disorder Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 shaka-- republic......Means people can live Free. Talk Free. Go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober; however they choose. John Wayne thats all i know abt texas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Il Duce and Grand Strategy What went wrong? Italy's economy was small and the population was only 40 million. As a "power" it was much closer to Poland than Germany or France. Somalia and Ethiopia make sense as they offerred the raw materials that Italy needed. Especially as they would be needed to fuel industrial growth. Egypt was desired for the same reason that the British had it... the Suez Canal. But fighting Great Britan had to come much later. What was really wanted, was French Syria. It had the oil Italy needed. But this was also the biggest challenge, as France had a border with Italy, along with the largest and best European army. The concept of Mare Nostrum makes alot of sense. Navy Il Duce probably looked at the UK for his role model. British were after all the dominant naval power in the world. All Il Duce needed was to be the dominant naval power in the Med. No innovate thinking. No sub heavy force, since he wanted to project power, not cut off the Br/Fr access to resources. And those same forces could project his own merchant ships carrying the resources back to Italy. No carriers either, since no one thought of aircraft in those terms. Air Force Here it gets interesting. Il Duce was an airpower enthusiast. This is where alot of effort went. Lack of skilled technicians would have been a problem, but there was more than enough time to train them. And Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia would have been perfect areas to test concepts. But somewhere around 1935 (for unclear reasons) the Air Force lost that edge. Japan had similar problems to Italy, but succeeded in building up its Air Force. Imagine Italy with its own version of a Zero and pilots trained to the level that the Japanese pilots were? And backed up by large paratrooper forces? Can you say "goodbye Malta"? Army Germany, Italy and Russia understood how to properly use tanks. When the Italian military went to Duce with the idea of tanks, tank divisions and motorized infantry divisions, he said no. You could work on it, but there were other things that were more important. His reasoning was that Italy was not "motorized" enough to support that kind of Army. He was right, if you compare the ratio of automobiles and tractors to the populations of the various nations involved in WWII. The first "real" Italian Tank was not ready until 1943. Monarchy One of the two big "problems". The military traditions and the officers all came from the upper middle class and the aristocracy. Its hard for us as Americans to understand what this really means. Think of it this way. You could become a military officer in the Italian Army/Navy if you are a celebrity. Here is were Duce made his biggest mistake. He did not address this problem and he had no control over them. He should have paid closer attention to what the Roman Empire did. As a counter to the Roman Senatorial class, the Empire used Equestrians. And when it was strategically important to the Empire, the Equestrians got the command, not a Senator. Duce should have done the same thing with the NCO's and promoted seasoned NCO's as Warrant Officers. Industry This one is tough. It was small enough that the corruption was a critical problem. Taking political power away from the "corporations" (ie special interest groups) probably did not help. Unlike Stalin, Duce did not have the ability to "bootstrap" his economy. Politics Here Duce had no rival. He was a master of manipulating the media. While he had an authoritarian regime, he had nowhere near the control that Hitler or Stalin did. Nor could he take the steps they did to achieve that kind of control. There was no civil war or wartime defeat to wash away the old institutions and replace them with his own. He had to do it thru the political process, which left him by the 30's in a bad place with the King and the Pope. I believe that Hitler admired Duce for that very reason, since alot of what Hitler did and his methods could be traced back to Il Duce. It would also explain why he supported him to the very end. Duce was Hitler's role model. Pope and the Catholic Church The second of his problems. We as Americans have a hard time understanding the "control" that the Church had. Even after reading so much about it, I still have a hard time understanding it. I can offer no good analogies. Maybe someone else out there can. While Duce was an atheist, the majority of Italians were not. Here was a "check and balance" that he could not ignore or control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 1, 2003 Author Share Posted May 1, 2003 Shaka Really great assessment of Italy in WW II and Mussolini's whole tenure in office. A very much needed addition to the wealth of existing historical perspectives in the various forum Topics. [ May 01, 2003, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 To Mr. Shaka O. Carthage Very good job done on El Duce and the quagmire he was living in, appreciate your devotion to this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Thanks gentlemen, not a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 JJ, KK, Sea Wolf, et. al., I have found another good book (in English) on the eastern front, titled "Russia at War." It's by Alexander Werth who grew up in Leningrad (till age 17). He then emigrated to Britain and became a journalist. When the war started (41) the Times sent him to Russia--he arrived in early July and stayed throughout the war. The book is similar to William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" in that it combines historical research with personal observations and interviews "on the spot" with Soviet citizens, officers. enlisted men and government officials. It has several long translations of the "offical" Soviet history which are good to have in English as well.' And for Jersey John: Here are the words to the Prokoffiev Ode to Stalin ("Zdravitsa") for Chorus and Orchestra. The words are described as 'folk texts of Russian, Ukrainian, Kuridsh, Belorussian, Mariisk and Mordva origin.' Yeah, right: Never have our fertile fields such a harvest shown, Never have our villagers such contentment known, Never life has been so fair, spirits been so high, Never to the present day grew so green the rye, O'er the earth the risig sun sheds a warmer light, Since it looked on Stalin's face it has grown more bright, I am singing to my baby sleeping in my arm: "Grow like flowers in the meadow free from alarm, On your lips the name of Stalin will protect from all harm, You will learn the source of sunshine bathing all our land, You will copy Stalin's portrait with your tiny hand." The really beautiful thing is that Prokoffiev set these words to simplistic music--a C major scale going up and down repeatedly--so it sounds like a group of mentally defective people (instead of rapturous kolkhozniks) singing these praises. Of course the censors didn't catch that. ======================== I'll also add to the chorus of thanks to Shaka--you provided another of the many educational moments I have in this forum. Thanks! [ May 02, 2003, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: santabear ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 S-Bear, read that book, don't get mad, I respect your opinion and have learned a lot from your forum postings, but I hated it, thought that it's stat's were commie BS. Very ideaistic toward Communism and their leadership. Luckily I found it at the used book store and only paid 9 bucks of it, read the whole thing however. The poem is nice, but you didn't want to know Stalin personally, you usually wound up dead. [ May 02, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 santabear The lyrics touched me deeply, I sat mesmerized, weeping, singing it over and over to a simple melody thinking about what a wonderful man Uncle Joe was and how all the succeeding sociopathic tyrants pale in comparrison. Thanks for finding it, having to write such drek must have taken a year off Prokofieff's life, along with the twenty or so that were subtracted through worrying that Stalin would have him killed! Russia at War is a Golden Oldie. I read it in the sixties or maybe the seventies, it's been around a long time. I don't remember anything about it so I can neither agree nor disagree with SeaWolfe's evaluation. The one thing I do recall is I read it quickly and, considering it's a tome, I must have found it very interesting. Glad you recommended it. A book along similar lines, very old and possible out of print that would be interesting regarding the period, is Three Who Made a Revolution: Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. -- by Bertram Wolfe . As in the Werth book I don't remember much about it as I read it so long ago, but I do recall it was very interesting. At the time it was popular there were almost no objectively written texts on either Soviet Russia or it's history, it being the 1950s. SeaWolf A most uncharitable assessment of Joseph Stalin as a friend. Plenty of people knew him and weren't executed. Usually he decided they weren't getting enough exercise and had them sent to special health spas in Siberia. Imagine that, to have so much concern for his friend's well being -- what a guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Bear, read that book, don't get mad, I respect your opinion and have learned a lot from your forum postings, but I hated it, thought that it's stat's were commie BS. Very ideaistic toward Communism and their leadership. Sea-wolf: Not mad at all--I think you have good points. :eek: A lot of the stats ARE propaganda (he quotes the "official" sources a great deal). And he is (to me) extremely sympathetic toward Stalin as a person--though, again, I think many times he is quoting or paraphrasing what Russians "said that they said" at the time. I think the book is very valuable for 1. Giving some balance to the prevailing "Western" views of the war in Russia--which are no more objective than the Russian views., 2. For its extensive quotes from Russian sources--everything from Russian histories of the war to original documents to poems, newspaper articles and (as above) pieces of music, 3. For a very perceptive analysis of Russia's diplomatic situation 1938-42. It highlights what Stalin did right (the little things, mostly), but with some reading between the lines, it's easy to see where Stalin went terribly, disasterously wrong. These things are probably available in other works, I just happened to stumble across them in here. One should also keep in mind that like Shirer, Wirth is a journalist, not a historian--in both books you get good "reporting," not necessarily good history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 To Santa Bear Thanks for the respond about the book. And you are right about the feeling that the book gave you when reading it. That the russian people stood up for Mother Russia, it was good in that aspect! I know when I stick out my neck and say I endorse something on this forum, it's not fun too have it stepped on, I didn't mean that. But I hope here when we are all truthful and honest with eachother, without bias, or malice toward eachother, that we can mature as men, How about those BEARS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 How about those BEARS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 S-Bear, how about those Lakers, still hanging in there. Shaq and Koby, Mutt and Jeff, are unstopable when they put their mind to hoops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Funny to read this thread about "Russia at War". I had composed a long post last week on some between the lines facts I have learned from this book. But when I got ready to post it, I read flame after flame from posters who seem to be against any thought process or fact that isn't 100% RAH RAH RAH USA, go team go, win team win. I was pretty sure I already knew it all when I was young also, but I am 43 and can consider alternate facts and that I may not have had all necessary information when I formed my opinions. It didn't seem that such discussions are productive, so I decided to not post it. The article was the background of the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact. But it seems despite our freedom in America, some still choose to ignore anything that doesn't fit the ideas they already have. I know my viewpoints have changed a great deal in the last 20 years. I am an absolutely loyal American, and even more so a loyal Texan, but I am interested and open to facts that don’t always paint the US or the Allies in their best light. Some facts do not fit views formed when I was younger. Youth often finds a way to ignore or minimize facts that do not fit our view of events, but as we age our patriotism is less challenged by negative information. Especially if we like our country, and believe it to be honest, open, and just for the most part. The 1990’s forward has seen an explosion of information, with the downfall of the Soviet Union, the declassification of classified documents, the advent of A & E, The History Channel, War games, and the narrowing of the world divisions through mass media. The greatest tool today for learning about an event, especially one that is over 50 years in the past such as World War II, is the Internet. I have researched many facts through WWII websites, both official and not, and countless books because of Internet discussion boards such as this. And no one has read every word written about WWII, which was a tremendous crossroads in human history. By sharing opinions, viewpoints, and references we can think and learn more I am sure there is much we can learn from one another with discussions such as the one of which Allied power contributed the most to victory. I enjoy these discussions as much as I like playing strategy games, which says a lot. Before the Internet, there were few chances to discuss subjects such as these. I have enjoyed reading the past threads and discussions on these boards. In my opinion an objective account of WWII, in which the facts are all presented fairly, simply does not exist. American authors write more of the great economic and material impact of the US, British authors write of the resilience/entirety of the UK efforts, and USSR books speak of the great contributions of the Red Army and citizens. While they do not always write lies, they will omit facts to fit their objectives, which are usually to maximize their countries contributions to victory while minimizing their role in allowing the War to begin in the first place. But getting into a flame war with people who bash anyone who isn't from their country or doesn't salute their country as WRONG, isn't my idea of a discussion. And these guys WERE from my country. Russia At War is an outstanding book, and gives a great perspective outside of English and American influences for those open to facts. Depite the protests of some, all 3 Allies had their own roles in allowing WWII to get started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 13, 2003 Author Share Posted May 13, 2003 Leopard There is a lot of objectivity in these Threads if you care to look for it. Also, if it's that important to you then you ought to post in a way that encourages objectivity in others. Making the insinuation that everyone else is basically working with a closed mind and incapable of sensible discussion is just a little elitist and aloof, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't it be better and more interesting to state the information you have to offer and see where it goes from there instead of prejudging the reactions in advance? I've made entries where the next person to post said I was a nazi and others where the next person to post said I was a communist. So what -- I said what I wanted, got good feedback from others and have never let the closed attitudes of a few affect the postings I'd like to present for the many. I'd like to read what you have to say concerning the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and I'm sure everyone else would as well. As I've said earlier, I remember reading Alexander Werth's book a very long time ago and enjoying it, but it's somewhere off on the outter edge of my memory, along with Tuchman's Guns of August and the Proud Tower so if someone tells me now it's completly pro-Soviet I can't argue with them. I'm 54 and read that book when it first came out; a lot of brain cells have gone kaput since then and whole blocks of valuable data are now just drifting continents in what back then was my well organized Pangea. [ May 12, 2003, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Sir Jersey --- I haven't gotten a chance to "rack 'em"; you have scored for your recent postings over the last 2-weeks. Good job & do what is expected of you. I especially like the posts in the thread that was locked SeaWolf_48 --- You also getted racked for that absolute classic take last week on the locked thread! Keep it up, you might become an ICON. Rambo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUT [ May 12, 2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 JJ, Yea, I am new here. Have been lurking and catching up on the past threads, learning SC vs AI before I start playing on The Ladder. Maybe I was a little too negative, I didn't mean to be. I never profile entire groups, so it was a reaction more to a few comments which seemed to be conversation killers. I was out of line, but I probably won't edit it because I usually stand behind what I say. But I usually think about it a little longer before I say it. Part of why some people think Texans are kinda slow. 8) Part of it also comes from the fact that I was really enjoy reading some of the discussions, and don't want them to turn into flame wars some boards have after. Again, it wasn't my place to post that message. I'll contribute something next time. Leopard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 JJ said "...whole blocks of valuable data are now just drifting continents in what back then was my well organized Pangea." Thats funny as hell. I can identify with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 13, 2003 Author Share Posted May 13, 2003 General Rambo Appreciate it. That locked Thread has some of the best stuff we've posted in ages, now it's located in the Siberia Forum. That's life. Actually, I think a lot of the stuff that went into it after it was moved was also good and I'm glad in the end everything was reconciled with BradT. [ May 13, 2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolzemFrumFloppen Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: There is a lot of objectivity in these Threads if you care to look for it. Hmmmm... You shouldn't have to look for it, JJ. It should be the rule, not the exception. I'm with Leopard on this one. I haven't seen a single post on the Battlefront forums that doesn't bring out all the American, cliche'd cheerleaders whenever someone dares to praise the Soviet Union's significant -- perhaps penultimate -- contribution to the destruction of Nazism. Originally posted by JerseyJohn: Also, if it's that important to you then you ought to post in a way that encourages objectivity in others. I'm not sure I understand your point here. That encouragement of objectivity, untainted by McCarthy-ish rhetoric, should be everyone's goal, not just the waning handful of dissenters. If anything, Leopard was the 'voice-in-the-thread' that managed to accurately point out the obvious: this forum is -- more often than not -- the bastion of 1950-ish Red Baiters. And, if I may be blunt, you ought to encourage the aforementioned behavior in some of the other posters in this thread, most notably Seawolf; the two of you have an enjoyable mutual admiration society going on, but his own posts reek of Red baiting. Anthony Beevor would be proud; like Seawolf, he doesn't write a page/post without the requisite condemnation of Communism nor the more subtle softness towards Fascism as -- incomprehensibly -- the lesser of two evils. I don't know why truth, in and of itself, is becoming too radical in various online wargaming forums. But I can tell you this, it doesn't bode well for this genre as a whole, much less the entire country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 13, 2003 Author Share Posted May 13, 2003 Leopard Looking forward to great things -- especially that Ribbentrop/Molotov Entry. Glad you hit that Pangea shot, that's how it feels lately, things that used to be right up front seem way off in the back of the skull somewhere and it's becoming a longer retrieval-trip every day. I wouldn't change any entries. I edit nearly every posting at least once, but can't see changing inflamatory statements. And I've made hundreds of them. It turns out that some of the guys you've had the worst run-ins with become your best friends later on. Then if you go back and change the entries that started it all it appears, if anyone ever goes back and reads the Thread, that they're arguing with themselves! [ May 12, 2003, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 13, 2003 Author Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by HolzemFrumFloppen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JerseyJohn: There is a lot of objectivity in these Threads if you care to look for it. Hmmmm... You shouldn't have to look for it, JJ. It should be the rule, not the exception. -------------------------------------- (jj)-- Agreed. There are a lot of things that should be, but as I'm sure you realize, this is a less than perfect world. I try to take what comes and make the best of it. I choose to look for the good points, it would be easier to look for the bad points, of course. --------------------------------------- I'm with Leopard on this one. --------------------------------------- (jj)-- I doubt that's where Leopard is but I can't speak for anyone else. --------------------------------------- I haven't seen a single post on the Battlefront forums that doesn't bring out all the American, cliche'd cheerleaders whenever someone dares to praise the Soviet Union's significant -- perhaps penultimate -- contribution to the destruction of Nazism. -------------------------------------- (jj)-- Is that really what Leopard said? Guess my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. -------------------------------------- Originally posted by JerseyJohn: Also, if it's that important to you then you ought to post in a way that encourages objectivity in others. I'm not sure I understand your point here. ------------------------------------- (jj)--What I mean is just make your own honest entries and hope others will do the same. I fairly often offend others, usually I don't mean to, when an apology is called for I try to offer one, when an apology is due me I don't push for it but am pleased if it's offered. Most of us get along pretty well these days and if it's because we're biased and some sort of clique then that's the way it goes. -------------------------------------- That encouragement of objectivity, untainted by McCarthy-ish rhetoric, should be everyone's goal, not just the waning handful of dissenters. If anything, Leopard was the 'voice-in-the-thread' that managed to accurately point out the obvious: this forum is -- more often than not -- the bastion of 1950-ish Red Baiters. -------------------------------------- (jj)-- We have people contributing who are blatantly pro-Soviet in their writings, I don't see any lynch mobs. It happens that most of the people who post here are Americans and they are pro American in their views. I've lived through periods when there were a lot of Americans running around burning their own flag and making obscene remarks about the president and other government officials. I like it better this way. If it becomes too extreme that isn't good either, but at the moment Americans supporting America happens to be the trend. It isn't a perfect society by a long shot, it needs countless reforms within it's own continental borders but that's another issue. I haven't seen anything on the level of Joe McCarthy and by the way, in the mid-sixties when the late senator was being resurrected I went around saying he was a self-serving bastard when it wasn't very popular to do so, so a little slack along these lines would be appreciated. Nothing since the McCarthy era has come anywhere near to the sort of turmoil and misery that idiot created. Certainly nothing that's ever appeared in this Forum compares to Tail-gunner Joes dreck. ----------------------------------- And, if I may be blunt, you ought to encourage the aforementioned behavior in some of the other posters in this thread, most notably Seawolf; the two of you have an enjoyable mutual admiration society going on, but his own posts reek of Red baiting. ----------------------------------- (jj)-- My Friend SeaWolf is his own man and says what he wants to say. The reason I say My Friend SeaWolf is he's stood by me on several occasions when he could just as easily have sold me down the drain. The same goes for My Friend Rambo. The three of us agree very often, though we express it in different ways and other times our views are very different, but that's what makes life interesting. Aside from which you give me credit for influence I don't have; it would be a cold day in hell before I'd be able to influence anything either of those gentlemen wanted to say, nor would I care to. There are a number of others who I also share mutal admiration societies with. Sorry, guess in my old age I'm becoming Saintly. It isn't intentional. ----------------------------------- Anthony Beevor would be proud; like Seawolf, he doesn't write a page/post without the requisite condemnation of Communism nor the more subtle softness towards Fascism as -- incomprehensibly -- the lesser of two evils. ----------------------------------- (jj)-- Mr H., you've just given me a good chuckle. A bit harsh though. I believe SeaWolf is a shade to the right at times but those are his honest opinions. Others are a shade to the left and those are there honest opinions. This Forum operates like a weather front, when the two extremes clash we have a storm, Hubert or Moon put a padlock on the issue and we finish it off in that other forum, Camp Siberia. -------------------------------- I don't know why truth, in and of itself, is becoming too radical in various online wargaming forums. But I can tell you this, it doesn't bode well for this genre as a whole, much less the entire country. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 HolzemFrumFloppen --- What is Red Baiting? Is that like the movie Red Dawn that my Uncle Charlie took me to when I was a kid? To keep on the subject: FDR --- Great politician. Only 3-term President of the United States (that I know) which caused the term limit change. Cared about his country & was a great leader for those harsh economic & war times. Was a Democrat, but I bet the parties were different then compared to today. Far as being a "military" leader, I'm not sure, probably delegated most decisions outside the macro realm. Did he know about Pearl Harbor beforehand? Was he really a commie at heart with all "works" jobs? Bottom line: United States politicians spoke in a straight forward method back then compared to now. I like FDR, opps., that's Ike's motto. FDR's rating: Politician: 10 (great job pre-WW2 & was aware of the Reds) Military: 6 (he might has been responsible for Tarawa) Mussolini --- This guy doesn't impress me. Reminds me of Saddam Insane, a bully. Don't know much about him, but his own people didn't really seem to like him. Politican: 6 (got to power somehow) Military: 2 (couldn't get the victories) Stalin --- Dude took over a country, was there at the right time for a commie takeover. Like any "party" overthere, he got his share of friends. Reminds me of the book "Animal Farm", "two legs good, four legs better". Politician: 10 (sold his soul to the devil at that point in history, started a kingdom which would fall to Reagan) Military: 9, "when the one with the rifle gets killed, the other one picks it up". Did the best he could with the resources & stood up to the rest of the world post-WW2, but long-term, they lost. Churchill --- Politician: 2, couldn't stay in power. Maybe he didn't care. Military: 10, Chunky dude had balls with those classic rally speeches standing up to Hitler. Hitler --- Politician: 10, took over a country & made them all go mad. Getting a 10 in this category actually shows a relationship to the World & the Devil. Military: 7, took over alot of Earth. But remember, the Germans were OVER-RATED fighting farmers with tanks in '40. Rambo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolzemFrumFloppen Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: Nothing since the McCarthy era has come anywhere near to the sort of turmoil and misery that idiot created. Certainly nothing that's ever appeared in this Forum compares to Tail-gunner Joes dreck.Ahh, yes.... possibly. But it is even more certain that the majority of those who lived through the McCarthy era and watched all those televised hearings had no idea what was really going on. A witch hunt that was utilized to take John Q. Public's mind off other things. I can ask just about anyone who lived through it and they can hardly remember how insane it all really was. The trouble with living in an insane time and not being the type of person being hunted generally means that you hardly notice it happening. And if you do notice it, you just bury your head in the sand and salute the flag when required. It just might be the same today, but instead of "Pinkos", there are other phantom archetypes. History has an unerring tendency to pass just about everyone by. The lesson of the McCarthy era? Simple, really. Lo' and behold, there weren't any communists at all! Just folks who opposed increasingly right-wing policies. Those who knew how to fight back weren't televised; those who were easily attacked were televised and humiliated before a bloodthirsty populace. Funny, when you think about it. Il Duce and Hitler used the same techniques. J. Caesar said it best: give them bread and circuses and they'll do anything you want. Originally posted by JerseyJohn: It's good to discuss these things openly. Regardless of whether or not we agree on things I've always felt your opinions are honest ones expressed in examining worthwhile issues. Likewise, JJ,... likewise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 As far as the great leaders of WW2, or infamous. Even Mousillini had some skill, took Ethiopia fixed the humility they had from the previous century there. He had a nice navy and with a bit more industry Italy may have contributed something real to the War Effort. He kept the country happy till he was losing... Only difference between Stalin and Hitler is one Won.Hitler, reunited his nation and made it a military power unrivaled in it's era of '36-'42...and also cleared the humiliation of the Great War. Stalin, at the cost of a lot of lives achieved industry and military victory. Wrong or right...I also think that Stalin was slightly more paranoid than Hitler. FDR, he got his people to actually indorse an all out war. Even if it was a bit underhanded, and supported the War effort in Europe as best he could do without direct involvement. I'm impressed...also kept Stalin and Churchill talking... Churchill, they needed a BullDog and they got one. He was not really a successful military leader after blunders in WW1 and even in the opening of WW2. Greece/Norway, etc... Although he was smart and knew that Hitler had a lot of Ego and used that against him. All in all, the Western Leaders were a bit Saner. The Japanese Goverment was too divided by Naval and Land doctrine to achieve anything. Too many different interests! To say any one of us could've done it better is probably wrong or worse... It's impossible to say and hey you try being a World Leader...Evil, or Good.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 13, 2003 Author Share Posted May 13, 2003 HolzemFrumFloppen A great and very scary observation. What follows is quite a bit longer than I'd originally intended to write. Sometimes these things run away on their own. Of course Caesar was right, keep the citizenry fed, contented and entertained and they're sheep. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley restated it in their masterpiece novels and the Third Reich made it a way of life in the 1930s. As someone in a documentary said, "Life in Nazi Germany was quite good as long as you weren't a communist or a Jew or some kind of trouble maker who started trouble. But for good, loyal Germans those were very good times." The truth is the vast majority of people don't learn much from history. The shift to the right in America has me scared as well. As you say, the communists don't need to be the phantoms, it could be almost anything the public is made to believe is a threat. The best answer is an informed public; the trouble is, who's informing them? These right-left attitudes swing almost like a pendulum, except I've noticed that since Reagan's presidency it seems not to reset quite on center, it always ends up a very small notch farther to the right than it started. My only personal memories of Joe McCarthy are dim at best, though the fifties stand out very strongly in my mind. In the early years of TV the main boobtube entertainment for young boys was World War Two propaganda movies. They don't even show the majority of them anymore. Most of them starred either Randolph Scott, John Wayne, Robert Ryan or one of the other top notch Hollywood Hero types. I'm not putting the movies down in themselves, they served their purpose and, as an occaisional viewing, were very entertaining. But the thing is, till I was in the second grade I thought we were still fighting the Second World War! The Korean War was very confusing because both the North Koreans and the Japanese were depicted in comic books as wearing big red stars on their caps or helmets -- most movies and all TV sets were black and white, which made comic books the best source for detailed information. Additionally, there were scores of documentaries about WW II, many of them very good, the best beign Victory at Sea. The truth is, as we know today, all this moral boosting was for the Cold War. Americans were weary of Korea the way they would later be of Vietnam (already in progress with the French vs the Vietminh). Slogans like "Better Dead than Red" and "My Country Right or Wrong" were imprinted on my memory from an early age as they were on millions of other American kids. Science fiction movies like Invasion of the Body Snaters (original, c.1956) , The Thing and War of the Worlds (both c.1950) helped feed the national paranoia about there being someone out there trying to take what was ours -- and the face under that Martian mask might just be either Chinese or Russian, so you better watch out! In elementary school children had regularly scheduled exercises where a Civil Defense Alarm was sounded. We had to go under our desks in a curled position attempting to cover vital areas with less vital limbs as a defence against nuclear attack. Even seven year olds knew it was a futile exercise -- seven year olds also knew the difference between an Atomic Bomb and a Hydrogen Bomb. The Good Old Days. In the middle of all this was Joe McCarthy. He followed hot on the Rosenberg trial and executions, feeding on the panic that followed. As for the Rosenbergs -- yes, they were guilty of being very bad Americans, but not of giving Russia the A-bomb and causing the Korean War, as Ike himself came out and said! The real culprits had long since either vanished into the woodwork to continue spying, or had fled to the Soviet Union. Aside from which, the Soviets had a steady flow of atomic information almost from the start and none of it had anything to do those two. But the worst thing is what this sort of steadily fed national paranoia does to the people of a nation. Because the Rosenbergs and most of the people testifying against them were Jewish a new wave of anti-semitism began ozzing out of the sidewalks. When I was eight or so I remember an uncle I respected talking about this link I don't even care to mention by name. Having earlier heard him talking about what he'd seen in the liberated concentration camps, then later talking about this anti-semitic/communist link nonsense, I asked him the natural confused questions: something like, if Hitler was bad because of those camps (he blanched a bit because he didn't know any kids had heard him describing it) but those same people who were in the camps were bad because they were all communists -- etc. & etc.. He had a good laugh and told me not to worry about it. Kind of like post WW I Germany. Some traitors were Jewish, some Communists were Jewish, therefore (and so on) -- but any minority group in any country can be singled out for this scapegoat role. Just find the proper circumstances and make the lie convincing enough. Naturally, there was something real and threatening going on between the U. S. and the U. S. S. R.. Who started it and the degree of guilt each of the nations qualified for is still obscure. Meanwhile there was a constant national phobia, sometimes as when the Sputniks went into space in 1956, it became a temporary near hysteria. Commies everywhere. Missles pointed at us from Earth orbit. FDR had been a sap and his wife a Soviet Agent, etc. & etc.. People my family knew became tainted by all this and suddenly we no longer knew them. That's how bad and how far reaching it was because we certainly didn't know anyone of military or political importance. That was the age, a lot of ignorance, intolerance, suspicion handed down directly from the government and a decade when a little at a time Americans began voluntarily giving up their individual rights to the cause of National Defense. Some of which is legitimate, but much of it is also Orwellian manipulation. What scares me today is I've attempted on innumerable occasions to talk about these issues with neices and nephews and lately with their kids, who are teenagers, and there's no effect. The most inteligent response is usually something like -- "When did all this happen, the Civil War!" Which is interesting because they don't know anything about the Civil War either. I've yet to talk to a current high schooler who knows who Joe McCarthy was. Even if they've heard the name somewhere they don't understand what either him or the age was about. The Cold War itself has begun fading along with the memories of the days when all it took was the insinuation of being a Red or a Commie Sympathiser to get your name on a secret FBI file for suspected disloyalty. It doesn't seem to register that when a nation's own population thinks it needs it's government to protect it from itself something is seriously wrong. Ironically, the last young person I spoke to about any of this was on his way to Afghanistan a year or so ago. His parting words were something along the lines of it was good to train for battle against a normal, old fashioned foreign enemy. I asked him what he meant he and said that up till 9/11 most of his training had been for "Domestic Insurgents". The way he said it scared me very much. [ May 13, 2003, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts