Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, May 10, 2005.
Considering Grandpa Prescott's wartime activities, little George has got a hell of a nerve. He needs a good spanking.
Heilbrunn either knows or briefed himself on Yalta a helluva lot better than Dubya or his advisors...
"Roosevelt...was naive about Stalin's intentions and believed he could cajole the dictator into following more moderate policies. But FDR's approach was not particularly different from that of Churchill (who had declared that he would "sup with the devil" to win the war, which is what he and Roosevelt, in effect, did)."
Actually, this is more the way I always heard about the Yalta conference than the ultra-right stuff.
"What's more, it was the isolationist right that never wanted to fight the war in the first place, which it conveniently forgot once it began attacking Democrats as being soft on communism."
With no dates as to when who attacked whom in the politics of the late 1930s/early 1940-'41, this is BS. Yeah, there was an isolationist right. There were a lot of Nazi sympathizers, as well. Jew-baiters and suchlike creatures. Lindhbergh came back all admirous of Hitler, like Armand Hammer and George Bernard Shaw with Stalin.
In the 1930s, a lot of people were "soft" on Communism. Some had been Democrats. Some had been Republicans. Some had once had jobs. To many of my mother's generation, "Capitalism has failed!" It was in no way anti-Americanism to be willing to examine other socio-economic systems.
December 7, 1941 changed a helluva lot of things.
Historical question for the class: What country declared war on Japan before the U.S. did?
There was no such concept as being "soft on communism" during the 1930s. This was terminology that came out of the Cold War and had a specific political meaning that didn't even exist prior to that time.
The writer here is admittedly stingy with his historical details (a diet of 600 words will do that to you), but I can safely say he wasn't singling out celebrity admirers of Hitler when he refers to the isolationist right. In fact isolationism (led by the America First Committee, which was formed in 1940) was the dominant orientation of the Republican Party during the 1930s. They ran against FDR in 1940 (his closest electoral victory) on that platform. ("I shall never send an American boy to fight in a European war." -- Wendell Wilke)
China? The Soviet Union? The Soviets fought Japan in Mongolia and abouts in the 1930s, turning Japanese ambitions south towards China.
Bush didn't just criticize the actions of a US president while he was abroad, did he?
Cuz if he did, all his albums should be run over by a big American-made tractor...
I wonder why Bush felt the need to say this. Is there a widespread feeling over in Eastern Europe that the US sold them out at Yalta? I hope not - I don't see how the blame could really fall on anybody but the Soviets. Besides, from what I know about those countries, they're not sitting around talking about stuff that happened sixty years ago, they're figuring out how to join the EU and become part of the world community.
If FDR had run his war as ineptly as GW has run Iraq, we'd all be speaking with German accents.
which i can experience first hand with my mother and her US /english speaking friends... it drives me insane when i'm at home and she receives an english call
and with the friends being here in personal it starts to get problematic when you want to drink something i nearly bursted out in laughter mutliple times with my mouth full of water,apple juice and not to forgetthe cake
perhaps i've got not enough sauerkraut as a kid
Not me! I would have never been born, what with my grandmothers being killed in camps.
My uncle had been hired in 1939 by PanAm to engineer airport construction in Central and South America. The US Govt was supporting PanAm both for business and for airfields for anti-invasion efforts if Japan invaded via those areas. He worked at Caracas and Managua. I have various letters and photos from that era. (Including some P-39s landing at Managua before the runways were paved.) Anyway, in one of his letters to his mother, he noted the irony as to the Declaration of War.
One thing to remember about the Isolationists of the 1930s: They were affected by memories of WW I. Not a lot different from France, really. French villages had many men who had horribly scarred faces from the mix of machine guns and trench warfare. (That's part of why France did little to dissuade Hitler from his military buildup, even though in the early 1930s the French had the largest standing army in the world. The "BTDT, didn't like the tee-shirt" syndrome.) Lots of other aspects to the isolationism, of course, but it wasn't totally irrational...
Is it me, or is Bush just trying to piss of the rest of the world? Seriously, I used to joke about this stuff. It's not so funny anymore. We are so gonna get blown up (well, all except Bush... he'll be safe in some underground bunker somewhere).
:cough: hypocrite :cough:
Well, solvs, there's a bit of irony there.
About 45 years back, a sorta-popular guy spouted off about "bear any burden, pay any price" to spread democracy throughout the world. Quite a large number of people agreed with him--notably in Berlin. "Ich bin ein Berliner!" Remember?
Now, if you look at the governmental systems of the countries who are members of the UN, you'll see that democracies as we know them in the western world are rather a minority.
So, I reckon that spouting off about expanding democratic processes would indeed piss off a lot of the world's Big Bosses. The idea of the local equivalent of Joe Sixpack having some say in a country's management wouldn't play well in such bastions of freedom as Iran or North Korea, among others--although there are the occasional signs that such ideas do play well among the Joe Sixpacks.
Sorta depends on who you think's the more important, I guess...
Misrepresenting Yalta and dissing Churchill and FDR is NOT going to "expand democratic processes". It's just going to piss people off.
"The appeasement at Yalta."
What a ****ing cad.
I'm not even sure how to respond to that, since I don't see any connection. I just see a President who's lecturing our former allies and pissing people off left and right. How is that "spreading" democracy?
I remember when he went to Canada, and they tried to extend an olive branch to a man they obviously (and with good reason) do not trust. Remember how that went? Not so well. This man does not know the meaning of the word Diplomacy. Spreading democracy is great, but that's not really what's going on here. Besides the re-writing of history, he is essentially spitting in the face of someone who should be an allie, but could once again become an adversary. The rest of the world is afraid of the direction we are heading, and I don't blame them.
Instead of re-hashing old mistakes (and trying to spin them for political reasons), he should be focusing more on trying not to make those same mistakes himself.
I suppose Bush's forgotten all about his Pappy's appeasement of Saddam by now...
And Reagan's appeasement of UBL too...
I don't recall saying that Dubya's methodology was all that wise and efficient. Here, there and yonder he calls for more democracy. I thought we were already pretty much in accord that the way he recalled Yalta was out of touch; refer back to my first post in this thread.
solvs, since Bush first appeared on the scene, folks on this board have noted correctly and often that saying things in a diplomatic manner is not exactly Bush's strong point. Nothing's changed. The boy doesn't get better with age. Regardless, we're stuck with the fact that he's sincere about wanting more democratic process in countries around the world and wanders about saying it.
The gripe is not with WHAT he's doing; it's with HOW he's doing it.
frankly, i'm not convinced he understands democracy.
Is Pat Buchanan crazy? Is he really questioning whether or not it was worth it to get involved in WWII?
Any guesses as to the reaction if, say, Michael Moore had questioned our involvement in WWII?
I guess genocide isn't a good enough reason for Mr. B.
Talk about your revisionist history...
yeah, i wouldn't characterize it as, "the germans voting hitler in." anywya, it seems like a twisted way to excuse anything bush has done or might do.
And the kicker is, Bush was practically hauling out FDR's corpse and slow-dancing with it when he was trying to claim FDR would have supported private SS accounts. And only a couple weeks apart.
that's... quite an image.
Heh... you ever read The Rude Pundit ?
Check out his 5/11/2005 entry for a far more graphic depiction of the same basic idea.
The boy is drunk with power.
There is less and less doubt that he is a sociopath.
Maybe he has a brain implant, Manchurian Candidate style.