Dar es-Salaam (Dar al-Islam)-Post WWII (Pt 1 of 3)

· History
Authors

Dar es-Salaam (Dar al-Islam) – Post WWII (Part 1 of 3)

(5687 words)

Misconceptions of an immigration policy after World War II that could bring about the demise of Western civilisation more effectively than the invasion of foreign armies is scrutinised. Unless we appreciate the significance of Dar es-Salaam we will be unable to counteract it.
Arab nations were wooed by the West, notably the EU, and seen as partners in a “Project for a New Eurabia Century,” (PNEC.) How this has occurred and developed is documented here.
(Edited 24.01.11)


[Part 1 of Dar as-Salaam – Post WWII]

Prologue:


We have to reflect upon history to be able to understand why we have arrived at this juncture of history. Looking at the relative recent history, we have had “the age of discovery,” followed by “the European Industrialisation” that forced nations to seek wealth through trade and colonisation. Upon reflection, the periods between the 16th century through the 20th century was relatively peaceful with growing prosperity for all despite WWI and WWII which were not a direct consequences of colonialism. [1]

But following WWII the world changed in an ominous way that now threatens us with a possible catastrophe, worse than we have ever known before, a war of cultures. We will examine the major factors that have led us to this juncture.

Significance of Decisions made after WWII


Hitler’s determination to rule Europe seemed unstoppable, with German armies sweeping across Europe, after Hitler brought Germany out of economic depression. Churchill begged Roosevelt to assist Britain in her struggle against Nazism. But Roosevelt was shrewd and wily. Like most Americans, history had taught them to loath “colonialism,” and Roosevelt was determined to use his trump cards to end European colonialism once and for all. Whether this was for altruistic reasons or for more selfish national interests, to break the strangle hold colonialism had on the monopoly of world trade has never been established.  America was now a strong manufacturing nation and needed markets for her manufacturers. But, almost more holy than the Bible, was the American Constitution’s First and 2nd Amendment:

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The First Amendment, the hallmark of most American attitudes clearly establishes their declaration of independence from the strangle-hold of the Church, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, upon the people of Europe. After all, that is why the “founding fathers of America” left Europe to escape. However, when the constitution was conceived, the founding fathers had only experienced the authoritarian strangle-hold of the Christian denominations. Thus the First Amendment was not able to take into consideration the effects of other ideologies like Nazism, or Communism, or Islam or Scientology.The Second Amendment was to ensure that the people had the right to take up arms against any unwanted imposed autocracy. They were prepared to fight to defend their freedoms. In Europe, from whence they escaped, the people suffered under the strong arm of the Monarchs with no recourse. It was also  to ensure that the Redcoats (British army) were never able to subdue the American people at will as they tried to do in the American War of Independence. They wished to enshrine all this into their constitution. This philosophy and attitude also influenced their foreign policies as illustrated by Franklin Roosevelt.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Vision and Perceptions


Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1945 unfinished portrait

Roosevelt’s sense of ethics, justice and foreign policies was strongly based on the American Constitution, American history, and the biographies of past presidents like Abraham Lincoln. This is clearly reflected when he declared his “Four Freedoms” to Congress on the 5th of January, 1941 when he launch the concept of the Atlantic Charter.

**Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms

“(1)  The first freedom is of Speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
(2)  The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
(3)  The third freedom is from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.
(4)  The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour—anywhere in the world.” [2]

It is obvious that Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms and the Atlantic Charter were fundamentally influenced by the  the U.S. Constitution. It was not unique. He wanted to extend the vision of American Democracy to the world but included more specifically reference to aversion to colonialism.

Roosevelt cunningly manoeuvred Churchill into signing the Atlantic Charter as a condition for supporting Britain in the war against Nazi Germany but it also was intended to commit Britain into dismantling of the British Empire.The Atlantic Charter spells it out clearly the intent of the document.

THE ATLANTIC CHARTER

“The President of the United States of America and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, met together, and deemed it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandisement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;


Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment of all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nation which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside or their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.

Signed on Aug.14, 1945 by:

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Winston S. Churchill”  [3]


At a conference held in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 1, 1942, the 26 governments then at war with the Axis powers declared that they “subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the joint declaration . . . known as the Atlantic Charter.” The statement embodying this adherence to the charter, called the UN Declaration, was later signed by most of the free nations of the world and formed the basis of the UN organization established at San Francisco in April–June 1945. [4]

The Demise of European Colonialism

Roosevelt was triumphant to have made Churchill sign the “Atlantic Charter” because it was “the instrument” for the dismantling of the British Empire. Of course, the Atlantic Charter was already ratified by 26 other governments in January,1942, and Roosevelt had outmanoeuvred Churchill. Churchill had little option, in 1945,  and he was forced to agree to the Charter to ensure that America supported Britain in her desperate war against Hitler. It was a humiliating price Churchill had to pay for ensuring victory against Nazism.

To be able to gain an insight into the mind of Roosevelt and the way he handled Churchill, it is necessary to look into the detailed reports made by his son Elliot Roosevelt who accompanied him in Roosevelt’s various conferences.

Roosevelt felt deeply about his opposition to colonialism. Historian Warren Kimball insightfully noted that he (Roosevelt) held the “consistent position that colonialism, not communism, was the -ism that most threatened postwar peace and stability.” This put him at significant odds with Winston Churchill. The two leaders most certainly “did not march to the same drumbeat” as Averell Harriman correctly recalled, for “Roosevelt enjoyed thinking aloud on the tremendous changes he (Roosevelt) saw ahead – the end of colonial empires and the rise of newly independent nations across the sweep of Africa and Asia,” a movement which he intended to promote and see accomplished.” [5]

From the historical point of view dating back to the founding fathers, America had always demonised the stranglehold of both Monarchy and the Church (both Catholic and Anglican) over the common man, so much so, that it was incorporated into the American Constitution, as well as their national psyche.

“There Will Not be Another World War” – Roosevelt

Roosevelt formed a military alliance with Great Britain, only to win the war against Hitler’s Third Reich, but he had plans to create a different world, after the war–“A WORLD WITHOUT COLONIALISM.” He was acutely aware (convinced) of the danger, that unless colonialism were finally eradicated, another world war was virtually inevitable. Unfortunately, Roosevelt’s grand design for the creation of new, independent nations to populate the world, did not come to be in Roosevelt’s lifetime. After the war, due to Truman’s capitulation to the British aspirations nothing much changed initially.
Roosevelt’s understanding of the threat posed to world peace by the continuation of imperialism, was recorded by his son Elliott in his book, “As He Saw It” (published Duell,Sloan & Pearce-NY.) FDR told his son (Elliot),

“The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements–all you’re doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you’re doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.”

At the Casablanca conference in January of 1943, Roosevelt was even more emphatic:

“I’m talking about another war. I’m talking about what will happen to our world, if after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery! Don’t think for a moment, Elliot, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn’t been for the short sighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now.”

Roosevelt understood (was convinced) the danger that British imperial policies posed to the world, and he was acutely aware that he would have to deal with this threat, in a forceful manner, at the conclusion of the war. In 1942, Roosevelt quipped, prophetically, to one of his advisers:

“We will have more trouble with Great Britain after the war than we are having with Germany now” [2]

“An End to 18th Century Colonial Methods”


“Roosevelt knew quite well that Churchill would not like his determination to put an end to British colonialism and he told his son. Elliot:

“I think I speak as America’s President when I say that America won’t help England in this war simply so that she will be able to continue to ride roughshod over colonial peoples. I think that I can see there will be a little fur flying here and there, in the next few days.”

At Argentia in August 1941, Roosevelt confronted Churchill directly in their discussions when he (Roosevelt) told the British Prime Minister:

“These Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonised Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”

Chruchill,, with his neck reddened, responded:

“Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favoured position among the British Dominions. The trade that made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.”

[Here Churchill openly mentions “trade that made England great” and “its (England’s) favoured position among the British Dominions” while Roosevelt has astutely avoided any mention of “England’s favoured position” but stressed on the altruistic aspects of the development of a backward peoples. But how much of Roosevelt’s intent was really to open up the sources of raw materials and markets for an open competition for America to access? Roosevelt cleverly avoided the mention of free trade and the opening of trade for American entry into the monopolised European colonies.]

Winston Spencer-Churchill

Roosevelt repliedslowly to Churchill, according to his son Elliot’s eye-witness account:

“You see, it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some agreement between you, Winston, and me. I am firmly of the belief that if we are going to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries, Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done by 18th-century methods.”

Churchill interrupted, “Who’s talking 18th-century methods?”Roosevelt answered Churchill directly:

“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration.”

Roosevelt continuedto lecture the red-faced Churchill on “American System” economics:

“20th-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. 20th-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation–by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”

Assistant Secretary of State, Sumner Welles, one of Roosevelt’s key men, clearly reflected Roosevelt’s views on foreign policy. Welles, in his 1942 Memorial Day address, proclaimed that World War II would bring about an end to imperialism:

“If this war is, in fact, a war for liberation of peoples, it must assure sovereign equality of peoples throughout the world, as well as in the world of the Americas. Our victory must bring in its train the liberation of all peoples. Discrimination between peoples because of their race, creed, or color must be abolished. The age of imperialism is ended.”

Secretary of state Hull,two months later, echoed Well’s remarks:

“We have always believed–and we believe today that all peoples without distinction of race, colour, or religion, who are prepared and willing to accept the responsibilities of liberty, are entitled to its enjoyment.”

Churchill’s outlook during the war was, that upon an allied victory, the British Empire would be resurrected as the dominant power in the world, and this governed his relations with the emerging American superpower. Although the British knew that they needed the United States to win the war, Churchill fought Roosevelt throughout the entire war to maintain every inch of Britain’s imperial possessions.The American President, looked at the world from an entirely different hypothesis, one that saw the end of the war as synonymous with the end of all forms of oppression, and the beginning of a new era of development, especially for those countries who had suffered under colonial rule.” [2]

The above clearly are opposing views between the American perception and the European perception of the future of the world after WW II. Unfortunately, events after WWII has not proven the Roosevelt’s visions would prove correct with respect to wars and conflicts. In fact it has increased.

Roosevelt’s Anti-Imperialist Alliance


Roosevelt knew the war had to be won with the British as allies, but his diplomacy, while he was conducting the war, was premised on the future, which his grand strategy embodied. After the war, he intended to bring into existence a new anti-imperialist alliance, which, unfortunately his untimely death, and the succession of Truman as President, tragically aborted. Roosevelt’s vision was to have a new alliance compromised of the United States, Russia, and China, the three most powerful nations, which did not have colonial possessions against the British, French, and Dutch colonial powers.Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s closest aide, reflected this aspect of the President’s thinking when he wrote:

“We simply cannot organize the world between the British and ourselves without bringing the Russians in as equal partners. For that matter, if things go well with Chiang Kai-shek, I would surely include the Chinese too.”

Militarily, the British were already weakened, which made the potential for the defeat of their Empire after the war, all the more feasible. A memorandum from the U.S. Joint Chiefs Strategic Survey Committee at the time made the following evaluation:

“As a military power, the British Empire in the postwar era will be in distinctly lower category than the United States and Russia. The primacy of the British Empire in the century before World War I, and her second-to-none position until World War II, have built up a traditional concept of British military power which the British will strive to profit by and maintain in the postwar era…. Both in an absolute sense and relative to the United States and Russia, the British will emerge from the war having lost ground both economically and militarily.”

Sumner Welles, looking at the world in 1946, concurred with this analysis:

“It was evident that Great Britain would be utterly exhausted upon conclusion of the war. These signs were already plain to all who cared to see them that the world order which must then be created would bring freedom to the colonial peoples, and that the liquidation of the British Empire was at hand. The British Commonwealth of Nations itself must undergo a profound transformation in the postwar period as a result of which the mother country’s position would become far less dominant.”

Roosevelt was acutely aware that, the United States would be in the dominant leadership position after the war, and would determine the character of the new, postwar, alliance against the imperial practices of the old colonial powers. (There are interesting parallels to the current strategic correlation of forces, and the decisive role that President Clinton and the United States must play in forging a “New Bretton Woods System” today).

FDR expressed this to his son Elliott, in the following way:

“Even our alliance with Britain holds dangers of making it seem to China and Russia that we support wholly the British line in international politics. The United States will have to lead, and use our good offices to conciliate … between Russia and England, in Europe; between the British Empire and China and between China and Russia, in the Far East. Britain is on the decline, China–still in the 18th century. Russia–suspicious of us…. America is the only great power that can make peace in the world stick.”

Roosevelt wanted Stalin and Chiang Kai-Shek to know the sharp political and philosophical differences between the United States and the British. In reporting on his meeting with Stalin, he said that,

“the biggest thing was in making clear to Stalin that United States and Great Britain were not allied in one common bloc against the Soviet Union. I think we’ve got rid of that idea, once and for all. I hope so. The one thing that could upset the apple cart, after the war, is if the world is divided again, Russia against England and us.” (And this is exactly what happened.)

The central, anti-British nature of the alliance was made clear by the Chiang’s request for Roosevelt’s help to prevent the British from moving into Hong Kong and Shanghai, while Stalin also agreed to help Chiang against the British.

“The Chinese were very anxious that we agree not to show our air-maps to the British–in fact, they made us promise not to…. It’s not hard to appreciate their point of view. They’re aware that the British want to look at them for commercial reasons … commercial, postwar reasons.”

Elliott Roosevelt says that his father pointed “out that a majority of Chinese think more highly of Japanese colonial policies than they do of British or French or Dutch.” The Chinese were so fearful of renewed British imperialism after the war that Chiang Kai-Shek pleaded with Roosevelt, “that when Japan is on her knees we make sure that no British warships come into Chinese ports.”According to author James Burns:

“Roosevelt saw China as the kingpin in an Asiatic structure of newly independent and self-governing nations and hence as the supreme example and test of his strategy of freedom…. Roosevelt at least glimpsed the explosive energy lying dormant in the billion people of Asia.”

Roosevelt fully intended to force the British Empire, along with the other imperialist powers to bend to a new era of progress in the second half of the 20th century. He (FDR) told this to Elliott before the Yalta Conference (Yalta Conference Feb: 1945):

The point is that we are going to be able to bring pressure on the British to fall in line with our thinking in relation to the whole colonial question. It’s all tied up in one package: The Dutch East Indies, French Indochina, India, British extraterritorial rights in China….We’re going to be able to make this the 20th century after all, you watch and see!”

The British were well aware of Roosevelt’s organizing for this new alliance and were trying to gather support from other imperialist powers to help protect the integrity of their Empire and their colonial system prior to the Yalta Conference in February 1945. Leo Pasvolsky, the head of the postwar U.S. planning staff, who was involved in the pre-Yalta discussions, has this to say in response to Britain’s Colonial Secretary Stanley:

“The British position is clearly designed to win support from other states with colonies in order to offset the support which, they, anticipate, the United States will receive from the Soviet Union and China”.

Lord Beloff, reports that,

“in a dispatch in 1944, the British Ambassador, in analysing the British-American tendency to view the United States, Russia, and China as the Great Powers of the future, and the unspoken assumption that the British Empire was falling apart … that the traditional attacks on colonialism and imperialism … were now again coming to the fore.”

The decisive issue for Roosevelt, which he had made repeatedly clear throughout the 1941-1945 period, was to rid the world of imperialist-colonial practices in the postwar era, and this was to be supervised by the three emerging non-colonial powers: the United States, Russia, and China.As Louis reports:

“He (FDR) found it easier to talk to Stalin and Chiang Kai-Shek than Churchill about the future of the British Empire.”

Churchill knew this is what Roosevelt was working toward,and attacked this new alliance again after the Yalta Conference. Churchill was determined not to allow any international intervention to dismantle the Empire’s colonies. In March 1945, Churchill bellowed again:

“I should myself oppose … [that] which might well be pressed upon nations like Britain, France, Holland and Belgium, who have great colonial possessions, by the United States, Russia, and China who have none.”

The dividing line was clearly established.[6] [7]

Roosevelt’s Vision Dies


On April 12, 1945 Franklin Delano Roosevelt died, and, tragically for humanity, the potential for a brighter postwar era died with him, as that “little man,” Harry Truman, took over the reigns of the U.S. Presidency. The British were confident that with Roosevelt’s death, the Empire would live on, and, to the detriment of civilization, it has (but only to a point). All Roosevelt’s plans to dismantle the British colonial empire along with the French, Dutch, and Belgium, and his vision of entering a new era of development, especially for the “colonial sector,” with the end of imperialist “18th century methods,” vanished, instantaneously, with his death. But succeeding events prove that the Atlantic Charter still had its teeth because all colonies were given independence soon after the war. [6]

Roosevelt’s Misjudgements and Myths.

Hindsight may be an unjust judge of events but there are certainly myths still perpetuated till today. Let us quickly list some of the more obvious myths and errors of judgement.

(1) The legend of the great democratic leaders, Roosevelt and Churchill, working together like true friends to vanquish the fascist forces is a powerfully appealing one. No one did more to promote it than Britain’s indomitable wartime prime minister, Churchill, both in his moving tribute at Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s death and in his influential memoirs that praised the American president who had aided him in the darkest hours of Hitler’s onslaught. Roosevelt was “the greatest American friend we have ever known,”  who Churchill later deemed the “saviour of Europe.”

But some of Roosevelt’s policies led to subsequent complications for his ultimate vision of “the new world order.” Roosevelt’s perception of his world order was based entirely on his appreciation of American history and Constitution. He did not understand or appreciate the psyche or sentiments of European, or Arab, or Indian, or Oriental cultures and sentiments nor understood their ideologies because there was no cause for him to study or understand them. His judgements were based on his belief that the American system of democracy and its constitutional ideals should be the yardstick to regulate the rest of the world.

Roosevelt had intended to use his relationship with Joseph Stalin, the leader of Russia, and Chiang Kai Shek of China, to forge a new post war alliance: a “Grand Strategy” to free the world of the colonial methods of the British, French, and Dutch empires.

This vision of a “new world order” was a Rooseveltian construct, similar to a “Project of a New American Order” that surfaced later. A new world order that excluded all the European nations, but encompassing 3 of the nations with the largest land mass and populations and who did not have colonial empires. All this planning and scheming because Roosevelt was determined to crush colonialism for he imagined that the European nations would rebel against his ideas.

Historian Warren Kimball insightfully noted that he (Roosevelt) held the “consistent position that colonialism, not communism, was the -ism that most threatened postwar peace and stability.”  This put him at significant odds with Winston Churchill.

Roosevelt, however, never even contemplated that the biggest threat to world peace and stability in the 21st century would come from a religious ideology as it is in the American Constitution that the freedom of religion would be honoured. But today’s threat is not from oppressed colonials, but from the immiscible religion of Islam.

In a final analysis, this of course has proven to be wrong. De-colonisation began very rapidly, too rapidly in most cases, after the end of WWII in 1945 when Jordan became independent in 1946, and Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh in 1947 and so on. But instead of joy and peace, independence resulted in misery and massive loss of lives as in India-Pakistan partition, and African tribalisms. In fact, the colonial period maintained a higher degree of peace and order and regional stability than has post de-colonial era. Independence brought chaos and is still wrecking chaos today 65 years later.(2) Roosevelt was also wrong about communism. Soon after WWII after the Yalta Conference in February 1945, the Cold War began and continued till the collapse of the Soviet Union in August 1991 when it ended. But the rivalry and conflicts between Russia and America is still smouldering under the surface. Forty-six years of tension and brinkmanship between communism and democracy. The tensions between communist Russia, communist China and  democratic America is still with us today.Churchill played his role as a true British diplomat to the end but perhaps with tongue in cheek. For Churchill never in all his writings ever disclosed the infighting between the two leaders especially regarding Roosevelt’s determination to destroy Britain’s (colonial) empire. It was Elliot Roosevelt who revealed the truth. Roosevelt was prepared to destroy Hitler, and after that cowed the British Empire. But he was erroneous in some of his judgements, mostly out of ignorance and lack of experience with other cultures and races.

(3) Roosevelt succeeded in his main objective, destroying “colonialism” even if he did not live long enough to see it happen. But it is clear that Roosevelt did not know or appreciate other cultures, their aspirations, and their dogmas. He would have been horrified to know that he had unleashed the racial hatred between the Hindus and the Muslims in India were millions lost their lives and homes. Nor was he aware of the traditional rivalries between the different African tribes who would massacre one another by the millions when it suddenly became a land without law and order and tribal hatreds surfaced to settle old scores. Neither did he realise the hatred that lay below the surface in Africa between different tribes and different religions. In this respect, Roosevelt was naive and judged others as though they were like civilised Americans. He had no concept of tribal hatreds or the inflexible supremasist Islamic ideology that is now threatening the world peace.

Yes, Roosevelt freed and gave independence to the natives, and eliminated “colonialism” but did it produce peace and harmony? No! His vision was misguided.

However, many countries can thank Roosevelt for laying the foundations for the destruction of colonialism even if it may not have achieved the aims of Roosevelt’s vision. The concept might have been altruistic but there were no plans or visions for the peaceful transition or handing over of authority and power, and America was not there to ensure it was a peaceful transition. In the many cases, chaos and anarchy and thousands of deaths resulted when colonial rule was suddenly with drawn. This chaos is still reverberating today. Roosevelt’s paranoia of the evils of colonialism can best be illustrated from the following illustrations:

“The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements–all you’re doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you’re doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.” – FDR (Elliot Roosevelt, As He Saw It) [6]

****(4) Unwittingly Roosevelt also released the Islamic “genie” of which he had no conception of its implications, because he had no knowledge of Islam. A genie that had remained dormant for many thousands of years but now given the breadth of life because of the power vacuum created after WWII. A genie that will never be put back into its bottle again. And that is the main thrust of this discussion, to examine the aims of Islam now that it has been revived, with a vengeance.

The Price of WWII


The devastation, destruction, and sufferings caused by WWII exceeded all previous wars. Will it have been a war to end all wars as Roosevelt had hoped and planned for? Or did Roosevelt sow the seeds for WWIII? What could have happened had Roosevelt lived to see his plans through? We will never know.

But from the ashes of WWII the Phoenix arose in Europe in the form of the European Union, in Russia as the Soviet Union, in China as the new People’s Republic of China-the next most powerful nation alongside America. America evolved as the “most powerful nation in the 20th-21st century”- (although now in serious economic crisis,) and then the Phoenix of Islam-determined to create a perfect  Islamic world of Dar es-Salaam. All these national/cultural ambitions were erected from the ashes of WWII and the table below illustrates some of the toll of WWII.

To appreciate the devastation brought upon Europe, we look at a summary of the deaths brought upon the major nations of the world. [8]

Human Losses in World War II (Summary of main countries)

 Country
 Total Population
1.1.39
Military Deaths  Civilian Deaths due to War etc Jewish Holocaust Deaths  Total Deaths % Deaths based on 1.1.39
 Albania          1,073,000            30,000                  200            30.200                2.81
 Australia          6,998,000            39,800                 700            40,500                0.57
 Austria,1939 6,653,000  261,000  58,700  65,000 384,700  5.8
 Germany 1937 69,310,000  4,456,000  700,000
to 2,284,000
 160,000  5,316,000
to 6,900,000
 7.7
to 9.9
 Ethnic Germans (outside Germany)
 7,292,000  601,000  200,000
to 886,000
 801,000
to 1,487,000
 11.0
to 20.4
 Belgium 8,387,000  12,100  49,600  24,400  86,100  1.02
 Canada 11,267,000  45,400  45,400  0.40
China 517,568,000  3,000,000
to 4,000,000
 7,000,000
to 16,000,000
 10,000,000
to 20,000,000
 1.93
to 3.86
Czechoslovakia 15,300,000  25,000  43,000  277,000  277,000  2.25
 France 41,700,000  217,600 267,000  83,000   567,600 1.35
 Hungary 9,129,000 300,000  80,000 200,000 580,000  6.35
 Italy 44,394,000  301,400 145,100 10,500  457,000  1.03
 Japan 71,380,000  2,120,000  500,000
to 1,000,000
2,620,000 to 3,120,000  3.67
to 4.37
Latvia1939borders  1,995,000  147,000  80,000 227,000  11.38
 Lithuania 1939
 2,575,000  212,000  141,000 353,000  13.71
 Netherlands  8,729,000  17,000  180,000   104,000 301,000  3.45
Poland 1939  34,849,000  240,000  2,380,000
to 2,580,000
 3,000,000 5,620,000
to 5,820,000
16.1
to 16.7
Romania 1939 19,934,000 300,000 64,000   469,000  833,000  4.22
United Kingdom  47,760,000 383,600  67,100  450,700  0.94
 Yugoslavia
 15,400,000  446,000 514,000 67,000  1,027,000  6.67
 United States  131,028,000 416,800 1,700
418,500
 0.32
Soviet Union  168,524,000  8,800,000
to 10,700,000
12,254,000
to 14,154,000
 1,000,000 23,954,000  14.0
 Total world
1,967,095,400
 22,576,700
to 25,491,800
32,166,500
to 49,952,200
5,753,100  62,396,670
to 79,298,170
3.17
to 4.00

[Continued in Part 2) : https://mbplee.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/dar-es-salaam-dar-al-islam-post-wwii-pt-2-of-3/

References:

[1] Global Conflicts 3000BC-2008AD: http://www.warscholar.com/Timeline.html
[2] Roosevelt’s ‘Grand Strategy’ to rid the World of British Colonialism:1941-1945 by Lawrence K. Freeman.
http://www.members.tripod.com/american_almanac/lkffdr.htm
[3] A copy of Churchill’s copy of the Atlantic Charter
http://www.ssa.gov/history/acharter2.html
[4] Adoption of the 26 Allies, and incorporation into the UN declaration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations
[5] Roosevelt to Truman by Wilson D. Miscamble,C.S.C.  Cambridge Press. (see page 43)  [1]
http://books.google.com/books?id=aULOu-zN6NYC&pg=RA1-PA42&lpg=RA1-PA43&ots=AG_IV4Tnos&dq=Roosevelt+seen+as+the+Saviour+of+Europe#v=onepage&q=&f=false
[6] Myths of WWII: http://knol.google.com/k/mbp-lee/the-myths-of-ww-ii-european-american/1l23x9udotn1a/17#view
[7]
Roosevelt’s ‘Grand Strategy’ to rid the World of British Colonialism:1941-1945 by Lawrence K. Freeman.
http://www.members.tripod.com/american_almanac/lkffdr.htm
[8] Human Losses WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

1 Comment

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: