I Had A Nightmare Of An America Gone Astray
Forlorn
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
in Discussions
I had a dream last night, oh boy.
It started around 1942, about a year after the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, and the war was not going well.
Actually, it was sort of hard to know back home in the States how it was going. People were getting letters from their fathers, sons, brothers or husbands that U.S. forces were making progress, but they never saw much of that in the newsreels. A lot of it was American soldiers getting killed or getting their limbs blown off, and of weeping families at the funerals of those soldiers, who railed against President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They accused him of seeking to dominate the world on the bodies of their sons.
Most of the newsreels focused on civilian casualties from errant American bombs, prompting huge rallies in Washington demanding that Roosevelt bring the troops home and stop slaughtering innocents. A college student wrote an editorial for the student newspaper saying American soldiers dying overseas, “deserve to die, for going over there to kill other people.”
Indeed, things weren’t going well at all for FDR.
Maybe he hadn’t deliberately orchestrated the Pearl Harbor attacks like some conspiracy theorists claimed, but he had clearly provoked the Japanese with unnecessary embargoes on oil and steel, said a growing, ever louder, chorus of critics that included a number in Congress. There were reports that Japanese children had died because of the embargoes that were producing headlines like, “FDR, child killer.”
“Did Mr. Roosevelt ever think about why the Japanese hate us so much?” shouted a prominent Hollywood actor at a rally in California. “Look at what our president has done to them. They’re just defending themselves and their way of life. We should just leave them alone.”
FDR’s speech from a year ago, immediately after the attack, was still getting shredded as well. “What’s he talking about ‘… the American people in their righteous might …’?” scoffed the actor. “What nationalistic, jingoistic crap. Does he think that might makes right?”
The president was having a tough time even overseeing the war effort because of all the time he had to spend dealing with the 12/7 Commission, which had been holding hearings for the past several months on who was to blame for the Pearl Harbor attack. FDR had first resisted demands that he appear and testify under oath, saying winning the war was more important, but he finally gave in to public pressure. The national press made sure their newsreels showed the president being rolled into the hearing room in his wheelchair. He didn’t look much like a powerful leader.
His political opponents in Congress, who accused him of the most “reckless, inept, arrogant foreign policy in the history of this nation,” and of “sending our young men to die for his dreams of world domination” never tired of pointing out that FDR had never actually fought in a war himself. How could he be the commander in chief if he’d never fought in World War I?
The president was also accused of being a hypocrite. Sure, Hitler is a tyrant, his critics said, and the world would probably be better off without him. But Stalin is a tyrant as well. Why aren’t we attacking him?
As the war wore on, pop culture was turning against FDR. The Andrews Sisters recorded “He Ain’t Blowin’ No bugle for Company B,” and said at one of their sold-out shows that they were ashamed of being from the same country as Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their album sales took off.
Mainstream public support was crumbling as well. Local organizations urged people to protest rationing of gas and to refuse to turn in rubber products. “Don’t support the Roosevelt war machine!” they cried.
In 1945, the battle for Iwo Jima drove the president’s poll numbers into the cellar. What madman would send 60,000 troops to attack a heavily armed, crummy little island in the South Pacific, so nearly 7,000 of them could die in little more than a month?
The picture of the flag raisers at Iwo Jima produced a public firestorm. The soldiers were grandstanding. The president was trying to use the photo to score political points, people said. And when the federal government decided to make a postage stamp out of it, protesters insisted that the image be altered to include an African American, a woman and a Latino. Fortunately an American Indian was already in the picture.
I finally woke up, and told one of my friends about it. “Bizarre,” he agreed, “but hey, it was only a dream. Stuff like that would never really happen in America."
This was not written by me, but by a editorialist of the Eagle-Tribune, Taylor Amerding. You can reach him at tarmerding@eagletribune.com
Anyhow, discuss!
It started around 1942, about a year after the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, and the war was not going well.
Actually, it was sort of hard to know back home in the States how it was going. People were getting letters from their fathers, sons, brothers or husbands that U.S. forces were making progress, but they never saw much of that in the newsreels. A lot of it was American soldiers getting killed or getting their limbs blown off, and of weeping families at the funerals of those soldiers, who railed against President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They accused him of seeking to dominate the world on the bodies of their sons.
Most of the newsreels focused on civilian casualties from errant American bombs, prompting huge rallies in Washington demanding that Roosevelt bring the troops home and stop slaughtering innocents. A college student wrote an editorial for the student newspaper saying American soldiers dying overseas, “deserve to die, for going over there to kill other people.”
Indeed, things weren’t going well at all for FDR.
Maybe he hadn’t deliberately orchestrated the Pearl Harbor attacks like some conspiracy theorists claimed, but he had clearly provoked the Japanese with unnecessary embargoes on oil and steel, said a growing, ever louder, chorus of critics that included a number in Congress. There were reports that Japanese children had died because of the embargoes that were producing headlines like, “FDR, child killer.”
“Did Mr. Roosevelt ever think about why the Japanese hate us so much?” shouted a prominent Hollywood actor at a rally in California. “Look at what our president has done to them. They’re just defending themselves and their way of life. We should just leave them alone.”
FDR’s speech from a year ago, immediately after the attack, was still getting shredded as well. “What’s he talking about ‘… the American people in their righteous might …’?” scoffed the actor. “What nationalistic, jingoistic crap. Does he think that might makes right?”
The president was having a tough time even overseeing the war effort because of all the time he had to spend dealing with the 12/7 Commission, which had been holding hearings for the past several months on who was to blame for the Pearl Harbor attack. FDR had first resisted demands that he appear and testify under oath, saying winning the war was more important, but he finally gave in to public pressure. The national press made sure their newsreels showed the president being rolled into the hearing room in his wheelchair. He didn’t look much like a powerful leader.
His political opponents in Congress, who accused him of the most “reckless, inept, arrogant foreign policy in the history of this nation,” and of “sending our young men to die for his dreams of world domination” never tired of pointing out that FDR had never actually fought in a war himself. How could he be the commander in chief if he’d never fought in World War I?
The president was also accused of being a hypocrite. Sure, Hitler is a tyrant, his critics said, and the world would probably be better off without him. But Stalin is a tyrant as well. Why aren’t we attacking him?
As the war wore on, pop culture was turning against FDR. The Andrews Sisters recorded “He Ain’t Blowin’ No bugle for Company B,” and said at one of their sold-out shows that they were ashamed of being from the same country as Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their album sales took off.
Mainstream public support was crumbling as well. Local organizations urged people to protest rationing of gas and to refuse to turn in rubber products. “Don’t support the Roosevelt war machine!” they cried.
In 1945, the battle for Iwo Jima drove the president’s poll numbers into the cellar. What madman would send 60,000 troops to attack a heavily armed, crummy little island in the South Pacific, so nearly 7,000 of them could die in little more than a month?
The picture of the flag raisers at Iwo Jima produced a public firestorm. The soldiers were grandstanding. The president was trying to use the photo to score political points, people said. And when the federal government decided to make a postage stamp out of it, protesters insisted that the image be altered to include an African American, a woman and a Latino. Fortunately an American Indian was already in the picture.
I finally woke up, and told one of my friends about it. “Bizarre,” he agreed, “but hey, it was only a dream. Stuff like that would never really happen in America."
This was not written by me, but by a editorialist of the Eagle-Tribune, Taylor Amerding. You can reach him at tarmerding@eagletribune.com
Anyhow, discuss!
Comments
Oh my, I don't think he actually had this dream at all. It's as if he's making a comparison to a current situation somehow.
<span style='color:white'>Be nice.</span>
I think that's the central difference. Saddam wasn't clearly a big enough threat to be attacked. We knew he was developing weapons, but they weren't developed enough. We knew he had ties to terrorists, but they weren't tight enough. You have to let the enemy fire the first round before you can have any legitimacy to your fight. Essentially a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 is what the public demands, despite how irrational that may sound.
Saddam didn't attack the WTC, Al Queda did, and that's why we attacked Afghanistan with approval from other countries. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the US had attacked Hitler <b>before</b> he started taking over the Rhineland and building up his forces. There would have been millions of lives saved in doing so, but would have had no public support.
The article talks about pearl harbour and Japan, and implies that what we are seeing today with the WTC and Iraq are comparable events.
I thought the [idiot] tag would get the message across... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
That is why he is forlorn.
Under this context I think it's important to look at the fact that FDR was a left wing liberal who imposed several social programs at the expence of big buisness. Also note that the US avoided world war 2 until they were openly attacked by a foreign government, while at the same time thier closest ally had been on the verge of distruction under the hands of the most powerful military force in the world for about 2 years, who also just happened to be allied to the foreign power who had attacked the US on thier own soil.
Comparing insurgent organizations imbeded in contries that are too politically corrupt to do anything about them if they wanted to respond, to the open declartion of war and assault of another countries government is like comparing apples to steak. they don't look the same, they don't taste the same, and you don't use the same utensiles to eat them, although they might be the same color.
The REAL thrust of that piece was this. In the 1940's the Americans waged a bloody war against the axis powers. History has judged their actions and has found them to be worthy of praise and remembrance. What history forgot however, was the left wing, pacifist mob opposed this action, using arguements and methods that bear striking resemblance to those being used today to oppose the Iraq war.
They had vastly MORE reasons then today's pacifist to support a war, and despite that they still opposed it savagely. They were obviously so effective in doing so that the American people lost confidence in their President - reflected by the polls.
But they were wrong. Had they been listened to - well, we dont even want to think about what would have happened. Neo-conservative, pro war attitudes constantly have their failures and mistakes hammered home to them - Vietnam, Korea etc. Subtle reshaping of history has made it appear as though the "good" wars America fought in (WW1, WW2 etc), had massive bipartisan support from the peace lovin folks over the pacific, when the truth is the same struggle we see today (the war mongering conservatives vs the pacifist, appeasement left) raged back then - and the conservatives were right.
Had the left actually won in that instance - the impact upon the world would be horrific. You can rant all you like about the "huge impact" American policy in Iraq has, thats laughably trivial compared to the disaster that would have followed a left wing victory in war policy during WW2. Its about time that someone brought up the failures of the left wing and threw it in their faces.
EDIT Given the post above - I feel that its important to point out that where terms like liberal, conservative, left and right appear above, these relate only to attitudes towards war, not overall political stances.
The REAL thrust of that piece was this. In the 1940's the Americans waged a bloody war against the axis powers. History has judged their actions and has found them to be worthy of praise and remembrance. What history forgot however, was the left wing, pacifist mob opposed this action, using arguements and methods that bear striking resemblance to those being used today to oppose the Iraq war.
They had vastly MORE reasons then today's pacifist to support a war, and despite that they still opposed it savagely. They were obviously so effective in doing so that the American people lost confidence in their President - reflected by the polls.
But they were wrong. Had they been listened to - well, we dont even want to think about what would have happened. Neo-conservative, pro war attitudes constantly have their failures and mistakes hammered home to them - Vietnam, Korea etc. Subtle reshaping of history has made it appear as though the "good" wars America fought in (WW1, WW2 etc), had massive bipartisan support from the peace lovin folks over the pacific, when the truth is the same struggle we see today (the war mongering conservatives vs the pacifist, appeasement left) raged back then - and the conservatives were right.
Had the left actually won in that instance - the impact upon the world would be horrific. You can rant all you like about the "huge impact" American policy in Iraq has, thats laughably trivial compared to the disaster that would have followed a left wing victory in war policy during WW2. Its about time that someone brought up the failures of the left wing and threw it in their faces.
EDIT Given the post above - I feel that its important to point out that where terms like liberal, conservative, left and right appear above, these relate only to attitudes towards war, not overall political stances. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The artical is trying to use an altered history as a mask for reality, I'm a logical person, I naturally resist learning from fiction as if it were history. Sorry, but this one just doesn't tickle the old emotion box.
The whole concept you defend ignores basic logic. Just because people opposed the World War 2, and they were wrong (as evidenced by the likely conquering of the world by Hitler in the absence of American military action), does not mean that all people protesting war are wrong. It's like saying that spot is a dog and spot is a dalmation, therefore all dogs are dalmations, just with alot less political gravity.
The whole concept you defend ignores basic logic. Just because people opposed the World War 2, and they were wrong (as evidenced by the likely conquering of the world by Hitler in the absence of American military action), does not mean that all people protesting war are wrong. It's like saying that spot is a dog and spot is a dalmation, therefore all dogs are dalmations, just with alot less political gravity. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, if that is revisionist history, then I can only encourage you to point out specifically where and let me know. That request is in no way sarcasitic - I'd hate to show that article to friends only to find out it has shaky foundations.
The point is definately not that they were wrong back then and so are obviously wrong now. My point is that it is just as important to remember the failures of the anti-war mob as it is to remember the failures of the pro-war gang.
I am also attempting to stress that during the second world war, the pro war government faced fierce opposition, graphic civilian casualties, and failing confidence in leadership. This is something that is repeating itself today - and many people see this as confirmation that the current US administration is doing the wrong thing. They fail to recognise that this has happened before - during a war of which the Allied nations are proud to have fought in.
The fact that many methods applied back then to discourage support for the just war against the axis are being applied in identical fashion speaks volumes for the credibility they should be afforded.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Allied nations fought because they were attacked, and also because Japan and Nazi Germany were quite obvious threats. To compare the vast war machines of Japan and Germany in the 1940's to Saddam's pathetic obselete army in 2003 is simply incorrect. I didn't oppose the 1990 - 1991 Gulf War; Saddam attacked Kuwaiit and had the military strength to invade Saudi Arabia and thus dominate a large percentage of the world's ol supply. If Saddam still had a vast well armed military in 2003 and quite clearly still possessed the WMDs he had in 1991 and attacked the West then I wouldn't have protested. But that wasn't the case.
My point still stands Ryo - just because we are seeing those signs I mentioned is no great indicator we are doing the wrong thing, which is not the way a majority of people view things.
I bet 90% of people believe that the Americans opposed the Nazi's right from the word go, that they all leapt behind their President when he insisted on fighting, and cheerfully fought the good fight knowing and believing that the evil of Hitler and Japan must be stopped at all costs for the preservation of freedom across the globe. The authors point is that it looked pretty friggen grim to civilians back then during then during the just war of 1939-1945, those opposing the war raged against their President, slammed him in opinion polls, cursed the "world domination stragety", preached apologetics for the nations enemy and made frequent personal attacks on the President.
The tendancy to look back on these wars with revisionist "well we fought then because everyone agreed it was the right thing to do - but its different now, look at all the problems occuring, look at the widespread opposition" is growing. The author is attempting to check that.
I understand your feelings on only caring about the people in your own nation, but not everyone shares that point of view. A nation does not have to be a clear and present threat to justify attacking. Those who would disagree would do well to refer to historical events such as these (I know I've posted this before):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonise over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny and genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. Thats what I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without UN or international approval - and in both cases they were right to do so.
Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, topppled one of the worst human-rights violators without UN approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean-Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism.
Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened - without a UN mandate - to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoced once more in 2001 after the US-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.
So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten, too, is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbours lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:white'>Marine, you are not a moderator. Repeat: You are not a moderator.</span>
Historians rarely, if ever, say a war was fought because it was "the right thing to do". We arn't encouraged to view things as "right or wrong". The Allies fought because they had to. The Germans fought because Hitler told them to. The Japanese fought partially through a strong committment to the Emperor and partially because they wanted the resources of South East Asia. Historians will likely look back on the Iraq conflict and say that the US got itself involved for strategic position, oil and humanitarian reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I understand your feelings on only caring about the people in your own nation, but not everyone shares that point of view. A nation does not have to be a clear and present threat to justify attacking. Those who would disagree would do well to refer to historical events such as these (I know I've posted this before):<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My feelings are that national governments should act in the interests of their own people, not in the interests of others. The Allies during WWII acted to protect their own people, not to liberate Europeans or to save persecuted peoples suffering under the Nazis. These things occured as a side-effect of fighting a war they were forced to fight.
I'm also unclear as to what your overall point is. The Allies did not undertake a policy of pre-emption; they were attacked and defended themselves. Iraq did not attack us.
If you want to talk about pre-emption, then how about the Germans attacking the Soviet Union? Stalin had a massive military machine that had already defeated Finland and the Baltic states, and the ideology of communism was diametrically opposed to facism. Hitler made no secret of his hatred for Bolsheviks, and Stalin knew this. Stalin also loathed Western capitalist democracies; the storyline of Red Alert aside, the possibility of Stalin launching a war against Europe was not remote. A strong case could be made that Hitler was launching a war of pre-emption.
History is never black and white.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I bet 90% of people believe that the Americans opposed the Nazi's right from the word go, that they all leapt behind their President when he insisted on fighting, and cheerfully fought the good fight knowing and believing that the evil of Hitler and Japan must be stopped at all costs for the preservation of freedom across the globe. The authors point is that it looked pretty friggen grim to civilians back then during then during the just war of 1939-1945, those opposing the war raged against their President, slammed him in opinion polls, cursed the "world domination stragety", preached apologetics for the nations enemy and made frequent personal attacks on the President.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What did you expect them to do; leap with joy at the prospect of another war? Some twenty years ago they'd been involved in the most bloody and far reaching conflict ever, the First World War. Milliions had been killed and countless more wounded. Entire generations were permenantly scarred. Yet you seem to think that they should have viewed the prospect of yet another conflict that would prove to be far bloodier than WWI with elation. They fought because they had to. We did not have to fight Iraq in 2003.
He did.
There is no way that would happen now. If Bush attempted that, Kerry would make sure it got on the front page of every newspaper.
The tendancy to look back on these wars with revisionist "well we fought then because everyone agreed it was the right thing to do - but its different now, look at all the problems occuring, look at the widespread opposition" is growing. The author is attempting to check that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I may be completely off base here, but I thought the point of the article was to show how rediculous the public responses to the war look when you apply them to WWII (because for some reason the author thinks the two are comparable).
Would you have been protesting if America attacked Germany while it was building up its military and preparing to invade the Rhineland, even if they were obsolete or outnumbered?
1) We are no longer at war in Iraq, we are nation building.
2) The groups that we are fighting against mostly come from outside of Iraq.
3) History will remember the war in Iraq as the creation of an oil-rich US friendly state.
4) Other countries who have been opposed to the actions of the USA, such as France, are acting because we have taken away some of their economic market. The French, Russians, Chinese, etc, all had significant business dealings with Saddam's regime in the 1990's. While their news media spins it as a story of US imperialism, the government broods over loss of trade.
5) Oil is a core reason for the toppling of the regime and the creation of a US friendly state, but not for the reasons everyone gripes about. Iraq has the world's largest untapped oil reserves, and in the coming Peak of cheap oil, the flow of oil from Iraq into the USA will be the economic stabilizer that will keep the USA's economy alive longer than the rest of the world's. It's not about money; it is about survival.
--
As for the actual discussion, maybe it's best to begin with a short analysis of the article and the authors intentions behind it:
We should first and foremost keep in mind that we're dealing with a 'what if' scenario of WW2 here. This scenario differs from reality primarily in the reception of the media - here embodied by the "newsreels" - of the war, which subsequently changes first the publics, and then the politics approach to the conflict and the government carrying it out. Again, the article <i>differs</i> from reality in these points. Mr. Amerding does, for example, write that <i>"it was sort of hard to know back home in the States how it was going. People were getting letters from their fathers, sons, brothers or husbands that U.S. forces were making progress, but they never saw much of that in the newsreels."</i> When the papers were in fact filled with 'frontline journalism' throughout the conflict. It's not a coincidence that many of the best journalistic photographs of the twentieth century - <i>"[t]he picture of the flag raisers at Iwo Jima"</i> is being explicitely mentioned in the article - were taken during this time.
These differences are clearly put in place to create a closer semblance between WW2 and the conflict in Iraq, with 9/11 being equalled with Pearl Harbor, as the <i>"12/7 Commission"</i> and Roosevelts actions, which are not only similiar but the same as Bushs in front of the 9/11 Commission, make obvious.
The implementation of these differences has in my perception the intention of discrediting the contemporary mentioned occurances - the increasingly negative war coverage focussing on American and civilian losses, the political pressure on the Bush administration, and the loud criticism from the anti-war movement throughout all stages of the conflict - as grotesque when seen in perspective to the evil that is being fought, in the article embodied by the Axis powers.
Prime prove for my assumption is the answer of the friend, denouncing the perviously mentioned movements as <i>"'[b]izarre'"</i>, and then ironically adding that <i>"'[...][s]tuff like that would never really happen in America'"</i>.
On these grounds, I can not agree with Marines interpretation of the author comparing the contemporary resistance against WW2 with todays resistance and treatment of the conflict in Iraq; had Mr. Amerding intended on doing so, he would have cited real such activities in the time of WW2 as base for his article instead of going the way of fictionalizing.
Also, it should be mentioned that, while it is true that there was an anti-war movement in WW2, and that it made a number of interesting points that go sadly mostly unnoticed or misunderstood, it had in no way the magnitude of the contemporary movement. Especially in terms of media support, the war was mostly, addmittedly not euphorically, accepted.
By the way, 01, the next time you call my people the "pacifist mob", I'll take a temporary leave from them <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Similiarily, I'd tread a lot more lightly regarding your classification of 'anti-war left' and 'pro-war right'. While the usual media portrayal goes along these lines, both sides are composed regardless of usual political convictions; seperations in left and right are thus for the matter of the war movements meaningless.
With these thoughts in mind, I have to say that I find this article broadly overdrawn and too inconsistant for a convincing analogy.
Many of these breaking points have already been identified by others. Here are the three most significant ones: <ul><li>The preperators of 9/11 and the targets of the attack on Iraq were not allies, much less of the same faction.</li><li>The military potential of Iraq can in no way be compared to that of the Axis of WW2.</li><li>No military conflict with an Iraqi involvement was underway at the time of the United States' assault.</li></ul>It is not surprising that WW2 is being cited time and time again in support of this war - of all the conflicts in the last century, it's the only one where the question of 'good' and 'bad' are relatively easily answered, and the figure of Hitler has basically become <i>the</i> demonic archetype of the industrialized age. It's no wonder that Bush sen.s factually unbacked statement of 'Hussein being as bad as Hitler' is of such great appeal: FDR had the maybe 'best' adversary of world history, thus only elevating this already highly charismatic man even further. The Allied soldiers going into WW2 fought the maybe most throughoutly demonizable force that was ever assembled.
It's not surprising that supporters of a war will hark back to these 'high grounds' - that does however not make that conflict, or the people fighting and protesting it, comparable with todays.
Basically, there are two conclusions from this article. I know this because I read Mr. Amerding's stuff all the time, and I know his style <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> It is my local newspaper after all, so I have a big advantage there.
This man, almost always for his talk of his article, focuses on the <b>social</b> issues of our time.
While his latest article wasn't entirely socially based, it was for the large part a big focus on what we are becoming today.
So, the number one conclusion to make:
1. America is indeed changing. Why can't we just agree to disagree for the time being, and focus on our objective, much like we did back in WW2? What happened to the term, "War Effort"?
Jammer was the first, and only, to see this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Regardless of your view on the war, America certainly had a stronger moral compass during World War II. We were right, they were wrong, and that was that. Sure, people questioned the President. In fact, the Republican challanger to Roosevelt began to introduce the issue of "Did FDR Know" in his campaign. General MacArthur hand-delivered a message to the man, requesting that, for National Security and the War Effort, he drop the message from his campaign.
He did.
There is no way that would happen now. If Bush attempted that, Kerry would make sure it got on the front page of every newspaper.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The second conclusion is
2. What if society back then was like it is today?
Would we have won WW2 without our soceity's enormous contributions towards the war effort? Our women for the first time worked in the place of males, men voluntarily signed up for the war, people who were drafted did not make huge <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=71637' target='_blank'>headlines</a> across America simply for trying to dodge the draft. What happened to a public that supported a war, no matter if it was "justifiable" or not, once you are already in it, and then bombasted it AFTER incident was over?
What is interesting to note is that back in WW2, there were FAR more pacificts around, just as many not <b>if not more!</b>
After WW1, no one wanted to fight in another war, and the large portion of people in America thought it was a total mistake to ever get invovled. As well as the Europeans. While the Europeans had all the reason to believe that the war was pointless (and it was, I do not disagree), American's on the other hand was mearly an endgame piece, that went end to help end the war. And yet most American's at the time thought our involvement was a mistake.
So really, the pacificst movement was perhaps the strongest it ever was in America at the time. By the end of WW1, the anti-war feeling was so strong in congress that our country did not even join "The League of Nations", Woodrow Wilson's brainchild and first attempt at a sort of United Nations.
As a result, America did not feel inclined at all to help their old allies, England and France, dispite how bad things could possibly become if those two countries fell. America at the time wanted none of it.
It wasn't untill FDR decided to join the war effort, when America matured enough to realize that we were not protected by our enourmous oceans, and we could not ignore the world dispite how much we'd like to.
Yes, Marine01 has notices the other excellent point this article makes, and that is if our left still had a hold on our media and government, much like it is begaining to today (once again), then WW2 would have marked the transistional period into us speaking either German or Russian.
And the real question is, how do we know our left isn't making a mistake today by hindering war progress?
Clearly there are alot of differences between the two wars which means that this hypothasis of 'WWII was a just war, therefor Iraq must also be just' is nothing more than an attack on those who question the current war.
To assume we can measure the decline in social standards by comparing reaction to two 'control' events is just unproductive to start with, especially after 60 years of change, but to try it with two such vastly different events is absurd.
I thought Nem pretty much ended this route of disscussion two posts ago, much more thoroughly and elequently then I can manage right now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
America isn't currently at war, they are currently "nation building" as it has been called. Even if this was considered a war, isn't it prosumptuous to assume there will be a "war effort" for a war that many people belive is not only illigal, but morally wrong. If the objective appears to be world domination, many people are not going to willingly focus on it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+May 31 2004, 04:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ May 31 2004, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The second conclusion is
2. What if society back then was like it is today?
Would we have won WW2 without our soceity's enormous contributions towards the war effort? Our women for the first time worked in the place of males, men voluntarily signed up for the war, people who were drafted did not make huge <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=71637' target='_blank'>headlines</a> across America simply for trying to dodge the draft. What happened to a public that supported a war, no matter if it was "justifiable" or not, once you are already in it, and then bombasted it AFTER incident was over?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it is prosumptuous to assume that the American public would have supported world war 2 if it wasn't easily justifiable. They didn't even get into the war until it was nearly too late. By the time they joined, thier military had been openly attacked, Britian was being bombed nightly, and American suppy ships were being sunk nearly every day. It was simply not possible to logically defend avoiding that war, it was common knowlage that if America did not get involved that they would very quicky be working under nazi germany.
There simply is no comparison with the conflict in Iraq, there is no war that you were forced into, there is no evil empire, there is no death and destruction of any close ally.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+May 31 2004, 04:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ May 31 2004, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
What is interesting to note is that back in WW2, there were FAR more pacificts around, just as many not <b>if not more!</b>
After WW1, no one wanted to fight in another war, and the large portion of people in America thought it was a total mistake to ever get invovled. As well as the Europeans. While the Europeans had all the reason to believe that the war was pointless (and it was, I do not disagree), American's on the other hand was mearly an endgame piece, that went end to help end the war. And yet most American's at the time thought our involvement was a mistake.
So really, the pacificst movement was perhaps the strongest it ever was in America at the time. By the end of WW1, the anti-war feeling was so strong in congress that our country did not even join "The League of Nations", Woodrow Wilson's brainchild and first attempt at a sort of United Nations.
As a result, America did not feel inclined at all to help their old allies, England and France, dispite how bad things could possibly become if those two countries fell. America at the time wanted none of it.
It wasn't untill FDR decided to join the war effort, when America matured enough to realize that we were not protected by our enourmous oceans, and we could not ignore the world dispite how much we'd like to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To call everyone opposed to the conflict in Iraq passifists is falace. Passifists don't belive in war at all, they would leap over any obsticals to avoid war. The majority of the people who oppose the conflict in Iraq simply do not belive that America had any right to go into Iraq and tell people how to live. They do not see Iraq as an enemy, and veiw that war as little more than Bush removing a nucance. Most of these people would gladly raze arms against any real threat, or invading power.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+May 31 2004, 04:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ May 31 2004, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Yes, Marine01 has notices the other excellent point this article makes, and that is if our left still had a hold on our media and government, much like it is begaining to today (once again), then WW2 would have marked the transistional period into us speaking either German or Russian.
And the real question is, how do we know our left isn't making a mistake today by hindering war progress?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is another massive assumption. Where to start?
First of all, the Iraq incedent isn't universially opposed in the "left" and simialarly isn't universially supported in the "right". To say that if the left had it's way America would never have won World War 2, is simply false. FDR was a both a liberal and a socialist, he fought bitterly against big bussiness in America. The left is an idealistic group who are willing to fight bitterly for thier ideals. Military fervor is not a characteristic of the "left", just look at the comunists. The reason that many leftist oppose the conflict in Iraq? simple, it's killing people, and it didn't really need to happen in the first place. I doubt very much that the left wing population of 1940 would have allowed facist nazi germany to take them over with any willingness. During WW2 opposision to the war was a republican ideal anyways.
[edit] ninja quote fix
Its not the historians that have me worried - its Joe Average. And to Joe Average, WW2 was a just war against evil, which everyone supported and knew right from the get go that it was good. They seem to have this impression that it was clear cut back then, but now it isnt, so this cant possibly be a good war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm also unclear as to what your overall point is. The Allies did not undertake a policy of pre-emption; they were attacked and defended themselves. Iraq did not attack us. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well here it is. The point of the article was to show that negative public reaction is a given in any war - even those justified by history. In just wars waged by 20th century democracies, massive public support wasnt a given. Anti-war movements raged back then also, using carbon copy methods of discrediting leaders who eventually proved right. The author is attempting to stress that simply because there is huge opposition to something - that does not go to prove it is wrong. Doing what is popular is not always right, and doing what is right is not always popular. I think a lot of people have forgotten this, and are getting very discouraged.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to talk about pre-emption, then how about the Germans attacking the Soviet Union? Stalin had a massive military machine that had already defeated Finland and the Baltic states, and the ideology of communism was diametrically opposed to facism. Hitler made no secret of his hatred for Bolsheviks, and Stalin knew this. Stalin also loathed Western capitalist democracies; the storyline of Red Alert aside, the possibility of Stalin launching a war against Europe was not remote. A strong case could be made that Hitler was launching a war of pre-emption. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But history has judged both of them shocking political idealogues. I would have to analyse the intentions behind both their motives. Why would Stalin invade? Why would Hitler pre-empt? Both of those come up ugly. Both of their regimes were characterised by secret police and mass slaughter. I'm not the hugest fan of pre-emption personally, I didnt support the Iraq war because I saw Saddam as a threat. Hell, I was confident that if no WMD's were found that the Americans would fabricate them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What did you expect them to do; leap with joy at the prospect of another war? Some twenty years ago they'd been involved in the most bloody and far reaching conflict ever, the First World War. Milliions had been killed and countless more wounded. Entire generations were permenantly scarred. Yet you seem to think that they should have viewed the prospect of yet another conflict that would prove to be far bloodier than WWI with elation. They fought because they had to. We did not have to fight Iraq in 2003.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didnt expect them to jump with elation. Thats just the way most people consider things go with just wars - the idea that surely during world world 2 everyone supported fighting against obvious evil.
EDIT And in the time it took me to type that - swiftspear has provided me with a textbook example
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most of these people would gladly raze arms against any real threat, or invading power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
THAT SPECIFICALLY is what I believe to be the attitude that the author is attacking. The idea that if it was a justified war, mass widespread support would be evident. Its just simply not true.
THAT SPECIFICALLY is what I believe to be the attitude that the author is attacking. The idea that if it was a justified war, everyone would support it. Its just simply not true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where in my post did I say everyone? I know that there will always be a reasonable segment of people who just don't want to fight regardless of the circumstances. I just think that it should be universially understood that the draw to participate in the "war in Iraq" is not, and never will be all that strong. We are not talking about an invading nation, we are not talking about a proven threat or risk, we are talking about the a forein government that was abusing its power at the expence of its own people. Most people just don't belive that it is thier contries responsibility to play police man on an international scale.
Fair enough - post will be editted to represent your statement more fairly.
Really folks, it's frustrating to adress a point, then see it restated in two consecutive posts without of so much as taking notice of my arguments.