A Retrospective on American War, D-Day and World War II

Hello Papamoka Bloggers! I would like to personally honor the men and women who fought and served on D-Day to help liberate Europe 65 years ago today. I believe that we owe our freedom and our nation's survival to each and every one of them, and so I too honor their esteemed full measure of bravery and self-sacrifice.

President Obama delivered another eye-watering speech, this time at the American Memorial at Omaha Beach in France. Once again, he spoke eloquently about sacrifice and history, and his words were poignant and powerful in the way they honored the heroes of D-Day. We should remember those killed in battle, those who died since, and those who survive today. I hope you join me in honoring them all.

World War II, symbolized so well by important events like D-Day, was a critical time in our history for so many reasons. The biggest, and most obvious, was the battle to defeat global fascism - or what I like to call the far right gone mad! Most historians agree that World War II represented a new beginning in American history.

America Before World War II

It's important to put it all into perspective, so I hope you don't mind if I go on a little historical rant for a brief time. I hope you can bear with me. :)

Our nation survived numerous conflicts up until that period, but most were political wars involving land acquisition. Think about it, except for the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 involving our fight for freedom against the English Crown, the Indian, Mexican, Civil, Spanish-American, First World and Second Iraq Wars were all based on either manifest destiny and/or commerce. I admit I consider the Vietnam, First Iraq and Afghan conflicts unique, and too complicated for this one essay.

However, it's valid to point out, and plausible to assert, that Bush's Second Iraq War was similar to many of those 19th century wars. They were all fought to assure American hegemony and were - for the most part - wars of choice. Wow, it's weird to say, but it seems true.

Unless you prove me wrong, and I admit I'm no historian, it seems to me that America has fought many "wars of choice." Though most manifest-destiny-motivated-American-patriots would dispute that assertion, I don't see why I can't make it.

America didn't have to go West. The North didn't have to fight the South. America didn't have to help Europe despite submarines torpedoing our ships. We could have played it safe and sound, like so many countries. Instead, we were aggressive, the aggressors, and that aggression is part and parcel of who we are today - the land of the free and home of the brave.

Unlike Bush's contemptuous Iraq War, the 19th century represented the aggression of a different time, when men fought over land they perceived to be empty and available. The Atlantic kept them safe from the reach of European monarchies, so they benefited from over a hundred years of freedom to grab/steal land from the indigenous Native Americans, as well as the weaker Spanish/Mexican settlers. Except for a few infamous battles like Little Big Horn or The Alamo, most offered limited resistance.

Oceans and technology (the Winchester rifle, the Gatling Gun and the Iron Horse) kept us rich and safe for decades. Europe was nothing but a collection of outdated empires to us, whose kings and queens were forced to squabble over their own, less well-endowed properties. America grew into a fertile, cocky state, filled with over-confidence and a well-earned sense of complacency.

As time went by, unfortunately for us, the ultimate destruction of those European empires after the Great War led to very dark times. Except for a few places in Europe like Britain, France, Belgium, Poland, Luxembourg and Switzerland, the power vacuum left after the collapse of royalty was filled with the worst elements of society. Evil men powered by lies led to abuse of power and ultimately to genocide - Kurds, Armenians, Romany, Jews and others.

Power-hungry fanatics rose to power. Men like Hitler of Germany, Mussolini of Italy, Tojo of Japan, Franco of Spain, Salazar of Portugal, Antonescu of Romania, and Horthy of Hungary. Even the populist ideals of Marx and the communist revolution in Russia stalled and failed, sadly replaced by evil men like Stalin and one-party dictatorship.

It started to become clear that the militaristic/fascist leaders of the day were clearly right-wing ideologues hell-bent on using government to enrich themselves while imposing their own religious, political and societal beliefs on their citizens.

American Response to Global Extremism/World War II

So, after that little verbal tirade, I return to my original point that World War II was very different. It was the first modern war fought over our very survival, when Americans had to finally face what was happening in the rest of the world - and defeat it!

World War II forced us all to stand together, face our fears, and after Pearl Harbor, enlist in a struggle that threatened to destroy everything we believed in. I've heard that everything seemed more complex and dangerous after Pearl Harbor. Most older folks say it was more powerful than 9/11 is today. That should offer some perspective.

Unfortunately, defeating fear and fascism was easier said than done at the time. Few Americans today realize just how great the threat of fascism was in the world of the mid-20th century, and that includes fascists within our own borders. It's true, the fascist threat existed within our own homeland.

It's fascinating to look back at how easily fascists flew under the radar (although not yet invented), and were often considered fashionable among wealthier circles. Both covert and overt Nazis could be found across America. That alone is different compared to today, since Muslim extremists are usually not your next door neighbor, or party leader.

Republicans and the American Extremists

Even though the right will accuse me of being malicious, history shows us the Republican Party was the home of most Nazi sympathizers within America. American fascists and anti-Semites were quite at home within Republican ranks. Despite what Limbaugh and Hannity say, I think they are still, since most of the pro-Israeli GOP are merely Christians who see the Holy Land as a means to an end. We Democrats were unfortunately plagued by the far less competent Communists - and they were the ones too stupid to realize that Marx's dream of a worker's paradise died with Marx.

So, what might have unfolded if D-Day failed? It's entirely possible the Third Reich would have outlived Roosevelt and Churchill, while the GOP may have sued for peace, ultimately selling the nation out to fascists based on extremist pressures and bigoted propaganda. Hey, it's a reasonable theory, when you consider the way they tick!

It would have taken so many years to rebuild another force of such magnitude (thousands of ships and airplanes along with hundreds of thousands/millions of combat troops), and in that time it's highly likely that right-wing forces would have taken over in Great Britain and America.

Men like Charles Lindbergh, Burton Wheeler, Joseph Kennedy, and the now infamous Prescott Bush (yes, George's grandfather) all argued against fighting the Nazis, and sought to defeat Roosevelt and the Democrats - all hoping to sue for peace with the despots. Look it up! It's true!

It's a fact that Republicans received campaign contributions at the time from Hitler and the Nazis, while corporate and political leaders from General Motors and many other great American corporations met with leading fascists of the time (led by Baron Manfred von Killinger). Of course, most Republicans today would deny their history.

American Ideals

Of course it all changed when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor - weird, but it really did wake a sleeping giant. That boosted American solidarity and was directly responsible for silencing American fascism and the far right movement of the 1930s and early 1940s. That attack, not unlike 9/11 today, powered the American public to defeat extremism. It also washed away most of the self-satisfaction and self-reliance that America wrapped itself in since the 19th century.

Of course, World War II - and D-Day - are now proud moments etched in our collective consciousness. Roosevelt, Truman, MacArthur and others were shining examples of how to fight a war, as well as how to win the hearts and minds of the enemy. Unlike today, they stressed the highest ideals of our nation, and with the exception of Japanese internment camps, did everything they could to hold America up as a light of freedom and decency to the world.

I would go so far as to compare their actions to the late 1700s and George Washington. They had a depth of spirit and humility we often credit to our founding fathers. They too struggled against seemingly insurmountable odds, and faced the prospect of death in the cause of freedom.

Reflection and Perspective

Unfortunately, despite what the GOP and Bush supporters believe, history will judge our most recent actions harshly. It's now clear through real evidence that America abandoned most of its core principles under today's GOP. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their Republican supporters should feel ashamed of themselves, but for unknown reasons they do not. Sadly, our nation's response to 9/11 will go down as a very dark period in our history.

So, once again, if D-Day had failed, it's entirely possible that Europe may have remained fascist, and it may have ultimately spread to Great Britain and America. You could make a very good case that D-Day's success is the main reason why you're able to read these words right now. You could make a very good case that D-Day is the reason why we are now free.

So, if that is the case, today is a very important day. In some ways it's as important as July 4th, since it guaranteed our very independence. Therefore, I would like to say THANK YOU once again to all the men and woman who served to make D-Day possible. For those in my family who served (mostly uncles), I would like to send you guys special thanks and warm regards! You are all American heroes, and for all intents and purposes, you deserve the distinction as "America's Greatest Generation."

Michael Boh
Papamoka's Left Coast Contributor
from http://www.ourrantsandraves.blogspot.com/Our Rants & Raves Blog

THE COCOONING OF AMERICA

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

In a recent post at THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL, Buffalo Brown put forth some thoughts in this piece, ALMOST A RANT. Mr. Brown laments the type of thinking that results in an employer deciding employees' lifestyles off the job.

When employees lose their right to have a personal life away from work, the Age of Feudalism returns. When you combine Feudalism with the Nannyism of the government, we become a nation of slaves.

As in all of his writings, I find Buffalo Brown's thinking provocative. As a blogger that's what he's supposed to do; make one think about something a little more deeply instead of just passing by and assuming that lump in your life is normal and should not be disturbed.

This morning I was listening to a radio interview of Eric Burns, in which he came forth with the opinion that in post-Revolutionary America, the Founding Fathers were just as anxious to achieve fame as anyone. But...and it's a very big but....the definition of "fame" was radically different. Burns said that "fame" meant that someone had done something that made the nation better. Even if the technology had existed, a Paris Hilton wouldn't have been famous. Personally speaking, I STILL don't see why that individual is famous even considering the times we live in.

I got to thinking about those "times we live in." And truthfully I am not that secure in the opinion that we are better than generations that preceded us. Something has happened over time...we all know that change is one constant...but still, there is something amiss.

We accept too much. We accept things because we have handed over the reins of individual life to entities that in the end cannot tolerate the individual. It is quite an un-American approach to life, but then the question arises as to what "American" really means.

Priorities change; standards change, and people change. Using rough figures, the U.S. lost 400,000 in World War II, 35,000 in Korea, 60,000 in Vietnam, and now approaching 4,000 in Iraq/Afghanistan. At a glance the 400,000 lost in World War II seems an easier number to accept than 4,000 lost in Iraq/Afghanistan because the larger number died during a struggle for something easisly definable.

But I think it goes beyond that, however. As a nation; as a people we have become less tolerant of combat deaths. In fact we have become less tolerant of sacrifice in general. Any serious notion of relating 299 million Americans to the other 1 million involved in the military would be greeted with derision. For example, why not impose upon ourselves a 50 m.p.h. speed limit nationwide (it was 35 m.p.h. in World War II)? Or slap a large tax on people AND corporations to pay for this war?

Because that is...ridiculous. The war belongs to...someone else. Those involved in the fighting and dying belong to a very small minority. Our children are too precious to sacrifice for anything. It's almost like.."let me get my kid accepted at Duke and I'll put a yellow ribbon magnet on my car, ok?"

Cynical, but accurate enough. For while other things are going on in the world, the populace has wrapped itself in a grandiose cocoon. Said cocoons are wrapped in a brightly colored insulation of indifference.

In the 19th century Karl Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses. We have come a long way from that notion; the commonality of purpose has been cast aside for individual interests.

We have a government official telling us that Americans are going to have to redefine personal privacy; that we must trust the government and corporations to safeguard that information. But to claim that personal information is just that? No. But that generates a very small discussion....a much greater wind blows about Paris Hilton saving drunk elephants or Britney Spears running red lights with her kids in the car.

We demand what has always been referred to as "personal freedom" but actually mean personal indulgence. If an employer decrees that his/her employees shall live, think, breathe, worship, marry, etc. in the manner prescribed by said employer, then we have, as Mr. Brown says, a resurgence of feudalism.

Many years ago I read a marvelous autobiography by David Niven entitled "The Moon's A Balloon." To borrow from that, a cocoon is a balloon, too. And like a balloon it can burst.

And maybe, when it does, we all might start talking to each other again, like a modern family during a power outage. If we're lucky some person, movement, or thing will pull the plug on what we haughtily consider a reality.

In the meantime, enjoy the fruits of submission. While in our cocoons we have no idea that those sweet grapes we're being fed are actually the droppings from the south end of a horse.
************************
Cross-posted at Michael Linn Jones.com
************************
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

Kirsten Price - Freedom

I tend to get email from all kinds of folks but this one intrigued me to check it out. Music is not my forte so I'm not big on any new groups or new singers but this young lady has a gift that reaches the masses. Thank you for the YouTube tip and letting me introducse Kirsten Price to the world...



This is a great song!

Papamoka

THE PYRRHIC "VICTORY" OVER THE SOVIET UNION

Picture courtesy of Vet Friends.com

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

It is repeated often enough that Ronald Reagan "won" the Cold War. True, his defense policies helped push them over the edge; an edge the Soviet economy had brushed against for decades. But if one were to give proper credit for presidents who "won" the Cold War, we'd have to start with Harry Truman and go right through to George H.W. Bush. Each of those men maintained the patient but remorseless bulwark against the totalitarian regime once headquartered in the Kremlin.

Those not around in those decades would find it hard to fathom what people lived with on a daily basis. The worst case scenario was a full-blown nuclear exchange which would have made moot any point about who was right or wrong since everyone would be dead. It was a very real thing; a threat that somehow people lived with yet still managed to carry on.

But then, it might be fair to ask if those born since 1990 do not indeed have a better understanding of living with the threat of the yoke of totalitarian government.

It is a misnomer to refer to the collapse of the Soviet Union as the "collapse of communism." To do so ignores the fact that the people of China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam live under communism. It's not quite two decades since the fall of the Soviet Empire, and yet here we are as a nation (and economy) in hock up to our eyebrows to China; a communist nation providing debt relief for a society that thinks itself some kind of "victor" over their form of government.

It might be said that the Cold War began in earnest in 1949. That was when China was "lost" to the communists. It was also then that the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb. The Korean War would shortly follow in 1950. Communism WAS a real threat to the national security of the United States.

That, however, did not prevent the usual twisting of facts and reality by certain politicians for their own personal gain. The greatest alarmist in the early 50's was Senator Joe McCarthy, one of the all-time nihilists to serve in government. He pushed an atmosphere of fear and suspicion that lasted for years. Hence, the term "McCarthyism" to describe that era.

One example of how wacked out things were then was an experiment carried out by a political science teacher. He had his students re-word the Bill of Rights into modern language and sent them out to sign a "petition." Said petition was, of course, nothing more than what was already in the Constitution.

Amazingly (or not so amazingly if you study human behavior) very few people would sign it. It was too "controversial" for most people to sign onto. It would have put them outside the stream of acceptance, which was very important in those days. Individuality was not encouraged to say the least.

So here we are, again, at the start of a new Cold War. Calling it a "Global War on Terror" is a misnomer. It is, in fact, a war on freedom. On the face of it not many of us would argue that some freedoms might have to be "temporarily" forgotten in the overall struggle against a menace.

I don't know if you've noticed, but it seems as though every single one of the candidates for the presidency, whatever their party, do not speak of personal freedom. Oh, they might if we're talking about lowering taxes on the suffering top 1% of income earners. But not within the context of the "land of the free" America that we still worship in rhetoric but do our best to erase in deed.

There is always some group somewhere that insists that it cannot in any way, fashion, or form...be offended. And government power exists for the sole purpose of stamping out perceived affronts. And it's all so wonderful because people idiotically assume that THEIR agenda will never be touched. Too many people fall for that line of goat manure about some corporate or government entity being "on your side."

That is not so. A power granted to government by the governed is rarely returned. Government exercizes power for the benefit of itself. True, some may benefit financially but not within the realm of freedom.

This new Cold War, like the original, has a clear beginning; September 11, 2001 to be precise. Many agendas that had laid dormant burst forth like rotten Spring flowers seeking cross-pollination. And what did we do, as a people? We snored on.

This is what bothers me about the current crop of substandard candidates for the White House. NONE of them ring a bell of freedom, except to illuminate what they perceive to be a good lever for acquiring votes. It is NOT from the heart.

The fall of the Soviet Union led to a presumed sense of superiority; one that indicated no need to continue to compete with another ideology. That was the first, and perhaps biggest mistake.

We lurk in restaurants, waiting to be offended by someone using tobacco. We delight in those fast-food companies getting hammered for the fatty foods. Not only do we have "zero tolerance" for kids bringing aspirin to school, or drawing pictures of a gun, we have zero tolerance for kids, period. We must have instant adults....childish behavior is now unacceptable, even from children.

We live in an era of self-righteous prohibition that is nothing more than national navel-gazing. Yet it goes beyond that. Two examples come to mind. The first is Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) whose rhetorical question about the Patriot Act, "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?" exemplifies a blindness to the dangers of expanded government power. What Ms. Myrick does not understand is that it all turns on what the word "wrong" means.

The other example comes from the Fox show COPS. I rarely watch it but it was one of those times when I couldn't look at a monitor very long or read a book, either. I see this policeman (in Broward County, Fla....it always seems to be in Broward County) cruising along.

He says something that stuck with me..."It's my business to get into other peoples' business." He pulls over a woman with a boombox system for being too loud. Then the 'ole "mind if I have a look in your car?" and within minutes he's found a whopping 22 grams of marijuana, the driver is handcuffed, weeping on the sidewalk.

I didn't feel safer watching this. It felt creepy. It was creepy because I had this flashback to the film "Dr. Zhivago." Zhivago is ripping down a wooden fence for firewood. His family is freezing. A policeman arrests him, telling Zhivago that he "has the right" to do so. Zhivago responds, "You have the authority, not the right."

I was raised with the notion that there are written laws (authority) and unwritten laws (the morally right and wrong). In the almost two decades since the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has increasingly abandoned the unwritten for the written only. We've become obsessed with authority while placing the human condition in a straitjacket.

What a victory over totalitarianism. We are becoming that which we once defeated. Welcome to the brave new world, comrades.

Technorati Tags:
McCarthyism, USSR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bomb Shelters, School Drills, Kruschev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Salt I, Salt II, STAR Wars, MAD, Nuclear Weapons, History, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Biden, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd

Jury Duty…

I’ve been called to appear for jury duty and unlike many people I am looking forward to it. Many friends and family have told me what I should say to get out of it but that isn’t me. I’d like to be on a jury and see how it really works. It would be an interesting experience and a learning one at that.

So would you lie to get out of jury duty? I promise not to tell anyone what you say but you have to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Feel free to comment either way… Post anonymous though to protect your identity if you would lie.

What I would love to see from a juror point of view is the lawyers giving their arguments pro and con on the innocence or guilt of the person on trial. Granted I could kill a vacation day and do that any day of the week and sit in the back of the court but being on the jury is different. Two lawyers or if the accused chooses to defend themselves then they have to convince me if the law was broken or if there is reasonable doubt. That is the deliberation that I would have to face if picked as a member of the jury.

I’m wondering if I would be the one person with the question in my mind if the person is guilty or not while the rest of the jury is in the opposing opinion? How do you discuss or argue the points while deciding the fate of another person if you believe one way or the other? This isn’t television where the star points out the obvious. This is real life, real people. Somebody could go to jail or be free. That has me thinking.

I guess I will find out tomorrow.

Papamoka