Just reading through some of these posts, it's astonishing how little people know about World War 2. Everyone acts NOW a
-
thbryn — 16 years ago(October 18, 2009 10:22 PM)
The late 30's had a battle going on in the US between the Roosevelt WH and the Republican Party. The latter didn't even want to help arm and feed Britain (and other countries) never mind actually join the war.
It is very likely that had we not been attacked by Japan we would have not got into the war until late 1942, if then. So in that sense films like "MM" were useful in trying to prepare the US mindset that war in fact was inevitable and not aiding the UK (ie.neutrality) was crazy. -
ChickNLittle — 16 years ago(December 02, 2009 10:00 AM)
Yeah. The more things change, the more they stay the same. In recent times you have exactly the same sort of battle going on between the Bush White House and the Democratic Party about fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Funny how history repeats itself. -
Wakanohana — 16 years ago(February 26, 2010 10:56 AM)
thbryn wrote: "The late 30's had a battle going on in the US between the Roosevelt WH and the Republican Party. The latter didn't even want to help arm and feed Britain (and other countries) never mind actually join the war. "
That's not exactly true. There were isolationists in both parties, but also people in both parties who recognized that Hitler and Tojo posed an existential threat. Some of the biggest critics of Roosevelt were people like Father Coughlin, who had started out as one of his biggest fans in 1933-34. Anti-Semitism was rampant in the Democratic Party, which was also the home of the KKK. Additionally, after the MolotovRibbentrop Pact, Hitler and Stalin were pals, and American communists and other leftists quickly adopted an anti-war position vis-a-vis Nazi Germany.
The America First Committee, led by Charles Lindberg, grew most rapidly when it merged with the Keep America out of War Committee, one of whose leaders was the Socialist Norman Thomas. But its membership and funding came from both right and left, and included some who were pro-German, some who hated the British (like Irish Catholics), and some who simply did not trust anything that FDR said or did.
As for Lend-Lease, it was begun in March 1941. Until then, Roosevelt's Treasury Department insisted that Britain pay in gold for every rifle and every bomb. It was not until Britain's stocks of gold were drawn down practically to zero that Roosevelt agreed to sell additional armaments on credit. Roosevelt's motives were not so pure he sucked Britain dry before saddling that ally with huge debts it could never repay.
Edit: one last point. Lend-Lease passed with bipartisan support, 60-31 in the Senate, and one of the biggest advocatesx was the 1940 Republican presidential candidate Wendell Wilkie. -
Wakanohana — 14 years ago(January 07, 2012 06:23 PM)
I was a history teacher, long ago, but not a very effective one. I didn't have the knack to teach those who didn't care to learn. But thanks anyway.
The 20th century is a difficult era to teach. Too many people have too much riding on their own particular version of the past. The first "red scare" happened when Woodrow Wilson was president? Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal prolonged the Great Depression? Soviet agents really had infiltrated the highest levels of the US government? Alger Hiss was guilty and Richard Nixon was right? Communists really were trying to take over the Hollywood movie business and use it for propaganda purposes? The US had the Vietnam War won, when the Paris Peace Accords were signed and all US forces returned home? The Reagan economic program worked and led to 25 years of almost-uninterrupted economic growth? And the Reagan military build-up led to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact?
See what I mean? Are there any history textbooks that tell this story? Instead my niece in 9th grade is exposed to the Howard Zinn version of American history. -
FickleBickle — 16 years ago(February 22, 2010 05:19 PM)
There seems to be a noticeable increase in age on this forum.
I understand your concerns. I have the same complaints with my peers.
But, if it's anything, I am 23, just finished watching this, and loved it as a work of historical fiction. But for folks of my age group, I can't recommend doing research and watching special features on the DVD enough. Context is essential for something out of time like a person my age watching this film. Oh, but, can I say I did actually quite like "Colonel Blimp" a bit more if we're comparing World War II films with fictional british icons. And Churchill hated that right?
And don't worry work of artistic, memorable merit is still being produced. Great Caesar's ghost, we got our "Dark Knights" and our "Milks" and our "Trouble the Waters"
So please, don't dislike youth, just individuals. Not that some of you weren't making that point anyway. -
-
justaudrey — 15 years ago(May 12, 2010 04:20 PM)
Hear, hear! I completely agree. Thank you for breathing some perspective into this debate. This is one of my favorite movies ever, and it did great things for the war effort. And still today the timeless lessons that it teaches are invaluable.
