Historian Says, “U.S. Betrays Its Heritage by Threatening War Against Russia and China”

[Douglas Caddy]

Historian Says, “U.S. Betrays Its Heritage by Threatening War Against Russia and China”

Historian Anton Chaitkin has issued an emergency alert on the danger of world war from America’s current hyper-aggressive stance towards Russia and China. 

The warning is addressed “to those who know real history,” Chaitkin says. 

“Those who cherish our country’s precious legacy are horrified by our headlong rush to war. America at its best was the very motor of world progress, higher living standards and peace.

“That is our true national identity. We betray that legacy with military threats against those who are advancing as world powers, as we once did. We would `contain’ them with aggressive lying about their intentions, and by dishonoring agreements that would keep the world safe from nuclear annihilation.” 

Anton Chaitkin is the author of Who We Are: America's Fight for Universal Progress, from Franklin to Kennedy, the fruit of archival studies over 40 years. He shows how the USA was industrialized through the national policies and projects of progressive patriots in successive generations; how they won out against Southern slaveowners and British imperialists who sought to block American progress; and how the U.S. boosted other nations to technological prowess, overcoming imperial sabotage.

Who We Are Volume 1 (published 2020 - Amazon.com and bookstores, paperback and Kindle) portrayed this action from the 1750s to the 1850s, with startling new light on America’s founding and on who built the first great U.S. industries. Volume 2, now being written, shows how Abraham Lincoln and his allies organized the greatest advances ever made in technology and living standards, and a long era of peace with the world. Who We Are will conclude with the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, crusading to bring peace and a humane existence to all mankind. 

Chaitkin warns that “America changed course after JFK’s murder. We gave up our industries and lost our skills. We gave power to unaccountable financiers. Their speculation and deindustrialization have bankrupted the Western world, and they cannot tolerate the rise of other powers who won’t follow their Globalist rules into poverty and national suicide.”

“The gravest danger now comes from the fundamental change in America’s world mission. I believe that those who know history are especially challenged to act now, to speak out, so that we may preserve and protect the civilization that America at its best did so much to advance.” 

 

           

Here’s the link to that post:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14pWqOTiUu-iRJi0JCtMXm8LyJmsqdfv-mXc8FnHft68/edit?usp=sharing

 

Here are some comments received, and my replies:

 

David Morrison, of England, UK, replied to my post on the Linked-In History Enthusiasts group. He is a free-lance adviser with a law degree.

Yet another knee-jerk anti-Western apologist for China and Russia heaping the blame for current world tensions on the United States alone. And all this talk about a "headlong rush to war" is just so much hysterical nonsense. What's more, it is utterly preposterous to describe the current stance of the Biden Administration as being "hyper aggressive". For that, you must look to Putin's actions towards Ukraine and the increasing belligerence of China towards Taiwan.

 

Anton Chaitkin’s reply to David Morrison.

Mr. Morrison curiously refers to me as “anti-Western.”

As an American patriot, I am warning that the United States is committing suicide and putting civilization at risk by ACTING UNLIKE ITSELF, BUT RATHER, LIKE THE OLD BRITISH EMPIRE. Mr. Morrison is evidently British himself. I would ask, was Senator John F. Kennedy “anti-Western” when he sharply criticized American policy for taking the side of the British and French imperialists against colonial freedom movements? Or when, as President, he signed nuclear security agreements with Russia? When President Franklin Roosevelt said the world could only be safe if post-war peace were enforced by the U.S., Russia, Britain and China acting as partners, was FDR “anti-Western”? I think better terms for his attitude would be, “patriotic” – “civilized” -- and “anti-fascist.” 

 

Alun Hughes, of Wales, UK, commented on my post on the Linked-In American History group. He is the author of the 2020 book, US diplomacy 1775-1850: the US and the Europeans.

 

The history of the US is far from this idealised image of what it is. Whilst Washington warned about long term commitments to other countries, thus creating a situation where the US was dragged into war when its' interests were not directly engaged, the US has readily entered wars over its' history as its interests dictated.

The key to understanding the US diplomatic mode is to appreciate the words uttered by John Quincy Adams on July 4th 1821 when he argued that the US "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy". His approach was to welcome a US defence of its interests and I'm sure that he could have constructed a case to fight Britain in 1783, the North African Pirates after 1800, France during the Quasi-War, Britain in 1812, Mexico in 1846, Spain in 1898, Germany in 1917, Germany and Japan in 1941 and any number of states at other times. The key is "interests" and whilst it has been a joy for the US to be able to stand on the idea of refracting through a liberal prism, it is something far more basic that has floated the US diplomatic boat

 

Anton Chaitkin’s Reply to Alun Hughes 1^st comment.

Thank you for your comment. I want to refer you to my recently published book, Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress, from Franklin to Kennedy – Volume 1, 1750s to 1850s. I report the policy fight between the two sides, nationalist pro-republic vs. reactionary pro-imperial.
George Washington and John Quincy Adams said we must not have wars unless our interests are directly involved. But I believe you are missing the central political CONTEST over what American interests are all about! We must seriously differentiate between these wars. America DEFENDED ITSELF FROM ATTACKS by Britain (Revolutionary War and the War of 1812), by the slaveowners (Civil War), and by Japan (World War II). But the other wars are different. John Quincy Adams fought against the unjust US war vs Mexico. The unjust 1898 war vs Spain was forced on President McKinley by anglophile imperialists. World War One was a crime, largely manufactured by King Edward VII helped by pro-imperial Teddy Roosevelt. U.S. wars after Kennedy’s death have been a catastrophe for the actual interests of the USA. WAR AVOIDANCE is a central focus of serious American patriots. And with nuclear weapons today, war is only a path to hell.

 

Alan Hughes’ 2^nd comment.

Few now regard the 1812 War as a purely defensive exercise and the warhawks who permeated US politics aspired to grab Canada whichever of the supposed camps that they belonged in. Similarly, Alexander Hamilton, who had been the prime advocate of the 1793 neutrality approach, was a fervent advocate of expanding the US at the expense of Spain in the late 1790s. You cite JQA on Mexico. Is this the same JQA who was prepared to grind down Spain between 1817 and 1819 and who served loyally in Monroe's Administration as Andrew Jackson abused Spanish interests in Florida? You are correct that JQA opposed the Polk approach in 1846 (though he was nuanced in that opposition) but an old bird like Adams was fully au fait with the sectional ramifications of the Texas acquisition and had said so in several documents on the same subject in 1819. War avoidance has not been the central concern of US patriots, but, instead, ensuring that things like legitimate and prudent interest based responses are at the heart of policy at any moment in time. Jaw-jaw or war war may be approaches adopted by all sides of the US diplomatic equation according to the nature of the factors in play

 

Status is online

Anton Chaitkin’s reply to Alun Hughes’ 2^nd comment.

A half-century ago, the Anglo-American establishment reversed the policies which had made the USA rich, powerful and humane. At the center of world affairs is the fact that THE USA CHANGED DEEPLY after JFK’s murder. In a general collapse of its historic principles, and degradation of its culture, the USA joined Britain in permanent war. Calling the U.S. to account for betraying its founding mission of progress may help cause some Americans to think deeply. Even if you disagree that America was ever better than now, please join me and consider what must be done to stop the insane push for war.