Thanks, MacBeth, for explaining how we got involved in the European Theatre in WW2. It's amazing to me how distorted the historical view of that conflict is by many Americans. FDR was fighting a losing battle getting popular support for entering the war. Hitler deciding to honor his treaty obligations to Japan was one of his biggest blunders. Invading Russia was another.
Thousands of Americans died as young men during World War Two believing that they were fighting for freedom. My grandfather was one of them, and his letters home prove his intent. MacBeth's views are insulting to the people of the "Greatest Generation" who believed that their sacrifices served a higher purpose. Americans supported the war for many different reasons, and MacBeth's textbook response from the book of cultural relativism reeks of bias. You can't speak for 150,000 Americans when answering questions about why we entered WW2 MacBeth. Your poll showing that 3/4 of Americans supported ignoring Hitler is also meaningless to this discussion if you don't present the poll questions. Your lecture about the self interested Americans of 1940 is simplistic and full of generalizations. btw, my 81 year old grandmother is staying with me, and she thinks you are full of cow poop.
If you really and truly believe that the term "moral" here can be used to support a strike against Iraq (and if you do believe it, you're not alone, apparently), then I will submit that the very word is now so plastic and abused that it is, finally, completely devoid of meaning. Here's an example. The only moral course is to maintain international cooperation and build a united policy of disarming Iraq without waging war since, (according to most humans whom have ever used the word "moral"), killing people is the absolute opposite of moral action, when this killing has even a remote possibility of being avoided. (And please do not use this opportunity to tell us about Saddam killing his own people, because he does not rank in the top ten of the world's despots at the moment, and of those top ten, the US is on good terms with at least five). By the way, I'm with SJC. This is unavoidable. Every American citizen could protest in the streets, and Bush would probably still send young, brave American soldiers in to attack. So all this arguing is semantic. If the current administration has made any single point clear, in a WWF-style SMACKDOWN voice, it's that they do not care what anyone else thinks. Period.
1) Those same people are the ones who FDR couldn't get to support American involvment until it wasn't their choice...Facts are facts irrespective of whether you like them or they fit with post-applied Hollywood treatment. 2) I had 6, count them SIX relatives fight in WWII, including 3 who were in D-Day...according to your logic, that means I am making more sense than you...but I digress. Any scientist at any level will tell you that individual case studies are the very worst means from which to draw a conclusion, so I wouldn't care if you had 7 or 8 examples you say are contrary...the overall numbers just don't add up your way. 3) I am very sure that there were Americans who fought for idealistic reasons...and died for them. Just as there were Germans and Japanese and Swedes and Russians and Canadians and Italians who thought they were fighting for something altruistic. Not the point...the nation as a whole, when given the option of getting involved in the war for "Freedom"'s sake, ( and even to honor treaties) said no, thanks. And buddy, I just used the polls because they were the last example...FDR couldn't get military involvment past Congress either, because of complete popular antipathy, and even had to mask economic and material support from the people...and you could, as Yogi says, look it up. It won't jive with your version of Red White and Blue history, but it is a part of American history for all that. Reconcile it at your own leisure...and with all due respect, at your Granny's leisure too. 4)Yes, it is simplistic...but true for all that, and much less simplistic than "America won the war for Freedom and saved Europe..." And, as far as generalisations...Mea Culpa...I was, fairly clearly, I thought, talking about America in general, which is the topic of discussion, no?
No offense, johnheath, but have you studied history at all? MacBeth was merely telling it like it was. Frankly, I find your twisted view of history a bit frightening. And my father saw combat in WW2, by the way.
If the US was not attacked by Japan, it is possible that the US might not even have been involved in WWII. Once attacked, of course, Japan and the US were at war and Hitler decided to declare war on the US believing that the US would eventually get involved in Europe anyway and so decided to declare war on the US in order to "get the first punch in" as it were (and also naively believing that the US was incapable of fighting both Japan and in Europe at the same time.) The US was attacked by Japan and forced into the war. If Japan had not attacked or if Hitler decided not to declare war himself first even after the attack, perhaps the US would not have been involved in Europe or may have been involved too late to matter. In any case, the whole notion that the US entered WWII to save Germany and Germans from Nazism and later save Germany from Communism after the end of WWII primarily out of idealism, altruism and self-sacrifice is absurd.
That was the effect, though, and as I said, we are still thankful for it. Some influential Germans just bought a full-page ad in the New York Times to express this - surely motivated by the recent irritations.
MacBeth, Much of your historical details may paint a fairly accurate portrayal of the events, particularly American isolationism. But if you're going to slam American motivations and contributions, you should certainly mention a majro underlying truth: The war in Europe had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the US. We may have had a war with Japan anyway, but if there wasn't a 'European' problem at the time, many many more Americans would be alive today. It was a European problem, 'fixed' with American lives and money. Without the war in Europe, we also would not have had to implement a 'Europe First' policy that extended the war in the Pacific and cost many more lives. I understand the points you are trying to make, but I think you should be way the hell more careful in discussing this topic. The net result: those American soldiers gave their lives for others, us, and the many Europeans who benefitted from their sacrifice. I'm sure you didn't intend to, but your comments belittle their ultimate sacrifice, and that disgusts me.
THe US did not enter WWII to save Germany from Nazism, true. But in retrospect, Germany created the Nazism, and it took American lives to free them from it. Are you one of those that thinks the US never acts out of idealism, altruism and with self-sacrifice? I find your second claim absurd. Protecting the Germans from communism was more than just self-serving. The American public can act out of idealism, altruism and with self-sacrifice, and the protection of Western Europe, to the point of risking our own annihilation, is a Classic example.
I never claimed that US involvement in WWII was purely self-serving. Nor do I claim that the US never acts solely out of idealism, altruism and self-sacrifice (I mean self-sacrifice for others when vital national interests are not at stake) although those instances are rare. (Off the top of my head, the brief involvement of the US military to protect food aid in Somalia is perhaps a good example of where the US acted purely on humanitarian motives.) However, for the most part the US does not act primarily or solely due to idealism and altruism. It acts because vital national interests are at stake. US got directly involved in Japan and Europe because frankly it was forced into it. Japan attacked the US on Dec 7 1941 and started war against the US. On Dec 11 1941 Germany and Italy declared war on the US so it was now forced into WWII in both the Pacific and Europe whether it wanted war or not. It was not primarily or solely out of altruism as some suggest. As for my second claim, how is it absurd? I did not claim protecting Germans from Soviet aggression was entirely self-serving. But I did claim that it was not primarity due to altruism. Are you claiming that US actions in Europe and throughout the world due to the Cold War was entirely and primarily out of altruism? If not, then how is my claim absurd? (As a matter of fact the US supported quite a few nasty regimes simply because these regimes happen to be pro-US and anti-Soviet. Saddam's Iraq was one of them as Iran was Soviet backed). Look I'm not trying to be cynical and claim everything the US does is self-serving. OTOH, it is equally naive to claim the near opposite, which is that the US primarily acts out of self-altruism and self-sacrifice even when national interests are not at stake. That is my only point.
MacBeth, I have a feeling that this point was what disturbed Cohen, in particular... "I am very sure that there were Americans who fought for idealistic reasons... and died for them." You deviate from your point here, imo. Did the majority of Americans want to get involved in another European war? No, they did not, as you pointed out. But after Pearl Harbor there was a sea-change in public opinion. My father worked as a guard on planes flying the mail after he got out of high school (the best job he could get... the Depression was still going strong). The day of Pearl Harbor was a day of chaos and determination. The Army (what's now the National Guard) rushed out to what is now Hobby Airport in Houston with Thompson sub-machine guns for anyone they thought could handle a weapon. My Dad and the others were briefly shown how to use them and told to patrol the airport... in case " the damn Japs" launched an assault against it. That's how crazy it was! And people began enlisting in the tens of thousands before Hitler ever made his foolish mistake. True patriotism was on the move and running amok. Whatever the public feeling about getting involved in the war, Pearl Harbor put paid to it. And when Germany and Italy declared war on us December 11th, the attitude was still "Let's take names and kick ass!". Idealism as well as patriotism were the feelings of the majority in very short order. Grim determination took over after this almost euphoric period when the people realized the costs of victory. Sorry if I was too verbose.
1) I am unsure of what you are saying...it was a European problem which became an American problem when, in order to maintain alliances, Germany declared war on the United States...but I fail to see the significance. It wasn't a British problem either, until Germany made war on their allies, and their hand was forced too...Are you suggesting that it was more of a British problem because they are closer geographically to Germany than the US? What is more, the rise of Hitler is, unfortunately, connected with the US in other ways...After the fall of the Weimar Republic, there was a provisional government set up to stem the tide of pro-Communism and pro-Fascism in Europe in general, and Germany in particular. The architect of said provisional government was given assurances by the US that they would provide funding to help pay for the Reparations France was exacting as part of his effort to stabalize the region...and it was working, until the US pulled such funding without any warning after Black Tuesday, whereupon the provisional government collapsed, and Hitler stepped into the breach. Not directly responsible, no...but not, as you suggest, completely unconnected either. 2) My comments were in no way intended to belittle their experience, nor do I see how they did. Once the war was forced on them, the Americans had to propogandize their efforts, and many were affected by said propoganda. My point wasn't that many didn't go over buying into the Uncle Sam ads, but that it was ultimately A) a war of self-defense forced on them, and B) too late to claim that it was for freedom's sake alone...that chance had come,been repeatedly rejected, and gone. I am talking as a whole, not about individuals. How can you reject getting involved for 'freedom' repeatedly over years, even by going so far as to ignore treaties and allies in need, on the principle that isn't your problem, then, when it becomes your problem through no choice of your own, claim that you are doing it for freedom? That may have become the popular slogun, and it's more catchy than Fight Because We Have To!...and many may have believed it...but that wasn't what it was about, as insensitive as you say that sounds.
Oh, you think that my point about some Americans getting involved for idealistic reasons and dying for them was sarcastic? It wasn't... And I agree that a patriotic fervour swept through post-Pearl Harbour USA...but it had little to do with selfless altruism, and more to do with revenge, self-defense, and fear. And FDR moulded that into a war spirit able to sustain a drawn out process...but that still doesn't mean that America got into the war to save "freedom", except perhaps her own. As said earlier, when her own country wasn't threatened, and therefore at the only time when it could have been about the ideal of 'freedom' instead of the motivation of self-defense and revege, the USA said no...for years.
Rumsfeld was a US Navy Pilot from 1954-1957. He was Secretary of Defense from 1975-1977. He was also Richard Nixon's biggest pal in the Sentate from 1963-1974, (followed by a stint with Gerald Ford where he was the most vocal proponent for blocking post-Nixon reform), and he was CEO of a pharmacutical company from 1977-1985, followed by his little 'trip' to Iraq to see Sadam, then followed by another decade or so as a business guy. Hardly a life given over to public service. Before his most current assignment he was most notable for his chummieness with Nixon, and his staunch support for missle defence, which is becomming less realistic in the minds of scientists who have studied the results of the most recient efforts.
You guys are really reaching now. First we have MacBeth, who will argue ad nauseum that the American population of 1940 was selfish and apathetic, and idealism after the Pearl Harbor attack was the result of propaganda. Now Otto has the cajones to mock Rumsfeld's resume. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/12/28/politics/printable260175.shtml "Hardly a life given over to public service" says Otto. LMAO @ your bias buddy.
OK, I couldn't let this go. I don't know if you have seen the well-respected documentary series "The World At War", from the 1970s. It devotes an entire episode to the USA's entry into the war. It amazed me to see the interviews, both in 1940, and retrospectively with some of the key players. It certainly portrays a large degree of indifference to the war in Europe. Lest, we forget, Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, two years before American entry to WWII. You could probably analogise US reaction to Pearl Harbour to the reaction to 9/11. Perfectly understandable (reasonable even) but not altruistic.
I agree with Macbeth in this discusion. i think he has a verry realistic view of the history.and is keeps on being polite, even though some people try to insult him. i'm not to happy about some thing people (for example johnheath) say about this topic. If that is the way the american government thinks i think we have a big problem. But in my opinion the things rumsfeld says are verry stupid. if he wants support he should treat the other countrys with respect. Thay have a opinion. i think these comments are even more stupid than the Old Europe part. I wish the american government would stop being so arrogant and ignorant.
i'm sorry if i offended you, i wasn;t trying to do that. Al i'm saying is that they way the american government treats his allys they wil not get it there way. We al know there wil be a war. But if the american government tries to bullie the other countrys to help them than the opposite wil happen. Did you see how many people protested against the war in europe? i9f the government of those countrie ignore the protests, then there is no democracy in those countrys. if the USA wants that other countrys help them than they should treat them with respect. not like those countrys are useless, and should just follow the USA. The thing i do not get is why the USA is so angry that other countrys have a opinion. i also want to say that i do not believe in the conection between iraq and bin laden. i do not see why we should attack iraq. sorry but that is my hummble opinion.
