Readers are invited to submit letters to The Guardian.
Letters may be e-mailed to guardian@cpa.org.au.
Letters of 300-400 words are preferred.

Letters to the Editor:

A certain view of history

Rob Gowland's recent articles on history have prodded me into penning 
these lines. I am not a historian or even a student of history and I don't 
think I am being a revisionist — but I suppose it depends on your point of 
view. I' ll start it off with a bang! I've been wondering if the term 
"World War II" is a misnomer.

What? The man is really mad. Well, lets look at who decided to call it that 
in the first place — our old "friends" the capitalists! I note that Russia 
referred to it as "The Great Patriotic War".

So what do I think it should be called? It arises from what I have written 
previously — the undeclared and never acknowledged war, WW2 — really 
started in 1917, even before WW1 had ended.

It started when the "allies" (such as they were, and still are) turned on 
one of those that had been fighting with them against Germany because it 
had become "worker controlled" and they knew quite well the danger that was 
there for them.

But their efforts to strangle it at birth were unsuccessful and the war has 
continued ever since. WW2 so named was just a big battle in this continuing 
war.

It came about because the workers' state was actually challenging the top 
capitalist state for the number one world position. This was intolerable. 
It had to be stopped and taught a lesson — put in its place.

So some of the capitalist states got together and launched a plan that 
could solve the problem and possibly one or two others. At the same Germany 
was totally anti-communist — why not encourage it to expand eastwards and 
teach that upstart workers' state a lesson.

They, of course, would remain on the sidelines making a bit by supplying 
both sides and keeping them going until both were exhausted — and then 
step in and pick the bones of both sides. What a capitalist plan, old chap.

But it came unstuck because the German capitalists were wide awake to how 
capitalist thinking goes and had a few plans of their own. Being arrogantly 
confident of their military might they reckoned they could not only handle 
Russia with ease but could give their "friends" a kick in the backside to 
teach them a lesson too.

So they pushed as far as they could without fighting, but when the "allies" 
had to finally make a stand, however reluctantly, the Germans staged a 
trial run of their game plan for Russia, drove the English back to England, 
smashed the European armies and not only made sure their rear was 
protected, but added all the sources of Europe to be used on the Russian 
front.

And they also knew the "allies" would not make too much of an effort 
because they wanted Germany to attack Russia. Hence the phoney war of 1940.

Even Churchill in one of his rare moments of truth stated that it was the 
Red Army that tore the guts out of the German army. So, what were the 
allies doing while the Red Army was doing this? Making token gestures of 
support but mostly what they had intended all along — sitting on the 
sidelines waiting to come in on the "grouter". And they nearly left it too 
late, even then.

B Appleton
Killcare Heights, NSW

Julie Messenger's letter to The Guardian putting the case against 
the death penalty was timely, given the media hype this week over the 
Amrosi trial in Bali.

The families and friends of those who died in the nightclub bombings have 
given mixed reaction to the sentence. Many have applauded the judges' 
decision, saying he "deserves to die". Others have taken the position of 
"two wrongs don't make a right".

I would question: how many of those people in favour of killing Amrosi 
would be similarly blood-thirsty if this trial were taking place in 
Australia, and the perpetrator a Christian Anglo-Aussie?

John Howard now states he thinks "there should be debate" on the re-
introduction of the death penalty here in Australia.

All communists, leftists and progressives must agree on this point: if John 
Howard is promoting something then it can't be good.

To which crimes should the death penalty apply? Murders? Multiple-murders? 
Rape and murder?

Or in the case of Cuba, terrorist hi-jackings?

Once the death penalty has been re-introduced for just one or two crimes, 
will it then be extended further and further by popularity-seeking 
politicians as the Murdoch trash-tabloids pronounce criminals "evil" on 
their front pages?

There has already been a slide towards mandatory sentencing in this 
country, and many states of the USA legislate for mandatory death sentences 
for some crimes — the murder of children for example.

In these cases there is very little room for judges to manoeuvre to factor 
in extenuating circumstances. And so the "death-row" prisons are now 
filling with the mentally retarded, psychiatric patients, and even, in 
George W's home state of Texas — children.

The percentage of African-Americans sentenced to death for murder greatly 
exceeds the percentage of death sentences handed out to white murderers.

This all illustrates that a death sentence can very easily be swayed by 
factors of emotion, prejudice, publicity and, as Julie Messenger argued, 
class.

The vast majority of Australians already oppose the re-imposition of the 
death penalty, and they must clearly and forcefully shout down those who 
wish to re-open the issue.

Andrew Lennox
Townsville, Qld