of the Falklands War found the US government of Ronald Reagan pursuing the usual anti-European, anti-British policies which have been the standard operating procedures for America for the last 5 generations.

The initial move of the US government was not in favor of Britain. No. The US was going to back Argentina - a fellow American country - against the> Old World colonialists.

This policy was precipitously abandoned, however, in the face of an explosion of public sympathy with our cousins in Britain. Public opinion was so vehemently hostile to the Latin greasers that even a Britain hating US State Department had to back down and to do so as quickly as possible.

This event shows the potential for a genuine "special relationship",one based on unbreakable links of blood, history, culture and language.

But such a genuine special relationship between our America and its Mother Country can only come into being after real Americans and real Britons topple governments which are in truth antithetical to and adversarial toward the core population of each country.

In the unlikely event that you have actually waded through this letter - which has become many times longer than I ever anticipated it would be - I hope I have neither bored nor offended you.

Our little squabbles over these historical details are just an intellectual game between people who must be friends.

I will miss "Right Now." Its demise and that of "Spearhead" remove any political journalistic link to your country.

Sam Dickson Atlanta, Ga. Occupied USA/Occupied Dixie