No. just absolutely, and inarguably false.
There was only one “no” vote when Congress declared war on Japan. As for Germany, they openly declared war on the US, so we were essentially forced to declare war on them. I couldn’t find a cite for what the vote was for declaring war on Germany, but it couldn’t have been much different.
Had Roosevelt pushed us into the war before Pearl Harbor, I suspect the oppostion to war, in Congress, would have been pretty substantial.
There was plenty of opposition to WWII, before, during, and criticism of U.S. occupation of Japan and Germany after. LOTS of opposition. My own grandfather refused to fight and was given conscientious objector status because of his religion. Some people were jailed. The U.S. didn’t enter the war for 2 years after it really started, due to the strength of the isolationist movement.
Once in the war, FDR was heavily criticised for focusing on Germany, because after all, it was a distraction from the war on Japan. Japan attacked the U.S., not Germany. Sound familiar? If Germany hadn’t declared war on the U.S., this would have been even more controversial. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, and a few months later America is fighting the Germans in Africa? WTF? Those men could have been used to fight Japan! Maybe the Philippines could have been saved if FDR hadn’t taken his eye off the ball…
The strategies and tactics all through the war were criticised by the opposition. MacArthur took heat for leaving the Philippines, and his ‘island hopping’ strategy even got him labelled a coward by some. The U.S. made all kinds of strategic errors during the war. Operation Market Garden was a colossal failure that cost the allies 4000 soldiers. A training accident in the run-up to D-Day killed 700 soldiers.
Had today’s 24-7 media been around in WWII, I wonder what would have happened? Would the U.S. maintained the resolve it had if every mistake had been blasted all over the airwaves? How much hand-wringing would there have been been had reporters from the front lines had TV cameras broadcasting scenes of allied retreats, fields of bodies, and triumphant German soldiers? Would we have had major scandals over U.S. policy of summarily executing German soldiers caught out of uniform during the Battle of the Bulge?
No one knows, but to say that there was virtually no opposition to WWII and how it was conducted is simply ridiculous.
We’d have made sure that Hitler and Tojo really did have Weapons of Mass Destruction and the will to use them before attacking a foreign power that posed no threat to us.
Oh, wait… :smack: It’s today’s 24-7 media that provided much of the impetus to get us into this clusterfuck in the first place.
I’ve got $50 that says Stoid won’t be back to defend his/her position, either.
Roosevelt schmoozed, strong-armed and basically played every savvy political ploy available to jam through Lend Lease, etc. when the war was still confined to Europe. Even that carefully oblique level of involvement met with considerable resistance at home. He pushed all right–but he did it very cannily.
It’s not an exact parallel, though history rarely runs to formulaic templates. A large portion of the significant-players globe was already at war or dry tinder ready for a spark. The US has tended toward isolationist comfort, based in large part on the blessings of geography. If those ‘out there’ run amok, we’re cushioned by distance and the home-grown ability to ride out their fights.
The 9/11 attack was horrendous by any measure of civilized behavior. I fault Bush/Rove for dumbing down the entire context to careless, stupid shock-and-awe warmongering, tied together with flimsy patriotic ribbons. Not in selling this damned stupid war; for not knowing what the fuck he was doing in the first place.
Foolish Bush/Rove started where feisy Teddy Roosevelt ended after losing sons to the carnage of WWI: jingoistic, bellicose, narrow and blind to realities outside their immediate world.
I think a white flag and a “thanks for the education” would be appropriate.
While Stoid exaggerrated the unanimiity of support, you would be hard pressed to show that support for fighting the war wasn’t quite a bit higher than support for Iraq. The U.S. citizenry went through far, far more loss and deprivation in WWII, by orders of magnitude, and still largely supported the war from start to finish - not only in terms of “opinion polls” but it terms of the substantial actions they took to support it.
But since nobody stated or even infered such a thing nobody has to defend it.
I never even came close to saying that. After Pearl Harbor, the isolationist movement quieted down, America First! disbanded, etc. Lindberg went from being a Nazi-sympathising isolationist to joining the war effort.
However, criticism of HOW the war was conducted continued, and sometimes it was quite vociferous. Every decision made was scrutinized and argued over. And after the war there was strident disagreement over the plans for the occupation and reconstruction of the axis powers.
And don’t forget, the isolationist movement kept the U.S. out of WWII for two full years after all of its allies were fighting and dying. Canada entered the war in 1939, and had already suffered significant losses by the time of Pearl Harbor.
Has the isolationist movement not been so strong, the U.S. might have entered the war earlier, and it might have ended sooner with much less loss of life. Or maybe not - it’s hard to predict the effect of a change of that magnitude. But the fact remains, America was very late to the party, and that was the result of a strong anti-war movement at home. That has to be counted as ‘opposition to WWII’. It took a huge sneak attack that killed thousands and wiped out a good chunk of the U.S. Navy before that sentiment changed.
You don’t think Sam specifically comparing opposition to WWII to opposition to Iraq counts as an inference?
“Defend” my “position”? Are you kidding? I made a casual remark in the middle of a ten page thread… I don’t have a “position”.
Good grief.
And unfortunately, something of the same magnitude is going to have to happen again before some people wake up and realize that their pacifism is nothing more than an intellectual luxury in todays world.
9/11 was enough for most people with a clue. But short memories and the lure of rose-colored glasses are apparently too strong for others.
Read the part I bolded again. Nobody implied that support was WWII wasn’t greater than support for Iraq. They merely discussed some of the differences. Since nobody took that position nobody has to defend it. Get it?
Your casual remark turned out to be dead wrong. That’s all.
It’s not Rose colored glasses to see war as the absolute last resort. After 9/11 almost everybody supported the war against terrorism. It’s the dishonesty of this admin. in dealing with that issue that has helped cause such division. It’s not rose colored glasses to not trust this admin to handle the mess they created or to hold them accountable for it.
What was the title of the August 6, 2001, President’s Daily Briefing Memo? “bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US”
What did the president do after seeing the memo?Diddly squat.
Well, your “casual remark” was demonstrably false. So was it just a drive-by, or?
Astonishing how much intellectual dishonesty can be expressed in so few words. Its a haiku of horseshit.
“Pacificism”? What has “pacificism” to do with these issues? Of all the bitterly angry critics of the “damn fool war”, can you point to any who argue from a position of pacificism? Can you point to anyone who suggested surrendering ourselves to ObL and his ilk? No, or course you can’t. Furthermore, you know you can’t. It isn’'t even a dishonest attempt to persuade, it is nothing more than an insult flung from an empty position, pure butt-whistling.
And 9/11? To save your soul, you couldn’t provide a solid connection between Saddam and 9/11. You have no facts to offer, only snide innuendo. Yet you have the bottomless temerity to insist that those who disagree with you are unrealistic idealists, whose minds are full of moonbeams, while presenting yourself as a clear-eyed and hard-headed realist. But shouldn’t a realist have facts to offer, over and above waving the bloody shirt and sneering at those who actually have the facts?
Perhaps, with patience and forbearance, we can bring you along to a point where you would be ashamed to make such a vapid and repulsive “argument”. In truth, though, I must admit such a prospect is the triumph of hope over experience.
I’ve always found Dr. Seuss’ early political cartoons to provide some interesting insight into the Republican/conservative isolationism prior to entry into WWII.
Here’s some examples: http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=humor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Forpheus.ucsd.edu%2Fspeccoll%2Fdspolitic%2F
The Republican opposition to WWII, contrasted with their bloodthirsty unthinking lock-step for the Misadventure in Iraq, makes me think of the Nazi line from Raiders of the Lost Ark: “You [Republicans] are all alike; always overdressing for the wrong occasions.”
Of course, I kid. Today’s Republicans are a very different creature than their predecessors.