The author is disingenuous.

One could make the case that Europe "wanted" war in 1914, though such a claim is simplistic. For if Europe really wanted to have war, the war would well have started two years or so earlier.

So perhaps what Mr. Crossman really wanted to say was that Europe did not want peace enough to avoid war. Whatever that might mean, given the dynamics of treaties and rivalries and brinksmanship. Whatever "Europe" might mean. Perhaps. (Though perhaps the author meant "Germany" or "Austria-Hungary" but couldn't quite get his tongue around it. Mustn't offend anyone, after all, we're all guilty. Of something. All responsible. You know.)

And were one to try hard enough, one could similarly claim that Europe, in 1939, wanted war. Certainly, there was no reason for England and France to declare war on Germany following the latter's invasion of Poland. Except that they, for whatever reason---honor? decency? idiocy?---decided to respect the defense pact they had signed with that invaded state. Hitler himself believed they wouldn't dare. (And judging from those countries' previous behavior, who could blame the poor fellow?)

No. To claim, as Mr. Crossman does, that "Europe" wanted war in 1939 is simply not true. (Once again, might he have really meant "Germany"?)England and French did their absolute utmost to avoid it, to avoid military escalation, to deny German re-armament, to avoid looking at the writing on the wall. And even sacrificed a fledgling democracy to the wolves in their passion for peace. As for the USSR, well....

No. Contrary to Mr. Crossman's absurd claim, Europe in fact did its utmost to not want war.

And boy did Europe ever get that war.

So what might it mean for a man of purported intelligence (grace, charm and old-world wisdom) to make such a claim today?

Might it mean that he is bending over backwards precisely not to understand events, to construct and then believe in a revisionism of rather huge proportions? To create fictions, and then use them as the basis of moral decision making? To base today's decisions on the lessons "learned" from the past?

To lie and to call it virtue?

Why is Mr. Crossman trying so hard not to tell the truth?

"America is the brave young soldier, with shining eyes and a firm jaw, marching towards a battle that will make the world a better place..."

Exactly! But without the naiveté implied. We understad that war will be necessary again, in a generation, or so. And again, and again. The liberal sees man as inherently good. We are not. And so long as there is evil in this world, war will be necessary to hold it at bay. We can defeat Hitler. We can defeat Saddam. But we cannot stop the rise of every new Hitler and every new Saddam around the world.

The European theater is shaping itself again as the rising muslim population replicates the conditions of envy and hate that bred Hitler. The neo-nazis are gaining ground, and mankind will be the poorer for it's risible hatred.

And again, sooner or later, the American soldier will be "marching towards a battle that will make the world a better place." And it will be my son's blood or my grandson's blood which will purchase your freedom from this new tyranny.

You're welcome.

Tangential, I know, but it's always sad to see an Englishman voluntarily admit to being European.

You beat me to it, David. His identifying himself as a European immediately set off alarm bells.

Americans fight for ideals, such as Liberty and Democracy, and to defend ourselves. We want other peoples to be successful, like ourselves. Europeans have not fought for ideals, but for national and ethnic supremacy. That they are unwilling to fight now indicates that they have no ideals, save self preservation, that they are willing to fight for.

Though one might well wonder, at this point, if Europeans are even fighting for self preservation.

(I.e., if you're better than anyone else, why bother having to defend yourself?)

Putting Barry's inciteful comments on European history together with David/Jason's laments, is it possible that at some subconscious level they are all becoming Germans?

If you accept Shirer's observations in, eg, "Berlin Diary," it is clear that in 1939 few Germans wanted war, although they also did not want to challenge authority, and the authority did want war. (Even the Germany army did not want war in 1939, it was aiming at 1944.)

No one else in Europe wanted war, either. And many would have done anything to have avoided or ended it. As late as 1942, David Lloyd-George was demanding in Parliament that Britain enter armistice negotiations with Germany.

What Crossman fails to understand -- and he is not alone -- is that not wanting war does nothing to avoid it. As Churchill said after Munich: "The gentlemen had a choice between war and dishonor. They have chosen dishonor. They will have war."

Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond to my article, although the edited extract shown above gives the wrong impression of what I was saying. In the full length version (see the International Herald Tribune site for that) I make it clear that Europe did NOT want the Second World War, as some contributors have rightly said. That was my point - Europe was war-weary by that stage, and was more so by the end of WWII.

It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that America is naive in its approach to war, or that Europe is superior in its reservations. No sensible person would say that all war is wrong, or conversely that all war is right. You've got to pick and choose, and your country's history will affect that decision. The article was really about the very different histories Europe and America have experienced regarding war.

Incidentally, identifying myself as European was intended as a geographical statement rather than a political one. It says something about the current climate that to make such a statement 'sets off alarm bells'!