I think the number of people willing to respond to a threat in a militaristic fasion would be roughtly proportiant to the amount that they could relate to the impact of the threat. In World War 2 you would have to be retarded to belive that your way of life was not being threatened by powerful international forces. That just isn't the situation that people face with the war on Iraq today. We are going in and dealing with another countries problem for them, the issue has nearly no sway at all on the way we choose to live our lifes, and thus, no one cares to support it very strongly.
I personally have always been for the war, I have no gripes with the toppling of a murderous dictator. I am however against the smearing of logic here. People are responding to deaths that didn't need to happen, and are protesting the USA's belife that they are a moral authority in the world.
You can't expect people to support a war that looks like a travisty, and when a government decides that they are going to oust the autority of the UN and play international police officer single handedly, it doesn't at all help the image of thier war. I can't belive that anyone at all is surprized at the resistance that the Iraq conflict sparked.
<!--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-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would agree with most of the above. The author was attempting to parallel the news being recieved about WW2 with the news being broadcasted about WW2 today. I am personally intensely interested in news about the war, and since the full scale military action was ceased, I have read a grand total of SIX articles reinforcing the successes of the American military. On TV, I have seen 2.5 million pictures of naked Iraqi's abused, I've heard of bombed weddings, I've heard the mounting allied casualty toll - but never anything in support of the war.
During World War Two, I'm pretty certain that both sides got their say. The government had pro-war propaganda side by side with anti-war "oh god we're doomed, we murder civilians, we're trying to take over the world". And it would appear that the anti-war protesters were gaining the upper hand in the minds of Americans. How much worse of a situation are we in now, where any support for the war must be limited to an article once every 3 months, on page 44 of a newspaper in font 8 with the title "another sad attempt to defend our evil - have a chuckle at this". A bit of hyperbole on my part? Probably - maybe because we dont have FOX widely available over here, who knows - but any mention of American successes seems taboo in the media.
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Despite what you wrote above, I am still not as convinced as you that he is fictionalising. I believe he not entirely correct with the newsreel accounts during World War Two, but even had he been completely off the mark, his point (as I see it, which doesnt seem to be the way many others do) still stands. Anti-war sentiment was a "real" activity during World War 2. It is those methods used back then that are evident now that he is critiquing.
You have correctly pointed out the spin he is attempting to put on things, but I find it hard to accept that he's wrong based purely off your claim he is mistaken. Kinda a call for sources really, as I dont know heaps about this issue specifically, and most of what I say is based directly around claims made in that article. See below.
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you show me specifically what gives you that impression about media and public support. That is definately the general vague impression most people have about World War 2, but most of the thrust of the article above was pointing out examples of anti-war sentiment reported by the media. If you disagree with his assessment of public opinion and anti-war sentiment during World War Two, could you link me to a source opposing his.
<!--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-->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--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I felt I needed to throw a slightly negative connotation when defining the pacifists as I had called the pro-war gang "war mongerers" - kinda evening things out. It could also have been influenced by the tendancy of a few Australia peace protesters to pick up anything not nailed down and hurl it at police in the name of peace. But yes, I dont mean to insinuate that anyone peacefully inclined is part of a angry mob.
<!--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-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I realised that a little to late after my first post, tried to recover with a edit but didnt pull it off too successfully.
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is only in retrospect. Clearly, not everyone was as sure then as they are now that WW2 was a justified war. People did not know about Hitlers horrific extermination of the Jews until after the war. They all knew generally that he was a very, very naughty boy with an eye for European domination, but as for the epitomy(sp) of evil, that didnt follow until after the war. Hussein as bad as Hitler - I'm not so sure those claims aren't justified. Sure he didnt get the opportunity to consumate his evil as Hitler did, but he has a near 30 year history of bloody oppression and slaughter.
<!--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-->* NemesisZero jumps up and down, screaming "read my post".
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *Marine01 respectfully points out that he was attempting to work through posts in order, and thought that trying to answer 2 large, comprehensive replies in the one post would hinder coherency. He also apologises for being unable to sneak in two replies totalling 1000 words between the browsing of this topic by other readers <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->*
<!--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 think the number of people willing to respond to a threat in a militaristic fasion would be roughtly proportiant to the amount that they could relate to the impact of the threat. In World War 2 you would have to be retarded to belive that your way of life was not being threatened by powerful international forces. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I've said several times - thats revisionist history. You are looking back with the 20/20 clarity that comes from seeing the results. It would appear that a lot of people seemed to disagree with the war back then - based on things like 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-->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.” <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->“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.” <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->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?” <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->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? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stuff like that gave FDR shocking results in opinion polls. Nem may debate the spin put on things by the newsreels and the extent of anti-war propaganda - but it seems clear to me it was having a deep and appreciable impact on the American pschye.
<!--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--> That just isn't the situation that people face with the war on Iraq today. We are going in and dealing with another countries problem for them, the issue has nearly no sway at all on the way we choose to live our lifes, and thus, no one cares to support it very strongly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same was argued back then. Let the Euro's sort out Europe - we have a great massive ocean between them and us. What do we owe the Europeans - a lot of our ancestors came here to get away from them. Hitler isn't coming after us - he's just a little unhappy we are providing the British with war materials.
<!--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 personally have always been for the war, I have no gripes with the toppling of a murderous dictator. I am however against the smearing of logic here. People are responding to deaths that didn't need to happen, and are protesting the USA's belife that they are a moral authority in the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The deaths were inevitable. Saddam was a butcher who slaughtered his own people and repressed them. War, no war - Iraqi's were going to suffer and die. It is irrelevant to the debate.
<!--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-->You can't expect people to support a war that looks like a travisty, and when a government decides that they are going to oust the autority of the UN and play international police officer single handedly, it doesn't at all help the image of thier war. I can't belive that anyone at all is surprized at the resistance that the Iraq conflict sparked.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only two wars have ever taken place with full UN authority. Many just wars and military actions have taken place outside of the UN's authority - wars that nations like France participated in and are proud of. It didnt detract from them, it shouldnt detract now.
I was a little surprised. I had been taken in by the hard core of the peace movement that claimed to care about the Iraqi's lives. That all came crashing down when they started screaming troops out after the war. If you opposed the war but support staying - then thats not aimed at you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+May 31 2004, 07:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ May 31 2004, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <span style='color:purple'>* NemesisZero jumps up and down, screaming "read my post".</span>
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would just like to point out that this would probably be a rather amusing thing to see. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As for the topic at hand, I support the war in Iraq and I think were doing the right thing, but when I read this I decided not to post at all because I found it absurd.
To compare this war to WWII, socially, economically, globally, technologically, the list of adjectives goes on, is just stupid. There is no comparison, Bush is nothing like FDR, he's probably rolling over in his grave at the very thought of that comparison. Just no, nothing to compare here at all.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 31 2004, 08:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 31 2004, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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 personally have always been for the war, I have no gripes with the toppling of a murderous dictator. I am however against the smearing of logic here. People are responding to deaths that didn't need to happen, and are protesting the USA's belife that they are a moral authority in the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The deaths were inevitable. Saddam was a butcher who slaughtered his own people and repressed them. War, no war - Iraqi's were going to suffer and die. It is irrelevant to the debate. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I personally agree with this line of though (at least to some degree). But unnessicary civilian deaths get into the news and paint a picture that public opinion reflects. Irrelivent of how poorly sadam governed his country, public opinion will be guided by weather or not Bush can govern it. When civilians are dying it just makes the whole war look bad. <!--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--> <!--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-->You can't expect people to support a war that looks like a travisty, and when a government decides that they are going to oust the autority of the UN and play international police officer single handedly, it doesn't at all help the image of thier war. I can't belive that anyone at all is surprized at the resistance that the Iraq conflict sparked.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only two wars have ever taken place with full UN authority. Many just wars and military actions have taken place outside of the UN's authority - wars that nations like France participated in and are proud of. It didnt detract from them, it shouldnt detract now.
I was a little surprised. I had been taken in by the hard core of the peace movement that claimed to care about the Iraqi's lives. That all came crashing down when they started screaming troops out after the war. If you opposed the war but support staying - then thats not aimed at you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The issue is still that this war looks really bad, where as it was infinatly easyer to make the actions of America in WW2 look good. We are essentially comparing the second least popular war in American history with the most popular war in American history, and much of the reason for that is just the way Bush chose to perpetrate this war, it did alot to make your country look like war mongers, and international rebels. Weather or not the overall outcome of the war ends up internationally benificial, Bush hurt himself immeasurably by rationalizing the war based on a lie (WMD in Iraq), and avoiding international oppinion by premting a UN decision. It simply isn't reasonable to expect this to be a popular 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--> would agree with most of the above. The author was attempting to parallel the news being recieved about WW2 with the news being broadcasted about WW2 today. I am personally intensely interested in news about the war, and since the full scale military action was ceased, I have read a grand total of SIX articles reinforcing the successes of the American military. On TV, I have seen 2.5 million pictures of naked Iraqi's abused, I've heard of bombed weddings, I've heard the mounting allied casualty toll - but never anything in support of the war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when have you known the media to publicize positively about anything. A while back I heard that they found some chemical weapons in Iraq, but unless people start dying of anthrax soon I think it's fair to assume that the media is going to focus squarely on dying soldiers and suicide bombers. Death sells, its the unavoidable theme of the media (you should see the arab news teams, thier even worse).
<!--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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if people don't support my view, why has support for the Iraq war been dropping ever since the focus for the war switched from "WMDs and terrorists" to "liberating Iraqi civilians"? The only good thing to come out of the Iraq war has been the liberation, at least to a certain degree, of the Iraqi people. And the result: Spain has dropped out, Blair, Howard and Bush are suffering big time in the polls and other governments with forces in iraq are facing severe pressure at home to recall their troops. The simple truth is the people will always put their interests first, not the interests of others.
If WMDs and terrorist links had been found in Iraq a great majority of the opposition to the war would have vanished (I for one wouldn't be voicing my dissent). With the only remaining goal/achievement being the liberation of Iraq civilians, people are showing that they really don't care and would rather the money be spent at home.
I see a lot of political and economically comparisions, but like I stated earlier, the article isn't so much about anything else as it is our <b>morals</b> of today.
Back then, even if we didn't like a war - we toughed it out, and thought of the country before anything else. There definately was a lot more spirt and unison between the people - or so it seems.
That is honestly the point I believe him to be making.
Also, I'm going to e-mail Mr. Amerding about this topic, maybe we can see what he thinks of our responses <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jun 1 2004, 12:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jun 1 2004, 12:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back then, even if we didn't like a war - we toughed it out, and thought of the country before anything else. There definately was a lot more spirt and unison between the people - or so it seems. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I honestly belive that this is a massive oversimplification, I don't think we can compare the popularity of WW2 then to the popularity of the Iraq war now.
Just in its most raw state, to lose WW2 would have most likely been to see your govenrment disintegrate in favor of a facist puppet, and the cost of millions more American and British lives under the secret police purges. If we "loose" in Iraq (I don't see how this is even possible any more really) you only really lose the control of some oil, and probably see the country slip into another brutal dicatorship, niether of which really effect the long term well being of America (but I would personally be pretty **** off to see the latter happen)
<!--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-->Back then, even if we didn't like a war - we toughed it out, and thought of the country before anything else. There definately was a lot more spirt and unison between the people - or so it seems.
That is honestly the point I believe him to be making.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why did Americans "tough it out"? They were attacked; they knew that Nazi Germany and Japan were very real threats that had declared war upon the USA. I would rather say that people accepted what they had to do with quiet resignation.
Compare that to Iraq in 2003: Saddam's government was not a threat and he did not attack the US. It's pretty much as simple as that. You really can't compare the Iraq war and WWII because their just so differant.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Jun 1 2004, 09:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Jun 1 2004, 09:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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-->Back then, even if we didn't like a war - we toughed it out, and thought of the country before anything else. There definately was a lot more spirt and unison between the people - or so it seems.
That is honestly the point I believe him to be making.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why did Americans "tough it out"? They were attacked; they knew that Nazi Germany and Japan were very real threats that had declared war upon the USA. I would rather say that people accepted what they had to do with quiet resignation.
Compare that to Iraq in 2003: Saddam's government was not a threat and he did not attack the US. It's pretty much as simple as that. You really can't compare the Iraq war and WWII because their just so differant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you think it would have been a mistake to attack Germany before they entered the Rhineland and their military force became powerful?
<!--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-->The issue is still that this war looks really bad, where as it was infinatly easyer to make the actions of America in WW2 look good. We are essentially comparing the second least popular war in American history with the most popular war in American history, and much of the reason for that is just the way Bush chose to perpetrate this war, it did alot to make your country look like war mongers, and international rebels. Weather or not the overall outcome of the war ends up internationally benificial, Bush hurt himself immeasurably by rationalizing the war based on a lie (WMD in Iraq), and avoiding international oppinion by premting a UN decision. It simply isn't reasonable to expect this to be a popular war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And thats the point of the article. The MOST popular American war in history was NOT popular at the time - opinions of the war and the President plummeted during it. Thats what he's trying to show - even when we've been right we've gotten 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-->So if people don't support my view, why has support for the Iraq war been dropping ever since the focus for the war switched from "WMDs and terrorists" to "liberating Iraqi civilians"? The only good thing to come out of the Iraq war has been the liberation, at least to a certain degree, of the Iraqi people. And the result: Spain has dropped out, Blair, Howard and Bush are suffering big time in the polls and other governments with forces in iraq are facing severe pressure at home to recall their troops. The simple truth is the people will always put their interests first, not the interests of others.
If WMDs and terrorist links had been found in Iraq a great majority of the opposition to the war would have vanished (I for one wouldn't be voicing my dissent). With the only remaining goal/achievement being the liberation of Iraq civilians, people are showing that they really don't care and would rather the money be spent at home. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not pretending you have no support. Unfortunately, you have heaps - but not many that are willing to openly admit they dont care if Iraqi's live or die so long as they dont have anything to do with it. And people wonder why the UN cannot help people in this world.... no one cares about anyone else.
As for the spaniards - I'll keep my opinions there to myself, lest Nem award me a few months vacation from this forum.
<!--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 would rather say that people accepted what they had to do with quiet resignation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, so riddle me this - why is FDR the only American President ever to actually manage a re-election once opinion polls had dropped below 50% support? Why is it that those opinion polls reached that rock bottom DURING the war if the American people quietly accepted what they had to do with resignation?
EDIT having difficulties finding a source for my FDR + poll + re-election claims, I've read it in a newspaper but google gives me nothing.... Feel free to point out if thats not true.
<!--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-->Do you think it would have been a mistake to attack Germany before they entered the Rhineland and their military force became powerful?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A mistake? Hard to say. It certainly would have made Hitler a hero of sorts and given a hell of a lot of weight to his policies. Though Hitler probably would have been removed (and martyered), the scene would be set for a fresh conflict down the track. Perhaps a more compitant leader could have come to power and attacked using jet aircraft, rockets and advanced armor right from the start. Plus nukes.
Or the USSR could have steamrolled into Europe. The the fight in 1936 might have been so bloody that the military forces of Europe would have been exhasted, leaving the door open to Stalin.
It's just not that simple to say "We could have stopped Hitler in 1936, or 1933, or 1923". The political and social conditions in Germany after the First World War more or less ensured that there would be a second World War. I'd say that all things considered, we got off rather lightly .
It's impossible to say whether it would have been a mistake to attack Germany before they entered the Rhineland and built up their military forces. It almost certainly would not have prevented a future conflict however.
<!--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-->Okay, so riddle me this - why is FDR the only American President ever to actually manage a re-election once opinion polls had dropped below 50% support? Why is it that those opinion polls reached that rock bottom DURING the war if the American people quietly accepted what they had to do with resignation?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because they knew what had to be done. They were resigned to the prospect of another war, but knew that surrendering wasn't really an option. FDR didn't drag them into the war and he was doing a good job of fighting it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Jun 1 2004, 07:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Jun 1 2004, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because they knew what had to be done. They were resigned to the prospect of another war, but knew that surrendering wasn't really an option. FDR didn't drag them into the war and he was doing a good job of fighting it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I dont believe that. FDR was elected in 1940. Presidential elections are held every four years in America. According to <a href='http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/timeline/' target='_blank'>here</a>, FDR must have been re-elected some time late in 1944. The war was looking good then - D-day had been a success and the Nazi's looked to be on the back foot and being steadily pushed back across Europe. The war with Japan was also looking better.
So why was it that sometime between 1941 and 1944 FDR had the worst polls ever recieved by a re-elected American President. That does not sound like a population that supports the war honestly - and it definately doesnt sound like a population that believes he was doing a good job fighting it. That was also his last election ever I'm pretty sure, he died before the war ended.
<!--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-->So why was it that sometime between 1941 and 1944 FDR had the worst polls ever recieved by a re-elected American President. That does not sound like a population that supports the war honestly - and it definately doesnt sound like a population that believes he was doing a good job fighting it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course people weren't happy about having to fight another war, and from the way things were going in 1942 it looked like a losing war. Russia was expected to fall (this doesn't accuratly reflect the fact that Russia was a long way from defeat, but most people did think the Soviets were going to fall), Rommel's Afrika Corps were rushing across North Africa and in the Pacific the Japanese had captured a vast amount of territory in less than 3 months and inflicted a humiliating defeat on the US at Pearl Harbor (though it could have been far far worse).
Even after the victories at Stalingrad and Midway, the end of the war was not in sight. Many people, not having the advantages of 20-20 hindsight and modern mass communications, didn't appreciate the scale of these victories. 1943 brought some more victories, but the Axis powers were far from finished. Fighting a war on this scale was something that the people probably didn't WANT to do, but they did it anyway. Only in 1944 did the end of the war seem within reach. FDR was re-elected partially because he was delivering the people a victory.
There's a differance between supporting a war and being happy about it. People in the Allied countries knew they had to fight, but they didn't really like the idea (I'd point out that many people in the Axis countries felt the same way). When victory seemed to take so long, naturally they thought their leaders weren't doing such a great job. But when the results started coming in, they understood that their leaders were giving them the victory that was needed to end the war. The war was unpopular; given a choice, most people on both sides would have chosen peace over war.
Oh my, we're back into novel-writer mode <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
OK, I'll try to adress Marines and Forlorns points concerning my previous post first, and then see how much more time I have to branch out.
<b>Marine01:</b>
It appears futile to go through your points paragraph by paragraph since we both disagree on a single core aspect: The question of how strong domestic disagreement with Roosevelts war policy was. You base your opinion - that there was a substantional anti-war movement - on statements from the article and Roosevelts sometimes catastrophic polls mid-wartime (On that note, I'd greatly appreciate a link here - I've been searching for a good hour now and couldn't find a site archiving such polls back into that time.). I claim that the article is mentioning fictional, not overdrawn, happenings that are mimicing recent occurances, and can thus not be taken as a prove of a WW2 anti-war movement of comparable vocallity, size, or media treatment.
First, concerning outside sources, I'm sorry to say that I did not find very much. The maybe most interesting piece I did unearth is an <a href='http://hnn.us/articles/4368.html' target='_blank'>article</a> by David Greenberg, professor of history and political sciences in Yale. It concerns the chances of re-election for wartime presidents and features the following paragraph (bold added for emphasis by yours truly): <!--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-->[...]Thomas E. Dewey, the GOP nominee, slammed the president as an incipient dictator and (in a foretaste of future Republican campaigns) a pawn of radicals.
<b>It certainly helped FDR that the public approved of his wartime leadership</b>?but probably more important was the robust prosperity that the country was finally enjoying. <b>FDR pollster Hadley Cantril's surveys found that the burning issues in 1944 were domestic.</b> Accordingly, FDR campaigned on an "economic bill of rights" that promised 60 million jobs, help for small businesses, and the construction of homes, hospitals, and highways. Although he won a fourth term comfortably, he garnered fewer electoral votes in 1944 than he had in 1932, 1936, or 1940.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This would answer the questions of your argumentation in so far that the bad polls FDR recieved weren't based on the war effort, but the domestic issues that lend themselves to controversy over the man even today. Keep in mind that conservatives still disagree with Roosevelts 'New Deal' and the added authority he assigned to the Federation in the process. It appears to me that these concerns and their everyday economical implications - which recieved a new gravity due to the war efforts constraints - can be considered just as likely as a possible popular disagreement with Roosevelts war policy to slam him in the polls. I won't try to bloat the half-sentence regarding the public reception of Roosevelts war effort into <i>the</i> prove against your thesis, but seeing the mouth it comes from, I'd call it a heavy hint against it.
Second, concerning the article. You claim that it "parallels" existing movements in WW2 with todays, taking quotes from the article for historical facts: <!--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-->It would appear that a lot of people seemed to disagree with the war back then - based on things like 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-->A college student wrote an editorial for the student newspaper[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Allow me thus to show that the mentioned items are in fact modelled after some that went recently through the media, and thus <i>not</i> historically genuine: <!--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-->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."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm pretty sure that this is a word-by-word quote, but a quick google didn't reveal it. The author does however clearly reference a number of such articles that made it into the evening news - <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118917,00.html' target='_blank'>here's the most recent one.</a> <!--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-->There were reports that Japanese children had died because of the embargoes that were producing headlines like, "FDR, child killer."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The embargo against Japan banned the import of oil and steel - both not liable to directly cause the death of children. Mr. Amerding alludes to the <a href='http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030828Eland.html' target='_blank'>"500, 000 Iraqi children killed by the embargo"</a> (fourth paragraph). <!--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-->"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."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> "The former Hollywood bad boy and Oscar nominee [Sean Penn] paid for a $56,000 advertisement in the Washington Post in October <a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1215-10.htm' target='_blank'>accusing President Bush of stifling debate on Iraq.</a>" <!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There was a commission regarding Pearl Harbor one year into the war - it does however not share any characteristic with what is being described in the article: The <a href='http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/roberts/roberts.html' target='_blank'>Roberts Commission</a> was appointed by FDR. It centered around the direct question of which link in the Pacific defenses chain had broken. Roosevelt was definetely not grilled in front of it, and the Commission wasn't "holding hearings for the past several months". The whole paragraph is based on the 9/11 Commission with no real ties to the historical counterparts.
The list could go on. Because he is a good writer, Mr. Amerding stays close to historical points, but goes from there into fictional territory. My point remains: The contemporary anti-war movement had no directely comparable equivalent in the time of WW2.
<!--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-->That is only in retrospect. Clearly, not everyone was as sure then as they are now that WW2 was a justified war. People did not know about Hitlers horrific extermination of the Jews until after the war. They all knew generally that he was a very, very naughty boy with an eye for European domination, but as for the epitomy(sp) of evil, that didnt follow until after the war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was referring to the retrospect. 'We', the amorphous mass that will once be called 'the people of the beginning 21st century', consider Hitler to be one of <i>the</i> epitomes of wicked evil - conversely, his adversaries, mainly FDR, de Gaulle, and Churchill, have left a deep and in many respects surprisingly positive impression in their nations history. It's understandeable that todays rulers, be that Blair or Bush, try to put themselves into that 'tradition'. It's understandeable that a soldier going into a war will want to feel as justifiedly heroical as those who went out to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. I can understand that conservatives will rather see this conflict in the tradition of WW2 than 'Nam. It is however barely disputed, even in this very thread, that such a comparision is factually very difficult to justify. <!--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-->Hussein as bad as Hitler - I'm not so sure those claims aren't justified. Sure he didnt get the opportunity to consumate his evil as Hitler did, but he has a near 30 year history of bloody oppression and slaughter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I responded to this line of thought very often in other threads, so allow me to shorten this up and offer the following invitation: Come over here. Come with me to Buchenwald. See this giant area in which innocent people were brought never to walk out again. Read about how the prisoner barracks had to be burned down by the British army because German doctors had experimentally infected prisoners with various sicknesses, among them anthrax. See the crematory. And there, standing in front of the ovens into which prisoners had to throw the corpses of their friends, I'll dare you to tell me that this pathetic little murderer is as bad as the monster into whichs eyes you are staring.
<b>Forlorn:</b>
<!--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 see a lot of political and economically comparisions, but like I stated earlier, the article isn't so much about anything else as it is our <b>morals</b> of today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can see how you come to that conclusion regarding the articles conclusion, although I have to say that if Mr. Amerding tried to talk about big historical movements and changes, there would've been better ways than the satire. Anyway, I disagree with the notion that some sort of 'morallic compass' went astray:
<!--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-->Back then, even if we didn't like a war - we toughed it out, and thought of the country before anything else. There definately was a lot more spirt and unison between the people - or so it seems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You are mistaking the difference between a war one is forced into by an outside force - as the United States were forced into WW2 by Pearl Harbor - and an attack as in the case of Iraq. If I might remind you, the first response towards 9/11, not only by American citizens, but virtually the whole of the western half of the <i>globe</i> (and also a surprisingly large part of the Arabic world), including myself, was shock and solidarity. In so far, one might argue that the morallic value you seem to believe lost has in fact spread. This solidarity diminished soon, first abroad and then, with the preperations of the war on Iraq, also internally - but this has in my opinion little to say about the morals of 'the people', and instead says much about Mr. Bushs policy and his way of presenting it.
<!--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-->Also, I'm going to e-mail Mr. Amerding about this topic, maybe we can see what he thinks of our responses <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm really interested in that myself.
Crap, I dont' have the time for a big response, but:
<!--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-->This would answer the questions of your argumentation in so far that the bad polls FDR recieved weren't based on the war effort, but the domestic issues that lend themselves to controversy over the man even today. Keep in mind that conservatives still disagree with Roosevelts 'New Deal' and the added authority he assigned to the Federation in the process. It appears to me that these concerns and their everyday economical implications - which recieved a new gravity due to the war efforts constraints - can be considered just as likely as a possible popular disagreement with Roosevelts war policy to slam him in the polls. I won't try to bloat the half-sentence regarding the public reception of Roosevelts war effort into the prove against your thesis, but seeing the mouth it comes from, I'd call it a heavy hint against it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wouldn't you say the reason the war wasn't a big issue by the time of 1944 was in part because our media didn't want to make it an issue?
People understood the war as a nessesary evil, perhaps, and also by the end of 1944 the war was drawing to close - I'm sure the people wanted to focus on something else, like domestic issues, for a nice change of pace.
<!--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-->Wouldn't you say the reason the war wasn't a big issue by the time of 1944 was in part because our media didn't want to make it an issue?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would as soon as you can present me with facts leading into that direction. Finding any definite answer on the question of media coverage sixty years ago appears to be nigh impossible without of having access to the physical archives, so I'll stick with what I know. I should however add that, especially seeing that the war was now in the stage of the 'great victories', I'd be surprised if the media did not portray it in an extensive and comparatively positive fashion.
<!--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-->People understood the war as a nessesary evil, perhaps, and also by the end of 1944 the war was drawing to close - I'm sure the people wanted to focus on something else, like domestic issues, for a nice change of pace.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Seeing that the big source of domestic disagreement, Roosevelts New Deal, was begun long before the war, and that this economic dispute flared throughout Roosevelts first period, I'm not sure whether this would really be a change of pace, as opposed to the continuation of an always hot topic. We should keep in mind that the public attention is seldomly exclusively fixed on a single issue for any longer period of time, so we shouldn't consider concern regarding the domestic economical situation and interest in the war as mutually exclusive.
Again, no time to respond ($#@^%) but, I figured if you are gonna look at any media policy then you should start <a href='http://www.academicdb.com/Media_Studies/more4.html' target='_blank'>here!</a>
You have no idea how helpful that link is for me. Thanks a ton.
[edit]A few quick searches later, it's however sadly devoid of contributions on our subject. Will still come in extremely handy once I'm at uni, though.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Jun 2 2004, 01:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jun 2 2004, 01:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Second, concerning the article. You claim that it "parallels" existing movements in WW2 with todays, taking quotes from the article for historical facts: <!--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-->It would appear that a lot of people seemed to disagree with the war back then - based on things like 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-->A college student wrote an editorial for the student newspaper[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Allow me thus to show that the mentioned items are in fact modelled after some that went recently through the media, and thus <i>not</i> historically genuine: <!--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-->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."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm pretty sure that this is a word-by-word quote, but a quick google didn't reveal it. The author does however clearly reference a number of such articles that made it into the evening news - <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118917,00.html' target='_blank'>here's the most recent one.</a> <!--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-->There were reports that Japanese children had died because of the embargoes that were producing headlines like, "FDR, child killer."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The embargo against Japan banned the import of oil and steel - both not liable to directly cause the death of children. Mr. Amerding alludes to the <a href='http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030828Eland.html' target='_blank'>"500, 000 Iraqi children killed by the embargo"</a> (fourth paragraph). <!--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-->"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."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> "The former Hollywood bad boy and Oscar nominee [Sean Penn] paid for a $56,000 advertisement in the Washington Post in October <a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1215-10.htm' target='_blank'>accusing President Bush of stifling debate on Iraq.</a>" <!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There was a commission regarding Pearl Harbor one year into the war - it does however not share any characteristic with what is being described in the article: The <a href='http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/roberts/roberts.html' target='_blank'>Roberts Commission</a> was appointed by FDR. It centered around the direct question of which link in the Pacific defenses chain had broken. Roosevelt was definetely not grilled in front of it, and the Commission wasn't "holding hearings for the past several months". The whole paragraph is based on the 9/11 Commission with no real ties to the historical counterparts.
The list could go on. Because he is a good writer, Mr. Amerding stays close to historical points, but goes from there into fictional territory. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa whoa whoa - before I respond to your post overall, there is something I need clarified.
Are you saying that this article isnt even claiming historical accuracy to the quotes it's making? Is he just taking quotes from today and putting them back into the WW2 timeframe? If that's the case, if the author never intended any sort of historical accuracy, then I'll drop my support of it entirely right now.
In short - am I the only one who thought he was actually using quotes from back in the 1940's?
Marine01, it's a nightmare, he's saying how messed up we'd be today if America was like it is today.
The events in the article happened TODAY, but never back then, the whole point of the author is "What IF" it did happen back then. That's the authors dream.
In that case, I formally requests a moderator please delete this entire thread to hide my shame. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> This is going to take a little while to live down.... Humble e-pai is very hard to swallow....
Its times like these I can sympathise with Piers Morgan, a little too eager to believe what I want to be true.
Well I finally understand what Forlorn was saying about this article being more about morality and support for ones country during times of war - but I still see it as slightly deceptive.
It wouldnt have happened then, because the major American morality crisis didnt strike until the 60's/70's. Still - I can understand why people would be more inclined to support WW2 than the Iraq one. The Japanese clearly made the first blow, and were not targetted by association with a small group of people.
But again, even thought the Japanese made the first blow, the author is trying to show you how the public didn't try to put a spin on it to make the attacks look more humanized,
"The attacks were only done in defense of our embargo" (or something like that <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
All the quotes are historically accurate, from OUR time, but they never happened back then.
The point the author makes is how messed up it looks when we take today's society and put it on an older one, an older society that is looked up to as one of the glory times for America.
In addition, the story also makes one think; what if we were to take the society of the 1940's and put it in today's society? Would they say "Iraq may have supported terrorists, but they weren't the ones who directly bombed the world trade center!"
I would wager that the public of yesterday would fully support a war on Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, and even North Korea to top it off. People back then were a lot more willing to protect their country at any cost, to stop evil where it showed up, and to spread freedoms that they cherished.
The author's point is this: "Where has our morals gone?" And if you were to read many of Mr. Amerding's other numerous essays, you would then see him follow with the same theme of our America losing what it once held proud.
<!--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-->David - Thanks very much - I took a look at the discussion. Some interesting stuff there. And one of my goals, as is the case with most columnists, is to get people talking. I appreciate you putting it out there.
Taylor Armerding Columnist The Eagle-Tribune 978-946-2213<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, so much for any more possible discussion <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
I personally have always been for the war, I have no gripes with the toppling of a murderous dictator. I am however against the smearing of logic here. People are responding to deaths that didn't need to happen, and are protesting the USA's belife that they are a moral authority in the world.
You can't expect people to support a war that looks like a travisty, and when a government decides that they are going to oust the autority of the UN and play international police officer single handedly, it doesn't at all help the image of thier war. I can't belive that anyone at all is surprized at the resistance that the Iraq conflict sparked.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would agree with most of the above. The author was attempting to parallel the news being recieved about WW2 with the news being broadcasted about WW2 today. I am personally intensely interested in news about the war, and since the full scale military action was ceased, I have read a grand total of SIX articles reinforcing the successes of the American military. On TV, I have seen 2.5 million pictures of naked Iraqi's abused, I've heard of bombed weddings, I've heard the mounting allied casualty toll - but never anything in support of the war.
During World War Two, I'm pretty certain that both sides got their say. The government had pro-war propaganda side by side with anti-war "oh god we're doomed, we murder civilians, we're trying to take over the world". And it would appear that the anti-war protesters were gaining the upper hand in the minds of Americans. How much worse of a situation are we in now, where any support for the war must be limited to an article once every 3 months, on page 44 of a newspaper in font 8 with the title "another sad attempt to defend our evil - have a chuckle at this". A bit of hyperbole on my part? Probably - maybe because we dont have FOX widely available over here, who knows - but any mention of American successes seems taboo in the media.
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Despite what you wrote above, I am still not as convinced as you that he is fictionalising. I believe he not entirely correct with the newsreel accounts during World War Two, but even had he been completely off the mark, his point (as I see it, which doesnt seem to be the way many others do) still stands. Anti-war sentiment was a "real" activity during World War 2. It is those methods used back then that are evident now that he is critiquing.
You have correctly pointed out the spin he is attempting to put on things, but I find it hard to accept that he's wrong based purely off your claim he is mistaken. Kinda a call for sources really, as I dont know heaps about this issue specifically, and most of what I say is based directly around claims made in that article. See below.
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you show me specifically what gives you that impression about media and public support. That is definately the general vague impression most people have about World War 2, but most of the thrust of the article above was pointing out examples of anti-war sentiment reported by the media. If you disagree with his assessment of public opinion and anti-war sentiment during World War Two, could you link me to a source opposing his.
<!--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-->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--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I felt I needed to throw a slightly negative connotation when defining the pacifists as I had called the pro-war gang "war mongerers" - kinda evening things out. It could also have been influenced by the tendancy of a few Australia peace protesters to pick up anything not nailed down and hurl it at police in the name of peace. But yes, I dont mean to insinuate that anyone peacefully inclined is part of a angry mob.
<!--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-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I realised that a little to late after my first post, tried to recover with a edit but didnt pull it off too successfully.
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is only in retrospect. Clearly, not everyone was as sure then as they are now that WW2 was a justified war. People did not know about Hitlers horrific extermination of the Jews until after the war. They all knew generally that he was a very, very naughty boy with an eye for European domination, but as for the epitomy(sp) of evil, that didnt follow until after the war. Hussein as bad as Hitler - I'm not so sure those claims aren't justified. Sure he didnt get the opportunity to consumate his evil as Hitler did, but he has a near 30 year history of bloody oppression and slaughter.
<!--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-->* NemesisZero jumps up and down, screaming "read my post".
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Marine01 respectfully points out that he was attempting to work through posts in order, and thought that trying to answer 2 large, comprehensive replies in the one post would hinder coherency. He also apologises for being unable to sneak in two replies totalling 1000 words between the browsing of this topic by other readers <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->*
As I've said several times - thats revisionist history. You are looking back with the 20/20 clarity that comes from seeing the results. It would appear that a lot of people seemed to disagree with the war back then - based on things like 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-->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.”
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->“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.”
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->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?”
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->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?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stuff like that gave FDR shocking results in opinion polls. Nem may debate the spin put on things by the newsreels and the extent of anti-war propaganda - but it seems clear to me it was having a deep and appreciable impact on the American pschye.
<!--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--> That just isn't the situation that people face with the war on Iraq today. We are going in and dealing with another countries problem for them, the issue has nearly no sway at all on the way we choose to live our lifes, and thus, no one cares to support it very strongly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same was argued back then. Let the Euro's sort out Europe - we have a great massive ocean between them and us. What do we owe the Europeans - a lot of our ancestors came here to get away from them. Hitler isn't coming after us - he's just a little unhappy we are providing the British with war materials.
<!--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 personally have always been for the war, I have no gripes with the toppling of a murderous dictator. I am however against the smearing of logic here. People are responding to deaths that didn't need to happen, and are protesting the USA's belife that they are a moral authority in the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The deaths were inevitable. Saddam was a butcher who slaughtered his own people and repressed them. War, no war - Iraqi's were going to suffer and die. It is irrelevant to the debate.
<!--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-->You can't expect people to support a war that looks like a travisty, and when a government decides that they are going to oust the autority of the UN and play international police officer single handedly, it doesn't at all help the image of thier war. I can't belive that anyone at all is surprized at the resistance that the Iraq conflict sparked.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only two wars have ever taken place with full UN authority. Many just wars and military actions have taken place outside of the UN's authority - wars that nations like France participated in and are proud of. It didnt detract from them, it shouldnt detract now.
I was a little surprised. I had been taken in by the hard core of the peace movement that claimed to care about the Iraqi's lives. That all came crashing down when they started screaming troops out after the war. If you opposed the war but support staying - then thats not aimed at you.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would just like to point out that this would probably be a rather amusing thing to see. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As for the topic at hand, I support the war in Iraq and I think were doing the right thing, but when I read this I decided not to post at all because I found it absurd.
To compare this war to WWII, socially, economically, globally, technologically, the list of adjectives goes on, is just stupid. There is no comparison, Bush is nothing like FDR, he's probably rolling over in his grave at the very thought of that comparison. Just no, nothing to compare here at all.
The deaths were inevitable. Saddam was a butcher who slaughtered his own people and repressed them. War, no war - Iraqi's were going to suffer and die. It is irrelevant to the debate.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally agree with this line of though (at least to some degree). But unnessicary civilian deaths get into the news and paint a picture that public opinion reflects. Irrelivent of how poorly sadam governed his country, public opinion will be guided by weather or not Bush can govern it. When civilians are dying it just makes the whole war look bad.
<!--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-->
<!--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-->You can't expect people to support a war that looks like a travisty, and when a government decides that they are going to oust the autority of the UN and play international police officer single handedly, it doesn't at all help the image of thier war. I can't belive that anyone at all is surprized at the resistance that the Iraq conflict sparked.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only two wars have ever taken place with full UN authority. Many just wars and military actions have taken place outside of the UN's authority - wars that nations like France participated in and are proud of. It didnt detract from them, it shouldnt detract now.
I was a little surprised. I had been taken in by the hard core of the peace movement that claimed to care about the Iraqi's lives. That all came crashing down when they started screaming troops out after the war. If you opposed the war but support staying - then thats not aimed at you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The issue is still that this war looks really bad, where as it was infinatly easyer to make the actions of America in WW2 look good. We are essentially comparing the second least popular war in American history with the most popular war in American history, and much of the reason for that is just the way Bush chose to perpetrate this war, it did alot to make your country look like war mongers, and international rebels. Weather or not the overall outcome of the war ends up internationally benificial, Bush hurt himself immeasurably by rationalizing the war based on a lie (WMD in Iraq), and avoiding international oppinion by premting a UN decision. It simply isn't reasonable to expect this to be a popular 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-->
would agree with most of the above. The author was attempting to parallel the news being recieved about WW2 with the news being broadcasted about WW2 today. I am personally intensely interested in news about the war, and since the full scale military action was ceased, I have read a grand total of SIX articles reinforcing the successes of the American military. On TV, I have seen 2.5 million pictures of naked Iraqi's abused, I've heard of bombed weddings, I've heard the mounting allied casualty toll - but never anything in support of the war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when have you known the media to publicize positively about anything. A while back I heard that they found some chemical weapons in Iraq, but unless people start dying of anthrax soon I think it's fair to assume that the media is going to focus squarely on dying soldiers and suicide bombers. Death sells, its the unavoidable theme of the media (you should see the arab news teams, thier even worse).
So if people don't support my view, why has support for the Iraq war been dropping ever since the focus for the war switched from "WMDs and terrorists" to "liberating Iraqi civilians"? The only good thing to come out of the Iraq war has been the liberation, at least to a certain degree, of the Iraqi people. And the result: Spain has dropped out, Blair, Howard and Bush are suffering big time in the polls and other governments with forces in iraq are facing severe pressure at home to recall their troops. The simple truth is the people will always put their interests first, not the interests of others.
If WMDs and terrorist links had been found in Iraq a great majority of the opposition to the war would have vanished (I for one wouldn't be voicing my dissent). With the only remaining goal/achievement being the liberation of Iraq civilians, people are showing that they really don't care and would rather the money be spent at home.
Back then, even if we didn't like a war - we toughed it out, and thought of the country before anything else. There definately was a lot more spirt and unison between the people - or so it seems.
That is honestly the point I believe him to be making.
Also, I'm going to e-mail Mr. Amerding about this topic, maybe we can see what he thinks of our responses <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I honestly belive that this is a massive oversimplification, I don't think we can compare the popularity of WW2 then to the popularity of the Iraq war now.
Just in its most raw state, to lose WW2 would have most likely been to see your govenrment disintegrate in favor of a facist puppet, and the cost of millions more American and British lives under the secret police purges. If we "loose" in Iraq (I don't see how this is even possible any more really) you only really lose the control of some oil, and probably see the country slip into another brutal dicatorship, niether of which really effect the long term well being of America (but I would personally be pretty **** off to see the latter happen)
That is honestly the point I believe him to be making.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why did Americans "tough it out"? They were attacked; they knew that Nazi Germany and Japan were very real threats that had declared war upon the USA. I would rather say that people accepted what they had to do with quiet resignation.
Compare that to Iraq in 2003: Saddam's government was not a threat and he did not attack the US. It's pretty much as simple as that. You really can't compare the Iraq war and WWII because their just so differant.
That is honestly the point I believe him to be making.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why did Americans "tough it out"? They were attacked; they knew that Nazi Germany and Japan were very real threats that had declared war upon the USA. I would rather say that people accepted what they had to do with quiet resignation.
Compare that to Iraq in 2003: Saddam's government was not a threat and he did not attack the US. It's pretty much as simple as that. You really can't compare the Iraq war and WWII because their just so differant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think it would have been a mistake to attack Germany before they entered the Rhineland and their military force became powerful?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And thats the point of the article. The MOST popular American war in history was NOT popular at the time - opinions of the war and the President plummeted during it. Thats what he's trying to show - even when we've been right we've gotten 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-->So if people don't support my view, why has support for the Iraq war been dropping ever since the focus for the war switched from "WMDs and terrorists" to "liberating Iraqi civilians"? The only good thing to come out of the Iraq war has been the liberation, at least to a certain degree, of the Iraqi people. And the result: Spain has dropped out, Blair, Howard and Bush are suffering big time in the polls and other governments with forces in iraq are facing severe pressure at home to recall their troops. The simple truth is the people will always put their interests first, not the interests of others.
If WMDs and terrorist links had been found in Iraq a great majority of the opposition to the war would have vanished (I for one wouldn't be voicing my dissent). With the only remaining goal/achievement being the liberation of Iraq civilians, people are showing that they really don't care and would rather the money be spent at home.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not pretending you have no support. Unfortunately, you have heaps - but not many that are willing to openly admit they dont care if Iraqi's live or die so long as they dont have anything to do with it. And people wonder why the UN cannot help people in this world.... no one cares about anyone else.
As for the spaniards - I'll keep my opinions there to myself, lest Nem award me a few months vacation from this forum.
<!--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 would rather say that people accepted what they had to do with quiet resignation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, so riddle me this - why is FDR the only American President ever to actually manage a re-election once opinion polls had dropped below 50% support? Why is it that those opinion polls reached that rock bottom DURING the war if the American people quietly accepted what they had to do with resignation?
EDIT having difficulties finding a source for my FDR + poll + re-election claims, I've read it in a newspaper but google gives me nothing.... Feel free to point out if thats not true.
A mistake? Hard to say. It certainly would have made Hitler a hero of sorts and given a hell of a lot of weight to his policies. Though Hitler probably would have been removed (and martyered), the scene would be set for a fresh conflict down the track. Perhaps a more compitant leader could have come to power and attacked using jet aircraft, rockets and advanced armor right from the start. Plus nukes.
Or the USSR could have steamrolled into Europe. The the fight in 1936 might have been so bloody that the military forces of Europe would have been exhasted, leaving the door open to Stalin.
It's just not that simple to say "We could have stopped Hitler in 1936, or 1933, or 1923". The political and social conditions in Germany after the First World War more or less ensured that there would be a second World War. I'd say that all things considered, we got off rather lightly .
It's impossible to say whether it would have been a mistake to attack Germany before they entered the Rhineland and built up their military forces. It almost certainly would not have prevented a future conflict however.
<!--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-->Okay, so riddle me this - why is FDR the only American President ever to actually manage a re-election once opinion polls had dropped below 50% support? Why is it that those opinion polls reached that rock bottom DURING the war if the American people quietly accepted what they had to do with resignation?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because they knew what had to be done. They were resigned to the prospect of another war, but knew that surrendering wasn't really an option. FDR didn't drag them into the war and he was doing a good job of fighting it.
I dont believe that. FDR was elected in 1940. Presidential elections are held every four years in America. According to <a href='http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/timeline/' target='_blank'>here</a>, FDR must have been re-elected some time late in 1944. The war was looking good then - D-day had been a success and the Nazi's looked to be on the back foot and being steadily pushed back across Europe. The war with Japan was also looking better.
So why was it that sometime between 1941 and 1944 FDR had the worst polls ever recieved by a re-elected American President. That does not sound like a population that supports the war honestly - and it definately doesnt sound like a population that believes he was doing a good job fighting it. That was also his last election ever I'm pretty sure, he died before the war ended.
Of course people weren't happy about having to fight another war, and from the way things were going in 1942 it looked like a losing war. Russia was expected to fall (this doesn't accuratly reflect the fact that Russia was a long way from defeat, but most people did think the Soviets were going to fall), Rommel's Afrika Corps were rushing across North Africa and in the Pacific the Japanese had captured a vast amount of territory in less than 3 months and inflicted a humiliating defeat on the US at Pearl Harbor (though it could have been far far worse).
Even after the victories at Stalingrad and Midway, the end of the war was not in sight. Many people, not having the advantages of 20-20 hindsight and modern mass communications, didn't appreciate the scale of these victories. 1943 brought some more victories, but the Axis powers were far from finished. Fighting a war on this scale was something that the people probably didn't WANT to do, but they did it anyway. Only in 1944 did the end of the war seem within reach. FDR was re-elected partially because he was delivering the people a victory.
There's a differance between supporting a war and being happy about it. People in the Allied countries knew they had to fight, but they didn't really like the idea (I'd point out that many people in the Axis countries felt the same way). When victory seemed to take so long, naturally they thought their leaders weren't doing such a great job. But when the results started coming in, they understood that their leaders were giving them the victory that was needed to end the war. The war was unpopular; given a choice, most people on both sides would have chosen peace over war.
OK, I'll try to adress Marines and Forlorns points concerning my previous post first, and then see how much more time I have to branch out.
<b>Marine01:</b>
It appears futile to go through your points paragraph by paragraph since we both disagree on a single core aspect: The question of how strong domestic disagreement with Roosevelts war policy was.
You base your opinion - that there was a substantional anti-war movement - on statements from the article and Roosevelts sometimes catastrophic polls mid-wartime (On that note, I'd greatly appreciate a link here - I've been searching for a good hour now and couldn't find a site archiving such polls back into that time.). I claim that the article is mentioning fictional, not overdrawn, happenings that are mimicing recent occurances, and can thus not be taken as a prove of a WW2 anti-war movement of comparable vocallity, size, or media treatment.
First, concerning outside sources, I'm sorry to say that I did not find very much. The maybe most interesting piece I did unearth is an <a href='http://hnn.us/articles/4368.html' target='_blank'>article</a> by David Greenberg, professor of history and political sciences in Yale. It concerns the chances of re-election for wartime presidents and features the following paragraph (bold added for emphasis by yours truly):
<!--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-->[...]Thomas E. Dewey, the GOP nominee, slammed the president as an incipient dictator and (in a foretaste of future Republican campaigns) a pawn of radicals.
<b>It certainly helped FDR that the public approved of his wartime leadership</b>?but probably more important was the robust prosperity that the country was finally enjoying. <b>FDR pollster Hadley Cantril's surveys found that the burning issues in 1944 were domestic.</b> Accordingly, FDR campaigned on an "economic bill of rights" that promised 60 million jobs, help for small businesses, and the construction of homes, hospitals, and highways. Although he won a fourth term comfortably, he garnered fewer electoral votes in 1944 than he had in 1932, 1936, or 1940.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would answer the questions of your argumentation in so far that the bad polls FDR recieved weren't based on the war effort, but the domestic issues that lend themselves to controversy over the man even today. Keep in mind that conservatives still disagree with Roosevelts 'New Deal' and the added authority he assigned to the Federation in the process. It appears to me that these concerns and their everyday economical implications - which recieved a new gravity due to the war efforts constraints - can be considered just as likely as a possible popular disagreement with Roosevelts war policy to slam him in the polls.
I won't try to bloat the half-sentence regarding the public reception of Roosevelts war effort into <i>the</i> prove against your thesis, but seeing the mouth it comes from, I'd call it a heavy hint against it.
Second, concerning the article. You claim that it "parallels" existing movements in WW2 with todays, taking quotes from the article for historical facts:
<!--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-->It would appear that a lot of people seemed to disagree with the war back then - based on things like 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-->A college student wrote an editorial for the student newspaper[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me thus to show that the mentioned items are in fact modelled after some that went recently through the media, and thus <i>not</i> historically genuine:
<!--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-->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."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty sure that this is a word-by-word quote, but a quick google didn't reveal it. The author does however clearly reference a number of such articles that made it into the evening news - <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118917,00.html' target='_blank'>here's the most recent one.</a>
<!--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-->There were reports that Japanese children had died because of the embargoes that were producing headlines like, "FDR, child killer."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The embargo against Japan banned the import of oil and steel - both not liable to directly cause the death of children. Mr. Amerding alludes to the <a href='http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030828Eland.html' target='_blank'>"500, 000 Iraqi children killed by the embargo"</a> (fourth paragraph).
<!--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-->"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."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"The former Hollywood bad boy and Oscar nominee [Sean Penn] paid for a $56,000 advertisement in the Washington Post in October <a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1215-10.htm' target='_blank'>accusing President Bush of stifling debate on Iraq.</a>"
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was a commission regarding Pearl Harbor one year into the war - it does however not share any characteristic with what is being described in the article: The <a href='http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/roberts/roberts.html' target='_blank'>Roberts Commission</a> was appointed by FDR. It centered around the direct question of which link in the Pacific defenses chain had broken. Roosevelt was definetely not grilled in front of it, and the Commission wasn't "holding hearings for the past several months". The whole paragraph is based on the 9/11 Commission with no real ties to the historical counterparts.
The list could go on. Because he is a good writer, Mr. Amerding stays close to historical points, but goes from there into fictional territory.
My point remains: The contemporary anti-war movement had no directely comparable equivalent in the time of WW2.
<!--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-->That is only in retrospect. Clearly, not everyone was as sure then as they are now that WW2 was a justified war. People did not know about Hitlers horrific extermination of the Jews until after the war. They all knew generally that he was a very, very naughty boy with an eye for European domination, but as for the epitomy(sp) of evil, that didnt follow until after the war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was referring to the retrospect. 'We', the amorphous mass that will once be called 'the people of the beginning 21st century', consider Hitler to be one of <i>the</i> epitomes of wicked evil - conversely, his adversaries, mainly FDR, de Gaulle, and Churchill, have left a deep and in many respects surprisingly positive impression in their nations history. It's understandeable that todays rulers, be that Blair or Bush, try to put themselves into that 'tradition'. It's understandeable that a soldier going into a war will want to feel as justifiedly heroical as those who went out to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. I can understand that conservatives will rather see this conflict in the tradition of WW2 than 'Nam. It is however barely disputed, even in this very thread, that such a comparision is factually very difficult to justify.
<!--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-->Hussein as bad as Hitler - I'm not so sure those claims aren't justified. Sure he didnt get the opportunity to consumate his evil as Hitler did, but he has a near 30 year history of bloody oppression and slaughter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I responded to this line of thought very often in other threads, so allow me to shorten this up and offer the following invitation:
Come over here. Come with me to Buchenwald. See this giant area in which innocent people were brought never to walk out again. Read about how the prisoner barracks had to be burned down by the British army because German doctors had experimentally infected prisoners with various sicknesses, among them anthrax. See the crematory. And there, standing in front of the ovens into which prisoners had to throw the corpses of their friends, I'll dare you to tell me that this pathetic little murderer is as bad as the monster into whichs eyes you are staring.
<b>Forlorn:</b>
<!--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 see a lot of political and economically comparisions, but like I stated earlier, the article isn't so much about anything else as it is our <b>morals</b> of today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see how you come to that conclusion regarding the articles conclusion, although I have to say that if Mr. Amerding tried to talk about big historical movements and changes, there would've been better ways than the satire.
Anyway, I disagree with the notion that some sort of 'morallic compass' went astray:
<!--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-->Back then, even if we didn't like a war - we toughed it out, and thought of the country before anything else. There definately was a lot more spirt and unison between the people - or so it seems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are mistaking the difference between a war one is forced into by an outside force - as the United States were forced into WW2 by Pearl Harbor - and an attack as in the case of Iraq. If I might remind you, the first response towards 9/11, not only by American citizens, but virtually the whole of the western half of the <i>globe</i> (and also a surprisingly large part of the Arabic world), including myself, was shock and solidarity. In so far, one might argue that the morallic value you seem to believe lost has in fact spread.
This solidarity diminished soon, first abroad and then, with the preperations of the war on Iraq, also internally - but this has in my opinion little to say about the morals of 'the people', and instead says much about Mr. Bushs policy and his way of presenting it.
<!--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-->Also, I'm going to e-mail Mr. Amerding about this topic, maybe we can see what he thinks of our responses <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm really interested in that myself.
<!--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-->This would answer the questions of your argumentation in so far that the bad polls FDR recieved weren't based on the war effort, but the domestic issues that lend themselves to controversy over the man even today. Keep in mind that conservatives still disagree with Roosevelts 'New Deal' and the added authority he assigned to the Federation in the process. It appears to me that these concerns and their everyday economical implications - which recieved a new gravity due to the war efforts constraints - can be considered just as likely as a possible popular disagreement with Roosevelts war policy to slam him in the polls.
I won't try to bloat the half-sentence regarding the public reception of Roosevelts war effort into the prove against your thesis, but seeing the mouth it comes from, I'd call it a heavy hint against it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wouldn't you say the reason the war wasn't a big issue by the time of 1944 was in part because our media didn't want to make it an issue?
People understood the war as a nessesary evil, perhaps, and also by the end of 1944 the war was drawing to close - I'm sure the people wanted to focus on something else, like domestic issues, for a nice change of pace.
I would as soon as you can present me with facts leading into that direction. Finding any definite answer on the question of media coverage sixty years ago appears to be nigh impossible without of having access to the physical archives, so I'll stick with what I know. I should however add that, especially seeing that the war was now in the stage of the 'great victories', I'd be surprised if the media did not portray it in an extensive and comparatively positive fashion.
<!--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-->People understood the war as a nessesary evil, perhaps, and also by the end of 1944 the war was drawing to close - I'm sure the people wanted to focus on something else, like domestic issues, for a nice change of pace.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seeing that the big source of domestic disagreement, Roosevelts New Deal, was begun long before the war, and that this economic dispute flared throughout Roosevelts first period, I'm not sure whether this would really be a change of pace, as opposed to the continuation of an always hot topic.
We should keep in mind that the public attention is seldomly exclusively fixed on a single issue for any longer period of time, so we shouldn't consider concern regarding the domestic economical situation and interest in the war as mutually exclusive.
[edit]A few quick searches later, it's however sadly devoid of contributions on our subject. Will still come in extremely handy once I'm at uni, though.[/edit]
<!--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-->It would appear that a lot of people seemed to disagree with the war back then - based on things like 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-->A college student wrote an editorial for the student newspaper[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me thus to show that the mentioned items are in fact modelled after some that went recently through the media, and thus <i>not</i> historically genuine:
<!--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-->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."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty sure that this is a word-by-word quote, but a quick google didn't reveal it. The author does however clearly reference a number of such articles that made it into the evening news - <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118917,00.html' target='_blank'>here's the most recent one.</a>
<!--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-->There were reports that Japanese children had died because of the embargoes that were producing headlines like, "FDR, child killer."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The embargo against Japan banned the import of oil and steel - both not liable to directly cause the death of children. Mr. Amerding alludes to the <a href='http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030828Eland.html' target='_blank'>"500, 000 Iraqi children killed by the embargo"</a> (fourth paragraph).
<!--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-->"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."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"The former Hollywood bad boy and Oscar nominee [Sean Penn] paid for a $56,000 advertisement in the Washington Post in October <a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1215-10.htm' target='_blank'>accusing President Bush of stifling debate on Iraq.</a>"
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was a commission regarding Pearl Harbor one year into the war - it does however not share any characteristic with what is being described in the article: The <a href='http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/roberts/roberts.html' target='_blank'>Roberts Commission</a> was appointed by FDR. It centered around the direct question of which link in the Pacific defenses chain had broken. Roosevelt was definetely not grilled in front of it, and the Commission wasn't "holding hearings for the past several months". The whole paragraph is based on the 9/11 Commission with no real ties to the historical counterparts.
The list could go on. Because he is a good writer, Mr. Amerding stays close to historical points, but goes from there into fictional territory. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa whoa whoa - before I respond to your post overall, there is something I need clarified.
Are you saying that this article isnt even claiming historical accuracy to the quotes it's making? Is he just taking quotes from today and putting them back into the WW2 timeframe? If that's the case, if the author never intended any sort of historical accuracy, then I'll drop my support of it entirely right now.
In short - am I the only one who thought he was actually using quotes from back in the 1940's?
The events in the article happened TODAY, but never back then, the whole point of the author is "What IF" it did happen back then. That's the authors dream.
Its times like these I can sympathise with Piers Morgan, a little too eager to believe what I want to be true.
Well I finally understand what Forlorn was saying about this article being more about morality and support for ones country during times of war - but I still see it as slightly deceptive.
It wouldnt have happened then, because the major American morality crisis didnt strike until the 60's/70's. Still - I can understand why people would be more inclined to support WW2 than the Iraq one. The Japanese clearly made the first blow, and were not targetted by association with a small group of people.
"The attacks were only done in defense of our embargo" (or something like that <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
All the quotes are historically accurate, from OUR time, but they never happened back then.
The point the author makes is how messed up it looks when we take today's society and put it on an older one, an older society that is looked up to as one of the glory times for America.
In addition, the story also makes one think; what if we were to take the society of the 1940's and put it in today's society? Would they say "Iraq may have supported terrorists, but they weren't the ones who directly bombed the world trade center!"
I would wager that the public of yesterday would fully support a war on Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, and even North Korea to top it off. People back then were a lot more willing to protect their country at any cost, to stop evil where it showed up, and to spread freedoms that they cherished.
The author's point is this: "Where has our morals gone?" And if you were to read many of Mr. Amerding's other numerous essays, you would then see him follow with the same theme of our America losing what it once held proud.
E-mail from Mr. Amerding
<!--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-->David -
Thanks very much - I took a look at the discussion. Some interesting stuff there. And one of my goals, as is the case with most columnists, is to get people talking. I appreciate you putting it out there.
Taylor Armerding
Columnist
The Eagle-Tribune
978-946-2213<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, so much for any more possible discussion <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->