Discussion:
Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States"
(too old to reply)
The Horny Goat
2013-10-06 16:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This is an interesting series (I've only seen the first and am
watching the second episode which is tellingly called "Roosevelt,
Wallace and Truman").

Stone is clearly a huge fan of Henry Wallace - one would wonder what
Stone would think of the For All Time timeline....

As expected I'm enjoying the filmi footage much of which I've never
seen before but am rolling my eyes at the interpretations.

There are some obvious errors that would make any SHWI regular giggle
- particularly his coverage of the Stalingrad campaign which Stone
believes was part of a drive on Baku. Somehow he thinks von Paulus
(sic - Paulus was no Junker) was in charge of both 6th Army AND 4th
Panzer Army.

Again - great photos (I'm watching the portion on Yalta now) though
clearly his political / historical conclusions vary from what most
mainstream historians (of the sort most SHWIers would respect) would
conclude about the era.

Did I say enough times that Stone is a big fan of Wallace?
Alex Milman
2013-10-06 16:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
This is an interesting series (I've only seen the first and am
watching the second episode which is tellingly called "Roosevelt,
Wallace and Truman").
Stone is clearly a huge fan of Henry Wallace - one would wonder what
Stone would think of the For All Time timeline....
As expected I'm enjoying the filmi footage much of which I've never
seen before but am rolling my eyes at the interpretations.
There are some obvious errors that would make any SHWI regular giggle
- particularly his coverage of the Stalingrad campaign which Stone
believes was part of a drive on Baku. Somehow he thinks von Paulus
(sic - Paulus was no Junker) was in charge of both 6th Army AND 4th
Panzer Army.
Again - great photos (I'm watching the portion on Yalta now) though
clearly his political / historical conclusions vary from what most
mainstream historians (of the sort most SHWIers would respect) would
conclude about the era.
I saw only a part of one of the parts and it looks like he had a good
material and no clue. Or rather he had a 'clue': world viewed from an
extreme liberal position.

Well, what else one can expect from Oliver Stone? His Macedonians are
fighting for ...er... freedom.... Well, IIRC, in one of the History
Channel programs the Spartans had been fighting for a democracy so
he is not alone. :-)
Post by The Horny Goat
Did I say enough times that Stone is a big fan of Wallace?
Bill
2013-10-06 18:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I saw only a part of one of the parts and it looks like he had a good
material and no clue. Or rather he had a 'clue': world viewed from an
extreme liberal position.
Is this some rather odd US description of the word 'liberal' because
where I come from it has a lot to do with free trade and a mixed
economy...
Alex Milman
2013-10-06 20:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I saw only a part of one of the parts and it looks like he had a good
material and no clue. Or rather he had a 'clue': world viewed from an
extreme liberal position.
Is this some rather odd US description of the word 'liberal' because
where I come from it has a lot to do with free trade and a mixed
economy...
Definitions of 'liberal' and 'liberalism' differ over time and geography...
Bradipus
2013-10-06 20:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bill
On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I saw only a part of one of the parts and it looks like he
had a good
material and no clue. Or rather he had a 'clue': world
viewed from an
extreme liberal position.
Is this some rather odd US description of the word 'liberal'
because
where I come from it has a lot to do with free trade and a
mixed economy...
Definitions of 'liberal' and 'liberalism' differ over time and
geography...
In Europe the "liberals" were the progressive party
(bourgeoisie opposite to conservative aristocracy).

In XIX century.

F.ex. in Italy after the unification in 1860 there was a Right
and a Left liberalism, but they were in the same social class
(the wealthy, landowners etc.)

Then came labour and socialists (when workers voted).


I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal" became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
--
o o
Bill
2013-10-06 21:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal" became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
I would suggest that very few Americans ever come into contact with
any Socialists and next to no Communists.
Paul F Austin
2013-10-06 23:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal" became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
I would suggest that very few Americans ever come into contact with
any Socialists and next to no Communists.
I knew a few Party members, growing up. Most of them mourned the
discredited Stalinist line and _hated_ Khrushchev for the Secret Speech.

After listening to members of the American Left for most of my life,
I've come to the conclusion that the key "good" for the American Left is
anti-Americanism. If Communist ideology provided a framework and
rationale, all well and good. If Marxist-Leninism is discredited, too
bad; seek out another ideology. "Environmentalism" seems to be one of
the new replacements, not because of any virtue or vice in concern for
the environment but because it's a handy stick to whack the American
project. Kulturkampf against American traditional norms of religiousity
and associate moral strictures is another element. Likewise, the
anti-American thread of historiography typified by Zinn's _The People's
History of the United States_ seems motivated more by animus than
anything else.

Regarding "Liberal", the American Left appropriates political labels
that don't (currently) arouse widespread disapprobation. Once the
current label gets shopworn, it gets replace by a new or recycled old
one like "Progressive" that doesn't arouse so much dislike with the
general public.

Paul
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 02:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul F Austin
Post by Bill
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal" became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
I would suggest that very few Americans ever come into contact with
any Socialists and next to no Communists.
I knew a few Party members, growing up. Most of them mourned the
discredited Stalinist line and _hated_ Khrushchev for the Secret Speech.
After listening to members of the American Left for most of my life,
I've come to the conclusion that the key "good" for the American Left is
anti-Americanism. If Communist ideology provided a framework and
rationale, all well and good. If Marxist-Leninism is discredited, too
bad; seek out another ideology. "Environmentalism" seems to be one of
the new replacements, not because of any virtue or vice in concern for
the environment but because it's a handy stick to whack the American
project. Kulturkampf against American traditional norms of religiousity
and associate moral strictures is another element. Likewise, the
anti-American thread of historiography typified by Zinn's _The People's
History of the United States_ seems motivated more by animus than
anything else.
Regarding "Liberal", the American Left appropriates political labels
that don't (currently) arouse widespread disapprobation. Once the
current label gets shopworn, it gets replace by a new or recycled old
one like "Progressive" that doesn't arouse so much dislike with the
general public.
Very good summary.

And here is a good illustration regarding sincerity of their beliefs:

I used to work with a VERY liberal guy who, being from Italy, did not mind
'socialist' being used as his definition. If it tells you something, he
used to live in Cambridge, MA (routinely referenced as "People Republic of
Cambridge"). Few months ago, we got in touch and I found that he moved to
Lexington. When asked why, he answered: "In Cambridge they are crazy
socialists!". Coming from him, this was a total shock to me and I asked
for explanation. He said that in Cambridge, in a spirit of fairness, they
assign kids (his just grew up) to the schools based not on the principle of
closeness but on a lottery [1]. When it came to his kids, he put
ideology aside and moved to a less progressive (even if quite liberal)
Lexington where the nice and safe school is guaranteed.



[1] For those unfamiliar with the specifics of a local demographics, while
Cambridge houses MIT and Harvard and has very nice areas there are also
areas, shall we say, noticeably LESS attractive (and secure).
Bradipus
2013-10-07 15:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul F Austin
After listening to members of the American Left for most of my
life, I've come to the conclusion that the key "good" for the
American Left is anti-Americanism. If Communist ideology
provided a framework and rationale, all well and good. If
Marxist-Leninism is discredited, too bad; seek out another
ideology. "Environmentalism" seems to be one of the new
replacements, not because of any virtue or vice in concern for
the environment but because it's a handy stick to whack the
American project. Kulturkampf against American traditional
norms of religiousity and associate moral strictures is
another element. Likewise, the anti-American thread of
historiography typified by Zinn's _The People's History of the
United States_ seems motivated more by animus than anything
else.
I think that anti-americanism ("we are always wrong") is as much
american as pro-americanism ("we are always right").

And that is true everywhere.
--
o o
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 15:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by Paul F Austin
After listening to members of the American Left for most of my
life, I've come to the conclusion that the key "good" for the
American Left is anti-Americanism. If Communist ideology
provided a framework and rationale, all well and good. If
Marxist-Leninism is discredited, too bad; seek out another
ideology. "Environmentalism" seems to be one of the new
replacements, not because of any virtue or vice in concern for
the environment but because it's a handy stick to whack the
American project. Kulturkampf against American traditional
norms of religiousity and associate moral strictures is
another element. Likewise, the anti-American thread of
historiography typified by Zinn's _The People's History of the
United States_ seems motivated more by animus than anything
else.
I think that anti-americanism ("we are always wrong") is as much
american as pro-americanism ("we are always right").
And that is true everywhere.
Extremes are always unpleasant but anti-americanism seems to be more
widely spread among the liberals than hurrah-patriotism (not to be confused
with a patriotism) among the conservatives.

Actually, situation is a little bit more complicated: a notion that the US
MUST interfere into the affairs of another countries (providing this happens
when President is a Democrat) is very popular among the liberals. Usual
pre-requisite is a ...er... "humanitarian cause" pushed by some journalists:
few pictures of the wounded children, a touchy story and the liberals are
demanding to bomb the wrong side into an oblivion (or at least into a stone
age); pictures of the civilian losses on a wrong side are prudently not shown
and awkward questions about background and purposes of the supported side
are not asked. BTW, while term "liberal" is routinely associated with the
Democrats, some Republican are in this camp as well (take McCain, nobody
could figure out what was the difference between his and Obama's program
and almost the same goes for Romney).

:-)
Bill
2013-10-07 18:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:38:33 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Actually, situation is a little bit more complicated: a notion that the US
MUST interfere into the affairs of another countries (providing this happens
when President is a Democrat) is very popular among the liberals.
Never heard George Bush described as 'liberal' before.

US governments tend to assume that foreigners want, indeed expect
them to interfere in their affairs.

What people actually seem to want is American culture (Coca-cola,
McDonalds, Hollywood films, TGI Friday, big cars, free universal
education and so on)

However foreign leaders see things they don't want coming with this
(Free and fair elections, politicians going to jail now and again, a
free press, fair trials and etc)

By then way, I have no problem with US Presidents from any party
imposing democracy on people, I object to them dropping bombs with no
expectation of change.
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 19:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:38:33 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Actually, situation is a little bit more complicated: a notion that the US
MUST interfere into the affairs of another countries (providing this happens
when President is a Democrat) is very popular among the liberals.
Never heard George Bush described as 'liberal' before.
Regardless of how he was described, the liberals vocally disapproved his
interference in Iraq.
Post by Bill
US governments tend to assume that foreigners want, indeed expect
them to interfere in their affairs.
Well, there is a notion (with which I happen to disagree) that the US
has a mission to act as a world policeman. Depending on who is a president
in each specific moment this notion is being disputed by the members of
an opposing party.
Dan Goodman
2013-10-07 20:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
What people actually seem to want is American culture (Coca-cola,
McDonalds, Hollywood films, TGI Friday, big cars, free universal
education and so on)
1) The US has exported hamburgers to Hamburg, frankfurters to Frankfort,
bagels to Warsaw, etc. None of which were originally American.

2) I don't think free universal education started in the US. I might be
wrong.
--
Dan Goodman
http://dsgoodman.blogspot.com
Bill
2013-10-07 21:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Bill
What people actually seem to want is American culture (Coca-cola,
McDonalds, Hollywood films, TGI Friday, big cars, free universal
education and so on)
1) The US has exported hamburgers to Hamburg, frankfurters to Frankfort,
bagels to Warsaw, etc. None of which were originally American.
Neither Germany nor Poland currently opposed to the USA.
Bradipus
2013-10-08 18:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Bill
What people actually seem to want is American culture
(Coca-cola,
McDonalds, Hollywood films, TGI Friday, big cars, free
universal education and so on)
What is TGI Friday?
Post by Dan Goodman
1) The US has exported hamburgers to Hamburg, frankfurters to
Frankfort,
bagels to Warsaw, etc. None of which were originally
American.
I've read that many Americans believe they invented pizza.
Post by Dan Goodman
2) I don't think free universal education started in the US.
I might be wrong.
Finland has free university education.
--
o o
Alex Milman
2013-10-08 19:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Bill
What people actually seem to want is American culture
(Coca-cola,
McDonalds, Hollywood films, TGI Friday, big cars, free
universal education and so on)
What is TGI Friday?
Post by Dan Goodman
1) The US has exported hamburgers to Hamburg, frankfurters to
Frankfort,
bagels to Warsaw, etc. None of which were originally
American.
I've read that many Americans believe they invented pizza.
Post by Dan Goodman
2) I don't think free universal education started in the US.
I might be wrong.
Finland has free university education.
The former SU used to have it. BTW, IIRC, it was free even when the
1st Russian university had been founded in XVIII so what's a big deal?
Bill
2013-10-08 19:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by Bill
What people actually seem to want is American culture
(Coca-cola,
McDonalds, Hollywood films, TGI Friday, big cars, free
universal education and so on)
What is TGI Friday?
www.tgifridays.com/
Invid Fan
2013-10-08 20:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
I've read that many Americans believe they invented pizza.
Everyone know it's "Italian", but many probably think it's an
Americanization of an Italian dish, and that you won't find Pizza as we
know it in Italy (much like the Chinese Fortune Cookie is, iirc an
invention some US Chinese restaurant came up with). Basically, this is
the view of those smart enough to know the stuff sold in "ethnic"
restaurants is often a US bastardization of the original, but haven't
checked to see if Pizza is one of these cases.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Bill
2013-10-08 22:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Invid Fan
Post by Bradipus
I've read that many Americans believe they invented pizza.
Everyone know it's "Italian", but many probably think it's an
Americanization of an Italian dish, and that you won't find Pizza as we
know it in Italy
Having eaten Pizza in both Italy and the USA, you won't...
Rich Rostrom
2013-10-09 17:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
What is TGI Friday?
A chain of restaurants which emphasize liquor,
"fun" food, and sports on TV (not sure about
that).

The name is from the catch phrase

T hank
G od
I t's
F riday

I.e. the work week is over, let's go party.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
The Horny Goat
2013-10-07 23:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:38:33 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Actually, situation is a little bit more complicated: a notion that the US
MUST interfere into the affairs of another countries (providing this happens
when President is a Democrat) is very popular among the liberals. Usual
few pictures of the wounded children, a touchy story and the liberals are
demanding to bomb the wrong side into an oblivion (or at least into a stone
age); pictures of the civilian losses on a wrong side are prudently not shown
and awkward questions about background and purposes of the supported side
are not asked. BTW, while term "liberal" is routinely associated with the
Democrats, some Republican are in this camp as well (take McCain, nobody
could figure out what was the difference between his and Obama's program
and almost the same goes for Romney).
Which to my mind is amazing since while Ike could have belonged to
either party, Lincoln's brand of Republican was both pro-abolition and
rather to the left of the Democrats of the day.

Most of the segregationists of the Old South were dinosaurs of the
Democratic Party camp.

So to me the mystery is how we got from there to here where most
Blacks support the Democrats and most of the hard-shell dinosaurs live
in the Republican party.

It wasn't always so and seems to have shifted sometime between 1930
and 1950.
Alex Milman
2013-10-08 13:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:38:33 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Actually, situation is a little bit more complicated: a notion that the US
MUST interfere into the affairs of another countries (providing this happens
when President is a Democrat) is very popular among the liberals. Usual
few pictures of the wounded children, a touchy story and the liberals are
demanding to bomb the wrong side into an oblivion (or at least into a stone
age); pictures of the civilian losses on a wrong side are prudently not shown
and awkward questions about background and purposes of the supported side
are not asked. BTW, while term "liberal" is routinely associated with the
Democrats, some Republican are in this camp as well (take McCain, nobody
could figure out what was the difference between his and Obama's program
and almost the same goes for Romney).
Which to my mind is amazing since while Ike could have belonged to
either party, Lincoln's brand of Republican was both pro-abolition and
rather to the left of the Democrats of the day.
You'd have to define "left". Today's "left" is associated with many
issues which simply did no exist (altogether or as a subject for
political discussion) in Lincoln's days. To name just a few, global
warming, abortions (and free contraceptives), "redistribution of wealth",
etc.
Post by Bill
Most of the segregationists of the Old South were dinosaurs of the
Democratic Party camp.
Well, until recently, the Dems had, as one of their congressional leaders,
a former Great Wizard (or whatever) of KKK.
Post by Bill
So to me the mystery is how we got from there to here where most
Blacks support the Democrats and most of the hard-shell dinosaurs live
in the Republican party.
I have no idea where did you get _this_ notion for. Or rather I do: 'racist'
is one of the titles in a list that is routinely used by the liberals to
smear their opponents. 'Women hater' is my favorite, one would assume that
logically this should be associated with certain sexual preferences but it
is not because those are predominantly in a 'progressive' camp. :-)
Post by Bill
It wasn't always so and seems to have shifted sometime between 1930
and 1950.
As I understand (and I may be wrong), the shift happened much later when
the blacks had been offered freebees by the Dems (of course, one of the
unintended consequences was a destruction of their family structure but
who cares as long as they solidly voting for the Dems).
David Tenner
2013-10-09 09:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[on African American support for the Democrats]
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
It wasn't always so and seems to have shifted sometime between 1930
and 1950.
As I understand (and I may be wrong),
You are. Every Democratic presidential candidate from FDR in 1936 on got a
substantial majority of the black vote. (There was already a sign of how
things were changing when Arthur Mitchell defeated Oscar DePriest in 1934 and
became the first black Democratic congressman in US history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_W._Mitchell )

After 1936, the best showing of any Republican presidential candidate among
black voters was Eisenhower's 39 percent in 1956.
Post by Alex Milman
the shift happened much later
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2013-10-09 12:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
[on African American support for the Democrats]
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
It wasn't always so and seems to have shifted sometime between 1930
and 1950.
As I understand (and I may be wrong),
You are. Every Democratic presidential candidate from FDR in 1936 on got a
substantial majority of the black vote. (There was already a sign of how
things were changing when Arthur Mitchell defeated Oscar DePriest in 1934 and
became the first black Democratic congressman in US history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_W._Mitchell )
After 1936, the best showing of any Republican presidential candidate among
black voters was Eisenhower's 39 percent in 1956.
Post by Alex Milman
the shift happened much later
Thanks for information. Any idea about their logic in these
early years?
David Tenner
2013-10-09 14:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by David Tenner
[on African American support for the Democrats]
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
It wasn't always so and seems to have shifted sometime between 1930
and 1950.
As I understand (and I may be wrong),
You are. Every Democratic presidential candidate from FDR in 1936 on got a
substantial majority of the black vote. (There was already a sign of how
things were changing when Arthur Mitchell defeated Oscar DePriest in 1934 and
became the first black Democratic congressman in US history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_W._Mitchell )
After 1936, the best showing of any Republican presidential candidate among
black voters was Eisenhower's 39 percent in 1956.
Post by Alex Milman
the shift happened much later
Thanks for information. Any idea about their logic in these
early years?
Basically, (1) the New Deal (remember that black unemployment was something
like 50 percent in 1932--WPA jobs may not have been perfect but they were
better than starvation), (2) the racial liberalism of some New Dealers like
Eleanor Roosevelt and Harold Ickes, (3) the new CIO unions, which did not
share the traditional racism of much of the AFL, had many black members,
and strongly supported FDR (except for the pro-Communist unions from late
1939 to mid-1941 [1], and even they could not control their members' votes)
and (4) in 1948, Truman's backing for civil rights and the resultant
Dixiecrat bolt. As one black minister from Arkansas said to a Progressive
Party supporter trying to convince him that Truman was insincere on civil
rights: "You may not believe Truman but the Dixiecrats believe him, and
that's enough for me." Wallace did have some appeal to blacks, who
especially admired his willingness to endure heckling and even violence
addressing unsegregated audiences in the South, but most blacks felt that
they should not "waste their votes" by supporting a candidate who obviously
could not win, and there was moreover some concern that if Truman did not
get the black vote, no future Democratic president would have any incentive
to stand up to the South. Dewey had a good civil rights record in New
York, but chose not to stress it during the campaign, perhaps because he
dreamed of cracking the Solid South (some polls showed him leading in
Virginia).

In large part, the preference of African Americans for the Democrats in the
New Deal/Fair Deal era simply reflected the fact that American politics
were just as polarized by class as European politics were: "In 1948 almost
80 percent of the workers voted Democratic, a percentage which is higher
than has ever been reported for left-wing parties in such countries as
Britain, France, Italy, and Germany." Seymour Martin Lipset, *Political
Man: The Social Bases of Politics*, p.303.

[1] Also John L. Lewis strongly opposed FDR in 1940 and endorsed Willkie.
But his endorsement had little effect on the labor vote, and Lewis kept his
promise to resign as president of the CIO if Willkie would lose. Unlike
the Communists, Lewis continued to oppose the war and FDR after June 22,
1941, but the miners he led still voted for FDR.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Rich Rostrom
2013-10-09 17:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Thanks for information. Any idea about their logic in these
early years?
Basically, (1) ... (2) ... (3) ... (4) ...
And

(5) Republicans hadn't done anything for them since Reconstruction.

Voting Republican had become a mere habit with no benefits.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2013-10-09 17:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Interesting. So there was SOME practical sense in them going this way.

Thanks for clarification.
Post by David Tenner
Basically, (1) the New Deal (remember that black unemployment was something
like 50 percent in 1932--WPA jobs may not have been perfect but they were
better than starvation), (2) the racial liberalism of some New Dealers like
Eleanor Roosevelt and Harold Ickes, (3) the new CIO unions, which did not
share the traditional racism of much of the AFL, had many black members,
and strongly supported FDR (except for the pro-Communist unions from late
1939 to mid-1941 [1], and even they could not control their members' votes)
and (4) in 1948, Truman's backing for civil rights and the resultant
Dixiecrat bolt. As one black minister from Arkansas said to a Progressive
Party supporter trying to convince him that Truman was insincere on civil
rights: "You may not believe Truman but the Dixiecrats believe him, and
that's enough for me." Wallace did have some appeal to blacks, who
especially admired his willingness to endure heckling and even violence
addressing unsegregated audiences in the South, but most blacks felt that
they should not "waste their votes" by supporting a candidate who obviously
could not win, and there was moreover some concern that if Truman did not
get the black vote, no future Democratic president would have any incentive
to stand up to the South. Dewey had a good civil rights record in New
York, but chose not to stress it during the campaign, perhaps because he
dreamed of cracking the Solid South (some polls showed him leading in
Virginia).
In large part, the preference of African Americans for the Democrats in the
New Deal/Fair Deal era simply reflected the fact that American politics
were just as polarized by class as European politics were: "In 1948 almost
80 percent of the workers voted Democratic, a percentage which is higher
than has ever been reported for left-wing parties in such countries as
Britain, France, Italy, and Germany." Seymour Martin Lipset, *Political
Man: The Social Bases of Politics*, p.303.
[1] Also John L. Lewis strongly opposed FDR in 1940 and endorsed Willkie.
But his endorsement had little effect on the labor vote, and Lewis kept his
promise to resign as president of the CIO if Willkie would lose. Unlike
the Communists, Lewis continued to oppose the war and FDR after June 22,
1941, but the miners he led still voted for FDR.
--
David Tenner
The Horny Goat
2013-10-11 04:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 06:05:36 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
So to me the mystery is how we got from there to here where most
Blacks support the Democrats and most of the hard-shell dinosaurs live
in the Republican party.
I have no idea where did you get _this_ notion for. Or rather I do: 'racist'
is one of the titles in a list that is routinely used by the liberals to
smear their opponents. 'Women hater' is my favorite, one would assume that
logically this should be associated with certain sexual preferences but it
is not because those are predominantly in a 'progressive' camp. :-)
Well if you look roughly 150 years ago who was the party of abolition
and who the part of "The Old South"? During Reconstruction which party
is most identified with Jim Crow?

My main problem with ethnic politics is that people tend to be
identified (and over time identify themselves) by the group they
belong to rather than as Americans or whomever. Canada is going
through the same with "multi-culturalism" where while it used to be
the case that newcomers were expected to learn English (or French if
in Quebec) quickly and get on with fitting into the mainstream now it
considered more OK to stay in one's own ethnic getting with acquiring
the majority language being not absolutely necessary.

I remember a chat about two years ago with my city's chief engineer -
he came to Canada in the early 1980s from Hungary. I asked him what
was the hardest part of his first year in Canada - he said it was the
municipal transit strike since what was a pleasant 10-15 minute bus
ride to and from his governmentally funded English lessons at the
local college became a 2 hour (each way) walk through winter
conditions and that while he could have stayed home (as some did) he
knew improving his English was critical to his success. He also said
how grateful he was when the transit strike ended...
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
It wasn't always so and seems to have shifted sometime between 1930
and 1950.
As I understand (and I may be wrong), the shift happened much later when
the blacks had been offered freebees by the Dems (of course, one of the
unintended consequences was a destruction of their family structure but
who cares as long as they solidly voting for the Dems).
I'm not sure - I was in my early teens in the mid 60s during the
"Great Society" and we went down to my grandparents in Washington
State once a month and my grandfather always loaded me up with
Newsweek magazine which then as now was considered fairly Liberal by
US standards. (Sometimes awkwardly in our family since around the same
time my other grandfather was a candidate for the Canadian parliament
under the Conservative banner...)

Point is because of my American relatives and all the magazines I saw
more of the US than most Canadian kids and I don't think black
politics, Malcolm X and MLK notwithstanding really took off till after
the riots.

My impression was that Blacks first started voting en masse for the
Democrats in the Stephenson era but then that was also a great era of
non-white voter registration.

Certainly there were lots of goofy social schemes tried out in the 60s
and 70s by politicians who really ought to have known better.
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 02:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal" became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
I would suggest that very few Americans ever come into contact with
any Socialists and next to no Communists.
This is a correct suggestion. But very few of them ever came into
contact with the Nazis or fascists either.

None of these practical considerations prevents sides from using these
names.
Bradipus
2013-10-07 15:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:59:30 +0200, Bradipus
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal" became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
I would suggest that very few Americans ever come into
contact with
any Socialists and next to no Communists.
Bernie Sanders!
Post by Alex Milman
This is a correct suggestion. But very few of them ever came
into contact with the Nazis or fascists either.
None of these practical considerations prevents sides from
using these names.
Normal names that slowly change meaning and eventually are used
as insults.

Like "cretin" or "stupid".
--
o o
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 16:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:59:30 +0200, Bradipus
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal" became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
I would suggest that very few Americans ever come into
contact with
any Socialists and next to no Communists.
Bernie Sanders!
Post by Alex Milman
This is a correct suggestion. But very few of them ever came
into contact with the Nazis or fascists either.
None of these practical considerations prevents sides from
using these names.
Normal names that slowly change meaning and eventually are used
as insults.
Like "cretin" or "stupid".
Good point: the liberals tend to consider their opponents as being stupid,
especially those with the religious convictions [1] while their opponents
consider them as the dangerous maniacs because of their opposition to
the 'traditional values' [2].

[1] An idea that the religious people are stupid by definition is quite
popular among some atheists (while being an atheist, I don't share this
view).

[2] An idea that all atheists are (a) liberals and (b) dishonest lunatics
does not appeal to me either (by the virtue of me being one of them :-))
Dan Goodman
2013-10-07 20:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
[1] An idea that the religious people are stupid by definition is quite
popular among some atheists (while being an atheist, I don't share this
view).
I'm an agnostic. I believe that to be certain there is no god or gods
would require either divine revelation of omniscience.
--
Dan Goodman
http://dsgoodman.blogspot.com
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 21:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Alex Milman
[1] An idea that the religious people are stupid by definition is quite
popular among some atheists (while being an atheist, I don't share this
view).
I'm an agnostic. I believe that to be certain there is no god or gods
would require either divine revelation of omniscience.
As far as I'm concerned, unless there is one of the things you mentioned,
I simply don't care. So we are not too far apart. :-)


Both religious/atheist extremes of our political specter fit quite well
definition of their Russian equivalents of XIX century: 'There is nothing
as obnoxious as Russian atheism and Orthodoxy.' (which also indicates that
there are very few truly original things). :-)
Invid Fan
2013-10-07 23:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by Alex Milman
[1] An idea that the religious people are stupid by definition is quite
popular among some atheists (while being an atheist, I don't share this
view).
I'm an agnostic. I believe that to be certain there is no god or gods
would require either divine revelation of omniscience.
As far as I'm concerned, unless there is one of the things you mentioned,
I simply don't care. So we are not too far apart. :-)
Both religious/atheist extremes of our political specter fit quite well
definition of their Russian equivalents of XIX century: 'There is nothing
as obnoxious as Russian atheism and Orthodoxy.' (which also indicates that
there are very few truly original things). :-)
I'm a militant agnostic: I don't know, and you don't either.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 02:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bill
On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I saw only a part of one of the parts and it looks like he
had a good
material and no clue. Or rather he had a 'clue': world
viewed from an
extreme liberal position.
Is this some rather odd US description of the word 'liberal'
because
where I come from it has a lot to do with free trade and a
mixed economy...
Definitions of 'liberal' and 'liberalism' differ over time and
geography...
In Europe the "liberals" were the progressive party
(bourgeoisie opposite to conservative aristocracy).
In XIX century.
F.ex. in Italy after the unification in 1860 there was a Right
and a Left liberalism, but they were in the same social class
(the wealthy, landowners etc.)
Then came labour and socialists (when workers voted).
In the late XIX century Russia 'liberal' was associated with the
requests for reforms in the judicial and administrative areas:
trials by jury, self-administration on a city level, lesser
governmental control over the press, etc.
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal" became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
Probably because 'liberalism' in the US is dominated by what
passes for the 'left' in the US. The rest of the terminology
you mentioned is just a part of the local political rhetoric
(the libs feel themselves free to call anybody who disagree
with them a fascist or a Nazi).

Putting various nuances aside, the American libs are more or
less about
(a) the greater governmental control over all aspects
of life, for the people's own good (like mayor of NY trying to forbid
drinks with the sugar, etc.),
and
(b) governmental financial support of all programs _they_ consider
important (which is a logical result of (a)). In many cases, this means
programs from which _they_ benefit.


In the foreign policy (as far as I can figure out):
(a) a sincere belief that elections are solving all problems,
(b) notion that the wars are bad as long as they are conducted by the
Republican government and good and humanitarian when they are
conducted by the Dems (the fact that Vietnam had been started by
the Dems is totally forgotten). Well, to be fair, their opponents
hold to the same notion but in reverse.
Paul F Austin
2013-10-07 08:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal" became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
Probably because 'liberalism' in the US is dominated by what
passes for the 'left' in the US. The rest of the terminology
you mentioned is just a part of the local political rhetoric
(the libs feel themselves free to call anybody who disagree
with them a fascist or a Nazi).
To be fair, just as people on the Left use Fascist or Nazi as a synonym
for "I don't like you" or "to the right of me", so do people on the
Right use Communist (or Socialist).

You could argue that the latest manifestation of the American Left has
more Fascist elements (a desire for government to control the private
sector without the responsibility of actually _owning_ it) than good
Socialist "state owns the means of production" ones.

Paul
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 14:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul F Austin
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal" became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
Probably because 'liberalism' in the US is dominated by what
passes for the 'left' in the US. The rest of the terminology
you mentioned is just a part of the local political rhetoric
(the libs feel themselves free to call anybody who disagree
with them a fascist or a Nazi).
To be fair, just as people on the Left use Fascist or Nazi as a synonym
for "I don't like you" or "to the right of me", so do people on the
Right use Communist (or Socialist).
As of now, it went a little bit beyond this schema because at least some
people on the right figured value of the 'Nazi' and started using derivatives
like 'feminazis'. :-)
Post by Paul F Austin
You could argue that the latest manifestation of the American Left has
more Fascist elements (a desire for government to control the private
sector without the responsibility of actually _owning_ it) than good
Socialist "state owns the means of production" ones.
Yes, and they are demonstrating considerably higher aggressiveness than
one would expect from the traditional Socialists and it sometimes goes
beyond the issue of a governmental control of the private sector:
enforcement of the political correctness, aggressive fighting against
religion(with Islam being an exception), aggressive environmentalism
which goes beyond control of an industry (attempts to abolish plastic bags
in the supermarkets, for example), pushing 'feminist issues' (in a rather
strange and very politicized way, IMO), etc.
Bradipus
2013-10-07 15:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, October 7, 2013 4:05:39 AM UTC-4, Paul F Austin
Post by Paul F Austin
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal"
became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
Probably because 'liberalism' in the US is dominated by
what
passes for the 'left' in the US. The rest of the
terminology
you mentioned is just a part of the local political
rhetoric
(the libs feel themselves free to call anybody who disagree
with them a fascist or a Nazi).
To be fair, just as people on the Left use Fascist or Nazi as
a synonym
for "I don't like you" or "to the right of me", so do people
on the
Right use Communist (or Socialist).
As of now, it went a little bit beyond this schema because at
least some people on the right figured value of the 'Nazi' and
started using derivatives like 'feminazis'. :-)
Post by Paul F Austin
You could argue that the latest manifestation of the American
Left has
more Fascist elements (a desire for government to control the
private
sector without the responsibility of actually _owning_ it)
than good
Socialist "state owns the means of production" ones.
Yes, and they are demonstrating considerably higher
aggressiveness than one would expect from the traditional
Socialists and it sometimes goes beyond the issue of a
governmental control of the private sector: enforcement of the
political correctness, aggressive fighting against
religion(with Islam being an exception), aggressive
environmentalism which goes beyond control of an industry
(attempts to abolish plastic bags in the supermarkets, for
example), pushing 'feminist issues' (in a rather strange and
very politicized way, IMO), etc.
I suppose both Alex and Paul vote Republican.
--
o o
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 16:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
On Monday, October 7, 2013 4:05:39 AM UTC-4, Paul F Austin
Post by Paul F Austin
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
I don't understand how is it that in the US "liberal"
became
synonim of "left winger" and "socialist" of "communist".
Probably because 'liberalism' in the US is dominated by
what
passes for the 'left' in the US. The rest of the
terminology
you mentioned is just a part of the local political
rhetoric
(the libs feel themselves free to call anybody who disagree
with them a fascist or a Nazi).
To be fair, just as people on the Left use Fascist or Nazi as
a synonym
for "I don't like you" or "to the right of me", so do people
on the
Right use Communist (or Socialist).
As of now, it went a little bit beyond this schema because at
least some people on the right figured value of the 'Nazi' and
started using derivatives like 'feminazis'. :-)
Post by Paul F Austin
You could argue that the latest manifestation of the American
Left has
more Fascist elements (a desire for government to control the
private
sector without the responsibility of actually _owning_ it)
than good
Socialist "state owns the means of production" ones.
Yes, and they are demonstrating considerably higher
aggressiveness than one would expect from the traditional
Socialists and it sometimes goes beyond the issue of a
governmental control of the private sector: enforcement of the
political correctness, aggressive fighting against
religion(with Islam being an exception), aggressive
environmentalism which goes beyond control of an industry
(attempts to abolish plastic bags in the supermarkets, for
example), pushing 'feminist issues' (in a rather strange and
very politicized way, IMO), etc.
I suppose both Alex and Paul vote Republican.
To answer to your question, yes, I used to vote for the Republicans
because I'm pissed off with the democratic monopoly in Massachusetts.
However, I'm considering not voting at all because, unless
something changes, it is a choice between the idiots and assholes.
The Horny Goat
2013-10-07 04:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I saw only a part of one of the parts and it looks like he had a good
material and no clue. Or rather he had a 'clue': world viewed from an
extreme liberal position.
Is this some rather odd US description of the word 'liberal' because
where I come from it has a lot to do with free trade and a mixed
economy...
Yes beiung a "liberal" in the US definitely puts you into what would
be called the socialist camp elsewhere - please understand I'm talking
about the Second International type of socialist rather than the "Red"
sort that these days try to forget that 1991 ever happened.

Not to be confused with a "liberal Republican" which is a horse of a
totally different color - think Mark Hatfield and his ilk or these
days pretty much any Republican who doesn't swim with the Tea Party
crowd.

Certainly nothing of the sort that Gladstone would have thought of as
"liberal" much less the Aussie or Canadian style of Liberal.
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 14:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Bill
On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I saw only a part of one of the parts and it looks like he had a good
material and no clue. Or rather he had a 'clue': world viewed from an
extreme liberal position.
Is this some rather odd US description of the word 'liberal' because
where I come from it has a lot to do with free trade and a mixed
economy...
Yes beiung a "liberal" in the US definitely puts you into what would
be called the socialist camp elsewhere - please understand I'm talking
about the Second International type of socialist rather than the "Red"
sort that these days try to forget that 1991 ever happened.
Not to be confused with a "liberal Republican" which is a horse of a
totally different color - think Mark Hatfield and his ilk or these
days pretty much any Republican who doesn't swim with the Tea Party
crowd.
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity. Of course, this
does not go well with many established Republicans because they are
just as bad in this area as their political opponents (to think about
it, I'm not sure if the Dems are 'opponents' of McCain & Co): they
made themselves very comfortable, financially and otherwise and have
no intention of changing the situation.
Post by The Horny Goat
Certainly nothing of the sort that Gladstone would have thought of as
"liberal" much less the Aussie or Canadian style of Liberal.
Bill
2013-10-07 14:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity.
In European terms they're lunatics with guns...
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 15:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity.
In European terms they're lunatics with guns...
If financial sanity is a lunacy for the Europeans, then they are. As for
the guns, (a) Tea Party movement does not make gun ownership its main
issue and (b) in the US a right to possess the firearms is guaranteed
by Constitution. British opinion on this issue is irrelevant.
Bill
2013-10-07 18:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:26:25 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity.
In European terms they're lunatics with guns...
If financial sanity is a lunacy for the Europeans, then they are.
Ah, the idea that a country needs to break even is considered
somewhat less than sane in most financial ministries of the world.
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 19:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:26:25 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity.
In European terms they're lunatics with guns...
If financial sanity is a lunacy for the Europeans, then they are.
Ah, the idea that a country needs to break even is considered
somewhat less than sane in most financial ministries of the world.
I never assumed that the idiocy is limited to the US government.
Paul F Austin
2013-10-07 18:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity. Of course, this
does not go well with many established Republicans because they are
just as bad in this area as their political opponents (to think about
it, I'm not sure if the Dems are 'opponents' of McCain & Co): they
made themselves very comfortable, financially and otherwise and have
no intention of changing the situation.
"McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meahan"=incumbent protection act of 2002

Yes, I am a Republican. I held my nose and voted for McCain in spite of
his psychological damage and the above self-dealing debasement of the
1st Amendment.

I'm reminded of a debate between David Duke and Edwin Edwards in 1991
when both were running for Governor of Louisiana. The moderator
introduced them: "This is a choice between the Lesser of Two
Evils.....and Evil."

Paul
The Horny Goat
2013-10-07 21:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity. Of course, this
does not go well with many established Republicans because they are
just as bad in this area as their political opponents (to think about
it, I'm not sure if the Dems are 'opponents' of McCain & Co): they
made themselves very comfortable, financially and otherwise and have
no intention of changing the situation.
The Tea Party crowd has a heck of a lot more baggage than simply being
tax protesters and that's why they're problematic for the Republican
Party.

Their ideas on public spending are a part of it but by no means 99% as
every politically aware person knows. (Even Canadians like me)

If it were JUST that they were the tight-fisted bean-counters in
Washington they would have swept to power in 2012 by a landslide. But
you know and I know that a lot of their baggage is rather nasty and
it's rather disingenuous to say they're 99% about tax reform and the
public exchequer.
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 21:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity. Of course, this
does not go well with many established Republicans because they are
just as bad in this area as their political opponents (to think about
it, I'm not sure if the Dems are 'opponents' of McCain & Co): they
made themselves very comfortable, financially and otherwise and have
no intention of changing the situation.
The Tea Party crowd has a heck of a lot more baggage than simply being
tax protesters and that's why they're problematic for the Republican
Party.
Anything that disturbs status quo is problematic for Republican Establishment.
Their 2 last attempts to elect an establishment candidate were a failure
because even 'base' was not enthusiastic.
Post by Bill
Their ideas on public spending are a part of it but by no means 99% as
every politically aware person knows. (Even Canadians like me)
Well, I attended some of their meetings and they were predominantly
about taxes and sticking to the US Constitution (OK, maybe not 99%
directly about the taxes but Constitution part mostly relates to the
same issues of a limited government, etc.).
Post by Bill
If it were JUST that they were the tight-fisted bean-counters in
Washington they would have swept to power in 2012 by a landslide.
They got quite a few places in Congress but neither McCain (eeeek...)
nor Romney were anywhere close to them.
Post by Bill
But
you know and I know that a lot of their baggage is rather nasty and
it's rather disingenuous to say they're 99% about tax reform and the
public exchequer.
I'm not aware of the nasty baggage. What I'm aware of is that their were
systematically maltreated by the (predominantly liberal) media so whatever
you heard about them may or may not be correct.
The Horny Goat
2013-10-08 13:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:21:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
The Tea Party crowd has a heck of a lot more baggage than simply being
tax protesters and that's why they're problematic for the Republican
Party.
Anything that disturbs status quo is problematic for Republican Establishment.
Their 2 last attempts to elect an establishment candidate were a failure
because even 'base' was not enthusiastic.
When I speak of 'nasty baggage' I'm primarily speaking of what would
in Canada be called 'social conservatives' many but not all of which
are religiously driven. I'm pretty sure that term is used Stateside as
well. Plus the nastier remnants of "The Old South" tm tend to
congregate there - the sort that still light candles for Strom
Thurmond.
Post by Alex Milman
They got quite a few places in Congress but neither McCain (eeeek...)
nor Romney were anywhere close to them.
Very true - though they were not nearly the force in 2008 that they
were in 2012.
Post by Alex Milman
I'm not aware of the nasty baggage. What I'm aware of is that their were
systematically maltreated by the (predominantly liberal) media so whatever
you heard about them may or may not be correct.
That's certainly possible but again social conservatives of the Jerry
Falwell sort and 'small government' enthusiasts are not necessarily
the same people. I mentioned Mark Hatfield previously - theologically
he was not much different from Falwell in terms of his faith though
his style was totally different.

Obviously Hatfield was 15 years ago but Falwell's been going for a lot
longer than that and the two loathed each other. One can argue whether
the former head of the Senate Appropriations committee was a 'small'
or 'large' Government man - I'd say nowhere near enough to satisfy the
Tea Partiers in any case.
Alex Milman
2013-10-08 19:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:21:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
The Tea Party crowd has a heck of a lot more baggage than simply being
tax protesters and that's why they're problematic for the Republican
Party.
Anything that disturbs status quo is problematic for Republican Establishment.
Their 2 last attempts to elect an establishment candidate were a failure
because even 'base' was not enthusiastic.
When I speak of 'nasty baggage' I'm primarily speaking of what would
in Canada be called 'social conservatives' many but not all of which
are religiously driven.
You are confused. While this movement includes people of various
backgrounds, the religious issues, AFAIK, are not a part of what passes
for a common agenda.
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm pretty sure that term is used Stateside as
well. Plus the nastier remnants of "The Old South" tm tend to
congregate there
AFAIK, so far numerous attempts to make this association proved to be
untrue.
Post by The Horny Goat
- the sort that still light candles for Strom
Thurmond.
Perhaps you meant Mr. Bird: a high-ranking member of KKK who was for
decades one of the leading Dems ion Congress? :-)
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
They got quite a few places in Congress but neither McCain (eeeek...)
nor Romney were anywhere close to them.
Very true - though they were not nearly the force in 2008 that they
were in 2012.
Post by Alex Milman
I'm not aware of the nasty baggage. What I'm aware of is that their were
systematically maltreated by the (predominantly liberal) media so whatever
you heard about them may or may not be correct.
That's certainly possible but again social conservatives of the Jerry
Falwell sort and 'small government' enthusiasts are not necessarily
the same people. I mentioned Mark Hatfield previously - theologically
he was not much different from Falwell in terms of his faith though
his style was totally different.
What this has to do with the Tea Party?
The Horny Goat
2013-10-11 05:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:08:53 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
That's certainly possible but again social conservatives of the Jerry
Falwell sort and 'small government' enthusiasts are not necessarily
the same people. I mentioned Mark Hatfield previously - theologically
he was not much different from Falwell in terms of his faith though
his style was totally different.
What this has to do with the Tea Party?
What I'm saying is that there are a lot of socially conservative
fundamental Christians in the Tea Party.

Hatfield's religious credentials were equally strong - and he was
considered a liberal Republican. Carter's were equally strong but
fairly centrist Democrat.

I thought Carter's Moral Equivalent of War speech was a fairly serious
effort though it's impact was crippled by one of the more truly
unfortunate acronyms in modern times

Bradipus
2013-10-08 18:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
I'm not aware of the nasty baggage. What I'm aware of is that
their were systematically maltreated by the (predominantly
liberal) media so whatever you heard about them may or may not
be correct.
Is Fox network "liberal"?

I suppose that each show/media network position itself on the
audience market, fidelizing their people (a form of daily
mental masturbation) rather then trying to satisfy everybody.

I threw my TV set out of the window years ago.
.
--
o o
Alex Milman
2013-10-09 12:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
I'm not aware of the nasty baggage. What I'm aware of is that
their were systematically maltreated by the (predominantly
liberal) media so whatever you heard about them may or may not
be correct.
Is Fox network "liberal"?
Wrong question. :-)

While FOX is presumably 'conservative' (as being to the right of
MS DNC), there is a number of diehard liberals on it (Beckel,
Williams, Holmes and probably more, I don't watch it or any
other news channel too much) and quite a few 'centrists'
('Republican Establishment') and there is practically always
some liberal personage in the discussions. Of course, the 'left'
calls them 'right' because now everybody who is not an extreme
left is a conservative. :-)
Post by Bradipus
I suppose that each show/media network position itself on the
audience market, fidelizing their people (a form of daily
mental masturbation) rather then trying to satisfy everybody.
Well, yes. This is why MS DNC has such a 'huge' audience and it is
steadily going south.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/august-2013-ratings-msnbc-down-double-digits_b193619
Post by Bradipus
I threw my TV set out of the window years ago.
.
--
o o
jerry kraus
2013-10-09 17:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity. Of course, this
does not go well with many established Republicans because they are
just as bad in this area as their political opponents (to think about
it, I'm not sure if the Dems are 'opponents' of McCain & Co): they
made themselves very comfortable, financially and otherwise and have
no intention of changing the situation.
The Tea Party crowd has a heck of a lot more baggage than simply being
tax protesters and that's why they're problematic for the Republican
Party.
Their ideas on public spending are a part of it but by no means 99% as
every politically aware person knows. (Even Canadians like me)
If it were JUST that they were the tight-fisted bean-counters in
Washington they would have swept to power in 2012 by a landslide. But
you know and I know that a lot of their baggage is rather nasty and
it's rather disingenuous to say they're 99% about tax reform and the
public exchequer.
Actually, the Tea Party is, by far, the best friend the Democratic Party has. They are so destructive to the Republican Party that I'm not convinced they aren't, really, agent provocateurs. The Democrats would have lost the Senate and the Presidency in 2012, if it weren't for the lunatics in the Tea Party terrifying independent women with their theories about divine intervention in the process of female conception after rape, among other things.

Whether the Tea Party people are stupid, crazy or just lost in some fantasy never-never land about the distant, colonial past of America is not entirely clear. But, the Republican leadership hate them with a passion, and the feeling is mutual.
Alex Milman
2013-10-09 19:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity. Of course, this
does not go well with many established Republicans because they are
just as bad in this area as their political opponents (to think about
it, I'm not sure if the Dems are 'opponents' of McCain & Co): they
made themselves very comfortable, financially and otherwise and have
no intention of changing the situation.
The Tea Party crowd has a heck of a lot more baggage than simply being
tax protesters and that's why they're problematic for the Republican
Party.
Their ideas on public spending are a part of it but by no means 99% as
every politically aware person knows. (Even Canadians like me)
If it were JUST that they were the tight-fisted bean-counters in
Washington they would have swept to power in 2012 by a landslide. But
you know and I know that a lot of their baggage is rather nasty and
it's rather disingenuous to say they're 99% about tax reform and the
public exchequer.
Actually, the Tea Party is, by far, the best friend the Democratic Party has. They are so destructive to the Republican Party that I'm not convinced they aren't, really, agent provocateurs. The Democrats would have lost the Senate and the Presidency in 2012, if it weren't for the lunatics in the Tea Party terrifying independent women with their theories about divine intervention in the process of female conception after rape, among other things.
Thanks Jerry, I already know that you are an ignorant idiot so further proof
was not necessary.
jerry kraus
2013-10-09 20:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
"The Tea Party crowd" is 99% about financial sanity. Of course, this
does not go well with many established Republicans because they are
just as bad in this area as their political opponents (to think about
it, I'm not sure if the Dems are 'opponents' of McCain & Co): they
made themselves very comfortable, financially and otherwise and have
no intention of changing the situation.
The Tea Party crowd has a heck of a lot more baggage than simply being
tax protesters and that's why they're problematic for the Republican
Party.
Their ideas on public spending are a part of it but by no means 99% as
every politically aware person knows. (Even Canadians like me)
If it were JUST that they were the tight-fisted bean-counters in
Washington they would have swept to power in 2012 by a landslide. But
you know and I know that a lot of their baggage is rather nasty and
it's rather disingenuous to say they're 99% about tax reform and the
public exchequer.
Actually, the Tea Party is, by far, the best friend the Democratic Party has. They are so destructive to the Republican Party that I'm not convinced they aren't, really, agent provocateurs. The Democrats would have lost the Senate and the Presidency in 2012, if it weren't for the lunatics in the Tea Party terrifying independent women with their theories about divine intervention in the process of female conception after rape, among other things.
Thanks Jerry, I already know that you are an ignorant idiot so further proof
was not necessary.
Are you a Tea Party Loon, Alex?

Gee, why does that not surprise me?

Keep up the good work, though. With the help of you and your friends, I'm sure the Democrats can maintain control for the next twenty years, or so.
Alex Milman
2013-10-10 12:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Alex Milman
Thanks Jerry, I already know that you are an ignorant idiot so further proof
was not necessary.
Are you a Tea Party Loon, Alex?
No, I'm just stating the obvious fact that you are an ignorant idiot.
jerry kraus
2013-10-10 17:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
No, I'm just stating the obvious fact that you are an ignorant idiot.
From an ignorant idiot like yourself, Alex -- a kind of nasty ignorant idiot, too! -- surely, a compliment.
The Old Man
2013-10-09 21:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Actually, the Tea Party is, by far, the best friend the Democratic Party has. They are so destructive to the Republican Party that I'm not convinced they aren't, really, agent provocateurs. The Democrats would have lost the Senate and the Presidency in 2012, if it weren't for the lunatics in the Tea Party terrifying independent women with their theories about divine intervention in the process of female conception after rape, among other things.
Whether the Tea Party people are stupid, crazy or just lost in some fantasy never-never land about the distant, colonial past of America is not entirely clear. But, the Republican leadership hate them with a passion, and the feeling is mutual.
There is some thought that the Tea Party are really the John Birchers come back to haunt us.

Regards,
John Braungart
Alex Milman
2013-10-10 16:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by jerry kraus
Actually, the Tea Party is, by far, the best friend the Democratic Party has. They are so destructive to the Republican Party that I'm not convinced they aren't, really, agent provocateurs. The Democrats would have lost the Senate and the Presidency in 2012, if it weren't for the lunatics in the Tea Party terrifying independent women with their theories about divine intervention in the process of female conception after rape, among other things.
Whether the Tea Party people are stupid, crazy or just lost in some fantasy never-never land about the distant, colonial past of America is not entirely clear. But, the Republican leadership hate them with a passion, and the feeling is mutual.
There is some thought that the Tea Party are really the John Birchers come back to haunt us.
Taking into an account that the Tea Party, as soon as this movement
demonstrated its potential power, came under intensive attack from the
left (unlike traditional Republicans they could talk about the issues
unrelated to the abortions and, as such, may have an appeal to the
independent voters), most of the 'thoughts' and revelations related
to this movement have limited contact with a reality, just as assertions
that most of the liberals/progressives are communists.

To start with, the Tea Party is a DECENTRALIZED movement ("party" in the
name references historical "Tea Party" with the stress on a tax component
of this event) advocating reduction of the US national debt,
lower taxes, etc..

This is, AFAIK, the main (and probably the only) unifying subject for
the people who may have different views on some other issues. For example,
people who consider Jerry Kraus an idiot may have different views on
other subjects. When they are expressing their views on these other
subjects they are not representing views of this movement (just because
the movement does not have uniform views on other subjects)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with cutting
federal budget deficit, reducing government spending or lowering the taxes.
OTOH, IMO, people who are advocating a need for the higher taxes should
be provided with an opportunity to pay them at a higher level (I have yet to
see John Kerry and his likes showing an example).

Based on the personal observations (for years I worked near the area where
all big events are happening in Boston, which gave an opportunity to
watch a wide variety of rallies), their rallies tended to demonstrate
much better manners and greater tolerance to the opposite opinions(and
end up with much less litter on the ground) then those in support of the
illegal immigration and other liberal causes. Couple cases (immediately
advertised by media) which were presumably demonstrating racism proved
to be a lie perpetrated by the self-proclaimed victims. OTOH, I can easily
believe that in a decentralized movement you can find various types of
loonies who may claim affiliation with this movement. Well, there are
plenty of the loonies and goons who are associated with the liberal
movement or even directly with a Democratic party. So what?
jerry kraus
2013-10-10 17:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Old Man
Post by jerry kraus
Actually, the Tea Party is, by far, the best friend the Democratic Party has. They are so destructive to the Republican Party that I'm not convinced they aren't, really, agent provocateurs. The Democrats would have lost the Senate and the Presidency in 2012, if it weren't for the lunatics in the Tea Party terrifying independent women with their theories about divine intervention in the process of female conception after rape, among other things.
Whether the Tea Party people are stupid, crazy or just lost in some fantasy never-never land about the distant, colonial past of America is not entirely clear. But, the Republican leadership hate them with a passion, and the feeling is mutual.
There is some thought that the Tea Party are really the John Birchers come back to haunt us.
Taking into an account that the Tea Party, as soon as this movement
demonstrated its potential power, came under intensive attack from the
left (unlike traditional Republicans they could talk about the issues
unrelated to the abortions and, as such, may have an appeal to the
independent voters), most of the 'thoughts' and revelations related
to this movement have limited contact with a reality, just as assertions
that most of the liberals/progressives are communists.
To start with, the Tea Party is a DECENTRALIZED movement ("party" in the
name references historical "Tea Party" with the stress on a tax component
of this event) advocating reduction of the US national debt,
lower taxes, etc..
This is, AFAIK, the main (and probably the only) unifying subject for
the people who may have different views on some other issues. For example,
people who consider Jerry Kraus an idiot may have different views on
other subjects. When they are expressing their views on these other
subjects they are not representing views of this movement (just because
the movement does not have uniform views on other subjects)
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with cutting
federal budget deficit, reducing government spending or lowering the taxes.
OTOH, IMO, people who are advocating a need for the higher taxes should
be provided with an opportunity to pay them at a higher level (I have yet to
see John Kerry and his likes showing an example).
Based on the personal observations (for years I worked near the area where
all big events are happening in Boston, which gave an opportunity to
watch a wide variety of rallies), their rallies tended to demonstrate
much better manners and greater tolerance to the opposite opinions(and
end up with much less litter on the ground) then those in support of the
illegal immigration and other liberal causes. Couple cases (immediately
advertised by media) which were presumably demonstrating racism proved
to be a lie perpetrated by the self-proclaimed victims. OTOH, I can easily
believe that in a decentralized movement you can find various types of
loonies who may claim affiliation with this movement. Well, there are
plenty of the loonies and goons who are associated with the liberal
movement or even directly with a Democratic party. So what?
The actual Boston Tea Party was a quasi-anarchist act against a colonial government for its tax policies. The current "Tea Party" favors anarchist acts against the current, national elected government. As such, it has more in common with the Confederacy -- an insurrection, or civil war. Apparently, you like its tax views, Alex. But that's only part of the picture. Basically, the Tea Party people are, technically, "Christian/Capitalist--Anarchists" : that is to say, they believe either Christianity and/or Free Market economics, on their own, are sufficient to create a civil society. No need for government, at any level. They really believe this, by the way. Go to Church and/or run a business, then no need for police, government, taxes, schools etc.

To some extent, they're going back to Colonial America, when there was so much open space government was hardly necessary. A lot more people now, though. No government, you get civil war.
Alex Milman
2013-10-10 19:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Old Man
Post by jerry kraus
Actually, the Tea Party is, by far, the best friend the Democratic Party has. They are so destructive to the Republican Party that I'm not convinced they aren't, really, agent provocateurs. The Democrats would have lost the Senate and the Presidency in 2012, if it weren't for the lunatics in the Tea Party terrifying independent women with their theories about divine intervention in the process of female conception after rape, among other things.
Whether the Tea Party people are stupid, crazy or just lost in some fantasy never-never land about the distant, colonial past of America is not entirely clear. But, the Republican leadership hate them with a passion, and the feeling is mutual.
There is some thought that the Tea Party are really the John Birchers come back to haunt us.
Taking into an account that the Tea Party, as soon as this movement
demonstrated its potential power, came under intensive attack from the
left (unlike traditional Republicans they could talk about the issues
unrelated to the abortions and, as such, may have an appeal to the
independent voters), most of the 'thoughts' and revelations related
to this movement have limited contact with a reality, just as assertions
that most of the liberals/progressives are communists.
To start with, the Tea Party is a DECENTRALIZED movement ("party" in the
name references historical "Tea Party" with the stress on a tax component
of this event) advocating reduction of the US national debt,
lower taxes, etc..
This is, AFAIK, the main (and probably the only) unifying subject for
the people who may have different views on some other issues. For example,
people who consider Jerry Kraus an idiot may have different views on
other subjects. When they are expressing their views on these other
subjects they are not representing views of this movement (just because
the movement does not have uniform views on other subjects)
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with cutting
federal budget deficit, reducing government spending or lowering the taxes.
OTOH, IMO, people who are advocating a need for the higher taxes should
be provided with an opportunity to pay them at a higher level (I have yet to
see John Kerry and his likes showing an example).
Based on the personal observations (for years I worked near the area where
all big events are happening in Boston, which gave an opportunity to
watch a wide variety of rallies), their rallies tended to demonstrate
much better manners and greater tolerance to the opposite opinions(and
end up with much less litter on the ground) then those in support of the
illegal immigration and other liberal causes. Couple cases (immediately
advertised by media) which were presumably demonstrating racism proved
to be a lie perpetrated by the self-proclaimed victims. OTOH, I can easily
believe that in a decentralized movement you can find various types of
loonies who may claim affiliation with this movement. Well, there are
plenty of the loonies and goons who are associated with the liberal
movement or even directly with a Democratic party. So what?
The actual Boston Tea Party was a quasi-anarchist act against a colonial government for its tax policies. The current "Tea Party" favors anarchist acts against the current, national elected government.
I already told you that you are an ignorant idiot and there is not much to be
added.
jerry kraus
2013-10-10 19:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by jerry kraus
The actual Boston Tea Party was a quasi-anarchist act against a colonial government for its tax policies. The current "Tea Party" favors anarchist acts against the current, national elected government.
I already told you that you are an ignorant idiot and there is not much to be
added.
I'm sorry it upsets you when I criticize the Tea Party, Alex. Really, I am. But, why single me out? Most of the country feels exactly the same way. Certainly, the rest of the world does.

Apparently you want to pay lower taxes, so you like this aspect of their policies. Nevertheless, they're anarchists. Definition of a Libertarian -- an Anarchist who doesn't know he's an anarchist.
Rich Rostrom
2013-10-07 18:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes being a "liberal" in the US definitely puts you into what would
be called the socialist camp elsewhere - please understand I'm talking
about the Second International type of socialist rather than the "Red"
sort that these days try to forget that 1991 ever happened.
The Second International was and is very Red.

The anthem of the British Labour Party is
"Raise the Red Banner".

When the German Social Democrats. Free Democrats,
and Green Party formed a coalition, it was dubbed
a 'stop-light' - red, yellow, green. (I am not sure
if this coalition was actually formed, I do recall
the joke.)

"Red" became shorthand for "Communist", but that
was a later development, and never a complete one.

However, American liberals today are mostly not
socialists. A substantial number are - there is a
"Progressive" caucus among the Democrats, which
includes my own U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky,
and is socialist in all but name.

But at the same time, very few seem to want the
old socialist agendas of confiscation and
redistribution of private wealth, or state
ownership of industry. Many of Obama's major
backers are billionaires.

There is a lot of cloudy rhetoric about
"smashing capitalism", but much of it
emanates from people who are wealthy or the
associates and cronies of _very_ wealthy
people. There has never been a better time
for "champagne socialism".
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Bill
2013-10-07 19:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 13:27:54 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Yes being a "liberal" in the US definitely puts you into what would
be called the socialist camp elsewhere - please understand I'm talking
about the Second International type of socialist rather than the "Red"
sort that these days try to forget that 1991 ever happened.
The Second International was and is very Red.
The anthem of the British Labour Party is
"Raise the Red Banner".
It's actually called 'The Red Flag'.

Like 'clause 4' it no longer has any influence on Labour politics...
Bradipus
2013-10-08 18:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Second International was and is very Red.
The anthem of the British Labour Party is
"Raise the Red Banner".
It's actually called 'The Red Flag'.
Like 'clause 4' it no longer has any influence on Labour
politics...
An anthem is not a political programme.
--
o o
The Horny Goat
2013-10-08 13:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 13:27:54 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Yes being a "liberal" in the US definitely puts you into what would
be called the socialist camp elsewhere - please understand I'm talking
about the Second International type of socialist rather than the "Red"
sort that these days try to forget that 1991 ever happened.
The Second International was and is very Red.
The anthem of the British Labour Party is
"Raise the Red Banner".
I'm well aware of that yet we both also know "Red" has been co-opted
by the Communist movement. Ironically enough in the 1950s any
politician who was accused of being 'Red' or from a 'Red state' would
be horrified ... now in US politics 'red' has come to mean something
quite different.
Post by Rich Rostrom
When the German Social Democrats. Free Democrats,
and Green Party formed a coalition, it was dubbed
a 'stop-light' - red, yellow, green. (I am not sure
if this coalition was actually formed, I do recall
the joke.)
Heard a great comedy sketch of a conservative Republican senator from
a 'red state' being transported 50 years in time and not immediately
clue-ing in where he was and getting into a lot of trouble before he
realized why he was getting in trouble.
Post by Rich Rostrom
There is a lot of cloudy rhetoric about
"smashing capitalism", but much of it
emanates from people who are wealthy or the
associates and cronies of _very_ wealthy
people. There has never been a better time
for "champagne socialism".
Gary Trudeau nicely lampooned the "99% movement" at the time.
The Horny Goat
2013-10-07 04:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I saw only a part of one of the parts and it looks like he had a good
material and no clue. Or rather he had a 'clue': world viewed from an
extreme liberal position.
Well, what else one can expect from Oliver Stone? His Macedonians are
fighting for ...er... freedom.... Well, IIRC, in one of the History
Channel programs the Spartans had been fighting for a democracy so
he is not alone. :-)
I suppose you could reasonably interpret the events of Philip and
Alexander as trying to avoid Persian captivity.

Of all the Hellenic city states I'd describe as 'fighting for a
democracy' Sparta would be well down my list - on the other hand I'm a
big fan of Lena Headey both from 300 (where she plays a minor role as
Queen of Sparta) and Game of Thrones so I suppose I ought not to
complain though that has absolutely nothing at all to do with history!
Alex Milman
2013-10-07 14:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I saw only a part of one of the parts and it looks like he had a good
material and no clue. Or rather he had a 'clue': world viewed from an
extreme liberal position.
Well, what else one can expect from Oliver Stone? His Macedonians are
fighting for ...er... freedom.... Well, IIRC, in one of the History
Channel programs the Spartans had been fighting for a democracy so
he is not alone. :-)
I suppose you could reasonably interpret the events of Philip and
Alexander as trying to avoid Persian captivity.
This interpretation would require a serious stretch of my imagination.
To start with, the main reason for Persia getting into Greece were
unending provocations and attempts to incite revolt in the Greek cities
of Asia Minor (Persian vassals). Well, taking into an account that the
venerable English historian tradition blames Spaniards for an attempt
to attack England (after years of the state-sponsored English piracy,
help to the rebels, direct attacks on the Spanish ports, etc.), yes,
probably it can be considered as such. :-)
Post by Bill
Of all the Hellenic city states I'd describe as 'fighting for a
democracy' Sparta would be well down my list
That the point. :-)
The Horny Goat
2013-10-07 22:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:31:44 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
I suppose you could reasonably interpret the events of Philip and
Alexander as trying to avoid Persian captivity.
This interpretation would require a serious stretch of my imagination.
To start with, the main reason for Persia getting into Greece were
unending provocations and attempts to incite revolt in the Greek cities
of Asia Minor (Persian vassals). Well, taking into an account that the
venerable English historian tradition blames Spaniards for an attempt
to attack England (after years of the state-sponsored English piracy,
help to the rebels, direct attacks on the Spanish ports, etc.), yes,
probably it can be considered as such. :-)
Yup - I suppose my sense of sarcasm didn't travel well through the
ether :)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Of all the Hellenic city states I'd describe as 'fighting for a
democracy' Sparta would be well down my list
That the point. :-)
In fact tryng to work out a modern day democratic (or otherwise)
society based on celebrating Spartan ideals the way our society
celebrates Athenian democracy would be an interesting AH challenge.

Obviously the world would be very different without Thermopylae but
there's a reason Athens is a sprawling metropolis and Sparta (which
will be found on Greek maps of Sparti) is a town of about 10000.

Equally obviously that's not the only reason - a few other things
happened in the intervening 20+ centuries - but no question Athens
decisively took the lead in the ancient world the Peleponesian Wars
and Alexander notwithstanding.
Alex Milman
2013-10-08 13:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:31:44 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
I suppose you could reasonably interpret the events of Philip and
Alexander as trying to avoid Persian captivity.
This interpretation would require a serious stretch of my imagination.
To start with, the main reason for Persia getting into Greece were
unending provocations and attempts to incite revolt in the Greek cities
of Asia Minor (Persian vassals). Well, taking into an account that the
venerable English historian tradition blames Spaniards for an attempt
to attack England (after years of the state-sponsored English piracy,
help to the rebels, direct attacks on the Spanish ports, etc.), yes,
probably it can be considered as such. :-)
Yup - I suppose my sense of sarcasm didn't travel well through the
ether :)
This is why I'm using ":-)"
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Of all the Hellenic city states I'd describe as 'fighting for a
democracy' Sparta would be well down my list
That the point. :-)
In fact tryng to work out a modern day democratic (or otherwise)
society based on celebrating Spartan ideals the way our society
celebrates Athenian democracy would be an interesting AH challenge.
If "otherwise" includes Nazism, then perhaps the task becomes more
practical. :-)
Post by The Horny Goat
Obviously the world would be very different without Thermopylae but
there's a reason Athens is a sprawling metropolis and Sparta (which
will be found on Greek maps of Sparti) is a town of about 10000.
Equally obviously that's not the only reason - a few other things
happened in the intervening 20+ centuries - but no question Athens
decisively took the lead in the ancient world the Peleponesian Wars
and Alexander notwithstanding.
It is interesting that a militaristic state like Sparta did not produce
a single great general. As someone noticed, Napoleon and Suvorov would
be killed at birth (and I'd add Prince Eugene and Moltke). :-)
Bradipus
2013-10-08 18:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
It is interesting that a militaristic state like Sparta did
not produce a single great general. As someone noticed,
Napoleon and Suvorov would be killed at birth (and I'd add
Prince Eugene and Moltke). :-)
Kaiser Willi too.
--
o o
Alex Milman
2013-10-09 12:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
It is interesting that a militaristic state like Sparta did
not produce a single great general. As someone noticed,
Napoleon and Suvorov would be killed at birth (and I'd add
Prince Eugene and Moltke). :-)
Kaiser Willi too.
Now, THIS would be to everybody's advantage. :-)

But back to the subject, the Spartans are not (AFAIK) associated with any
military innovations. They copied or adopted certain things when they
were forced by the circumstances but how about something of their own?
Did I miss something?
The Horny Goat
2013-10-11 04:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
It is interesting that a militaristic state like Sparta did
not produce a single great general. As someone noticed,
Napoleon and Suvorov would be killed at birth (and I'd add
Prince Eugene and Moltke). :-)
Kaiser Willi too.
Would you have considered that a good thing or a bad thing?
David Tenner
2013-10-07 05:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
This is an interesting series (I've only seen the first and am
watching the second episode which is tellingly called "Roosevelt,
Wallace and Truman").
Stone is clearly a huge fan of Henry Wallace - one would wonder what
Stone would think of the For All Time timeline....
As expected I'm enjoying the filmi footage much of which I've never
seen before but am rolling my eyes at the interpretations.
There are some obvious errors that would make any SHWI regular giggle
- particularly his coverage of the Stalingrad campaign which Stone
believes was part of a drive on Baku. Somehow he thinks von Paulus
(sic - Paulus was no Junker) was in charge of both 6th Army AND 4th
Panzer Army.
Again - great photos (I'm watching the portion on Yalta now) though
clearly his political / historical conclusions vary from what most
mainstream historians (of the sort most SHWIers would respect) would
conclude about the era.
Did I say enough times that Stone is a big fan of Wallace?
(1) It's really odd that if Truman betrayed FDR's legacy and Wallace sought
to uphold it, not a single prominent New Dealer supported Wallace in 1948--
Eleanor Roosevelt, Harold Ickes, etc. all denounced him. The one exception
for a while was Rexford Tugwell, and even he eventually dropped out of the
campaign, disillusioned with the domination of the Progresive Party by the
"wrong people." (When a journalist asked him if by that he meant the
Communists, he replied "I certainly don't know whether they are Communists
but they act as if they are.")
http://books.google.com/books?id=oOaJCpyZFW8C&pg=PA196

(2) Attempts by Stone and others to minimize the role of the Communist
Party in Wallace's 1948 campaign are not convincing. According to John
Gates, who was editor of the *Daily Worker* at the time, Wallace's close
friend and campaign manager, C. B. "Beanie" Baldwin, was a secret member of
the Communist Party--and no one did as much as Baldwin to persuade Wallace
to run as a third party candidate. John Abt, who later acknowledged that
he was a Communist, was the new party's general counsel. The basic draft
of the party's program was prepared for Lee Pressman by Tabitha Petran and
David Ramsey, both concealed Communist party members. (Ramsey and Victor
Perlo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Perlo had prepared Wallace's
terstimony before Congress against the Marshall Plan.) The vast majority
of Progressives were, of course, neither Communists nor fellow travelers,
but the only organizations capable of doing the basic work of getting
Wallace on the ballot, canvassing for him, etc. were the Communists and
their allies in the left wing of the CIO. As I. F. Stone, a Wallace
supporter, acknowledged, "The Communists are doing a major part of the work
of the Wallace movement, from ringing doorbells to framing platforms. Okay
if you want it that way, so they 'dominate' the party. So what? I'm just a
poor dupe who can't take either Dewey or Truman, and is looking for an
effective way to cast a protest vote against cold war, high prices, and
hysteria..." http://books.google.com/books?id=vzqXGAZ2hNoC&pg=PA54

(3) In any event, the dumping of Wallace in 1944, which Oliver Stone so
laments, was almost inevitable. If nothing else, the "guru letters" to
Nicholas Roerich would have been a serious burden on the Democratic ticket.
In 1940, it was possible for the Democrats to keep them out of the public
eye by blackmailing Willkie: you don't talk about the guru letters and we
won't talk about your affair with Irita Van Doren. But AFAIK Dewey had no
affairs to conceal. Given the state of FDR's health in 1944, what would
voters think about risking the presidency of a man who could write, as
Wallace did a few dasy after FDR's first inauguration;

Dear Guru,

I have been thinking of you holding the casket--the sacred, most precious
casket. And I have thought of the New Country going forth to meet the seven
stars and under the sign of the three stars. And I have thought of the
admonition "Await the Stone."

We await the Stone and we welcome you again to this glorious land of
destiny, clouded though it may be with strange fumbling fears. Who shall
hold up the compelling vision to those who wander in darkness? In answer to
this question we again welcome you. To drive out depression. To drive out
fear...

And so I await your convenience prepared to do what I am to do.

May Peace,Joy, and Fire attend you as always.

G [G, short for Galahad, is what Wallace called hmself in these letters]

In the great haste of this strange
maelstrom that is Washington

http://books.google.com/books?id=dvFxSQVSWm4C&pg=PA134

See Sean Wilentz's critique of *The Untold History of the United States* in
the *New York Review of Books* at http://tinyurl.com/kjnauku
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Rich Rostrom
2013-10-07 19:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
(3) In any event, the dumping of Wallace in 1944, which Oliver Stone so
laments, was almost inevitable. If nothing else, the "guru letters" to
Nicholas Roerich would have been a serious burden on the Democratic ticket.
In 1940, it was possible for the Democrats to keep them out of the public
eye by blackmailing Willkie: you don't talk about the guru letters and we
won't talk about your affair with Irita Van Doren. But AFAIK Dewey had no
affairs to conceal. Given the state of FDR's health in 1944, what would
voters think about risking the presidency of a man who could write, as
Wallace did a few days after FDR's first inauguration;
That would be March 1933? By 1944,
Post by David Tenner
Dear Guru,
I have been thinking of you holding the casket--the sacred, most precious
casket. And I have thought of the New Country going forth to meet the seven
stars and under the sign of the three stars. And I have thought of the
admonition "Await the Stone."
We await the Stone and we welcome you again to this glorious land of
destiny, clouded though it may be with strange fumbling fears. Who shall
hold up the compelling vision to those who wander in darkness? In answer to
this question we again welcome you. To drive out depression. To drive out
fear...
Roerich retained some credibility through the 1930s.

When did Wallace break off contact with him?
When was the last "Guru Letter" dated?

Also, when did FDR learn about them? He would
have learned no later than 1940, at the time of
the counter-blackmail against Willkie.

Surely he did _not_ know before picking Wallace
for VP? (At least, that they existed and the
Republicans had them.) What, and when did he know
about Wallace's relationship with Roerich?

When the U.S. turned against Roerich, did Wallace
assure FDR that he too was through with Roerich?

In short, could Wallace say (especially in 1944),
"OK, yeah, I wrote those letters, but that was a
long time ago, and I got over it.")

As to the "inevitability" of Wallace being dropped
in 1944. It seems odd to me that after having to
impose Wallace on the convention in 1940, FDR then
had to impose his replacement in 1944.

FDR's first choice was Jimmy Byrnes. If he had
stuck with Byrnes, could Wallace have won at the
convention? The bosses who didn't like Wallace
were no happier with Byrnes.

President Dewey? Probably. But WI the popular
vote swing is only about 2.5%? That would give
Dewey 290 electoral votes, but FDR would still
win the popular vote by 2.5% (instead of 7.5%).

What are the implications of that? Especially
as it emphasizes the impact of Jim Crow?

Or, here is a real barnburner: suppose FDR had
been forced to withdraw just before the convention
by an incident of obvious illness.

I can't see Truman winning the nomination; it
would come down to Vice President Wallace against
"Assistant President" Byrnes, and Wallace would
IMHO carry the day.

President Dewey? Surely.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
David Tenner
2013-10-08 05:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by David Tenner
(3) In any event, the dumping of Wallace in 1944, which Oliver Stone so
laments, was almost inevitable. If nothing else, the "guru letters" to
Nicholas Roerich would have been a serious burden on the Democratic
ticket. In 1940, it was possible for the Democrats to keep them out of
the public eye by blackmailing Willkie: you don't talk about the guru
letters and we won't talk about your affair with Irita Van Doren. But
AFAIK Dewey had no affairs to conceal. Given the state of FDR's health
in 1944, what would voters think about risking the presidency of a man
who could write, as Wallace did a few days after FDR's first
inauguration;
That would be March 1933? By 1944,
Post by David Tenner
Dear Guru,
I have been thinking of you holding the casket--the sacred, most
precious casket. And I have thought of the New Country going forth to
meet the seven stars and under the sign of the three stars. And I have
thought of the admonition "Await the Stone."
We await the Stone and we welcome you again to this glorious land of
destiny, clouded though it may be with strange fumbling fears. Who
shall hold up the compelling vision to those who wander in darkness? In
answer to this question we again welcome you. To drive out depression.
To drive out fear...
Roerich retained some credibility through the 1930s.
When did Wallace break off contact with him?
When was the last "Guru Letter" dated?
Also, when did FDR learn about them? He would
have learned no later than 1940, at the time of
the counter-blackmail against Willkie.
Surely he did _not_ know before picking Wallace
for VP? (At least, that they existed and the
Republicans had them.) What, and when did he know
about Wallace's relationship with Roerich?
When the U.S. turned against Roerich, did Wallace
assure FDR that he too was through with Roerich?
In short, could Wallace say (especially in 1944),
"OK, yeah, I wrote those letters, but that was a
long time ago, and I got over it.")
As to the "inevitability" of Wallace being dropped
in 1944. It seems odd to me that after having to
impose Wallace on the convention in 1940, FDR then
had to impose his replacement in 1944.
FDR's first choice was Jimmy Byrnes. If he had
stuck with Byrnes, could Wallace have won at the
convention? The bosses who didn't like Wallace
were no happier with Byrnes.
President Dewey? Probably. But WI the popular
vote swing is only about 2.5%? That would give
Dewey 290 electoral votes, but FDR would still
win the popular vote by 2.5% (instead of 7.5%).
What are the implications of that? Especially
as it emphasizes the impact of Jim Crow?
Or, here is a real barnburner: suppose FDR had
been forced to withdraw just before the convention
by an incident of obvious illness.
I can't see Truman winning the nomination; it
would come down to Vice President Wallace against
"Assistant President" Byrnes, and Wallace would
IMHO carry the day.
President Dewey? Surely.
(1) Wallace broke with Roerich in 1935. (He became convinced that Roerich was
using a scientific expedition to Manchuria and Inner Mongolia for political
purposes.) In fact, he turned against Roerich quite vehemently, which is one
reason the Roerichs and their assistant Frances Grant were determined to get
their revenge a few years later by giving the letters to the Republicans.

(2) Leading Democrats found out about the "guru letters" in late August 1940.
Anna Rosenberg, who heard gossip about it at a cocktail party in New York,
was alarmed ("Oh God, out of a hundred million Americans we had to pick him
for vice president!") and rushed to Washington to tell Harry Hopkins the
news. Hopkins got photostatic copies of the letters through an aide with
ties to reporters. (The originals were thought to be held by the Republican
national treasurer in a Wall Street bank vault.) Hopkins sifted through the
letters, and summoned Sam Rosenman; the two agreed that the letters if made
public would make Wallace look mystical at best and irrational at worst.
Hopkins asked Rosenman if it was too late to remove Wallace from the ticket
and Rosenman said that it was. Both men then saw FDR; accounts vary of what
his reaction was, but it seems clear that he did not favor removing Wallace
from the ticket. (My own favorite version of what happened has FDR asking if
Wallace's relationship with Frances Grant was physical or metaphysical, and
on being told that it was purely spiritual, throwing up his hands and saying,
"we can handle sex but we can't handle religion"...)

(3) The usual version of why the letters weren't used is that Willkie was
afraid of the Democrats retaliating by revealing his relationship with Irita
Van Doren. However, in his memoirs, Joe Martin, who had been GOP national
chairman at the time, said that he was the one who decided, late in the
campaign, not to use the letters. He was concerned that "voters might
conclude that the Republican Party was resorting to a last-minute smear." He
added, oddly, "Furthermore I didn't know anything about this fellow Guru.
[!!--DT] Maybe he had a great many more followers than any of us realized.
Why kick away their votes?" http://tinyurl.com/l8cm5mu

(4) There is of course a case to be made that Wallace could simply have said
that this happened years ago, that it was not important, etc. The problem is
perhaps not so much the letters themselves as the way Wallace would have
reacted to their revelation. In OTL, when Westbrook Pegler raised the issue
of the letters in some columns in 1947-8, Wallace handled it very poorly at a
press conference. To Pegler, who asked if he had written the letters, he
said "I never engage in any discussions with Westbrook Pegler." To other
reporters who repeated Pegler's question, he said "I will not engage in any
discussion with any stooge of Westbrook Pegler." A reporter from the
*Washington Post* objected that she was no stooge of Pegler's, that she did
not agree with his columns, but that she thought Wallace should say whether
he wrote the letters or not. Wallace refused.

Finally, a well-known journalist asked Wallace, "Would you consider me a
Pegler stooge?" Everyone, including Wallace, laughed.

"No, Mr. Mencken," Wallace said. "I would never consider you anybody's
stooge."

Mencken continued, "Well, then, it's a simple question. We've all written
love letters in our youth that would bring a blush later on. There's no
shame in it. This is a question that all of us here would like to have
answered, so we can move on to weightier things."

"I will handle that in my own way and in my own time."

"But why? These things have no importance."

"Let's get on to something important."

"Why not now?" asked Mencken. "We are all here."

Wallace still would not answer. When Doris Fleeson said "some people
defended you and your actions in 1940 and 1944. You owe it to them to clear
up this matter," Wallace said he would--but not here.

(David Pietrusza, *1948: Harry Truman's Improbable Victory and the Year That
Transformed America,*, p. 257)

If Wallace would handle the issue that badly in 1944, the Democratic ticket
would be in serious trouble. I realize that usually the choice of vice-
president doesn't affect that many votes, but I believe this could have been
an exception (especially given the concerns about FDR's health). And that
1948 was not an aberration for Wallace on this issue is clear--he *never*
really owned up to the letters. As his sympathetic biographers, John C.
Culver and John Hyde, write in *American Dreamer: The Life and Times of
Henry A. Wallace*, p. 134:

"At least some of these mysterious letters were of questionable authenticity.
The typewritten letters, for example, contain spelling errors that would have
been uncharacteristic of Wallace. Wallace himself did what he could to muddy
the question of their authorship. When the letters almost became public
during the campaign of 1940, Wallace prepared a statement (never released)
flatly denying he wrote them. In 1948, when portions of the letters did
become public, Wallace contemptuously refused to talk about them at all.

"Several years later, in the oral history he gave to Columbia University,
Wallace offered a carefully hedged explanation of the letters. The so-called
guru letters, he said, consisted of 'unsigned, undated notes, which I knew I
had never sent to Nicholas Roerich, but there were a few letters addressed to
Nicholas Roerich signed by me and dated which were written in rather high-
flown language.'

"This was Wallace's only recorded comment on the guru letters, and it was
misleading at best. Many of the letters, as Wallace well knew, were not
addressed to the guru but to others around him, including Roerich's wife and
son and his chief assistant, Frances Grant. The authenticity of the
handwritten letters, as Wallace in effect acknowledged, was indisputable.
Even the typewritten letters comport, in tone and substance, with other
letters of a spiritual nature written by Wallace during the 1920s and
1930s." http://books.google.com/books?id=dvFxSQVSWm4C&pg=PA134

(5) It is true that a lot of delegates were in favor of Wallace's
renomination in 1944, and FDR had to intervene to prevent it. But I wonder
how many of the delegates knew about the letters? (I suppose some of them
may have heard gossip about them, but most delegates are not really political
insiders, and most people knew nothing about the letters until 1947.) In any
event, FDR's intervention, if not quite inevitable, was certainly very
likely; he knew that most of the pro-Wallace people would vote for him
anyway, and had to worry about swing voters.

(6) If FDR had to withdraw on grounds of health, Wallace would be the front-
runner, and Byrnes would be more or less a regional candidate, with little
chance to win the nomination. This does not necessarily mean Wallace would
get an outright majority, but if a compromise candidate were to be chosen--
and I don't know who it would be--it would almost certainly *not* have been
Truman. Maybe William O. Douglas as a somewhat less controversial (at the
time) liberal than Wallace?
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Rich Rostrom
2013-10-09 16:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Questions snipped.

Thanks much for the answers.
Post by David Tenner
(My own favorite version of what happened has FDR asking if
Wallace's relationship with Frances Grant was physical or metaphysical, and
on being told that it was purely spiritual, throwing up his hands and saying,
"we can handle sex but we can't handle religion"...)
_Snerk!_
Post by David Tenner
(4) There is of course a case to be made that Wallace could simply have said
that this happened years ago, that it was not important, etc. The problem is
perhaps not so much the letters themselves as the way Wallace would have
reacted to their revelation.
Yabbut that was when Wallace was leading his own
campaign. Suppose the letters came out when he's
still FDR's running mate (in 1940, or if he's not
dropped in 1944).

FDR's campaign staff is going to confront Wallace
and work up his response. FDR himself may lean on
Wallace to get compliance.

If Wallace is the Presidential nominee in 1944, then
he's on his own again - but he'll have a much stronger
staff than he did in OTL 1948; and the DNC leaders
will be on him too.
Post by David Tenner
Post by Rich Rostrom
I can't see Truman winning the nomination; it
would come down to Vice President Wallace against
"Assistant President" Byrnes, and Wallace would
IMHO carry the day.
President Dewey? Surely.
(5) It is true that a lot of delegates were in favor of Wallace's
renomination in 1944, and FDR had to intervene to prevent it. But I wonder
how many of the delegates knew about the letters?
Very few, I'm sure.
Post by David Tenner
(6) If FDR had to withdraw on grounds of health, Wallace would be the front-
runner, and Byrnes would be more or less a regional candidate, with little
chance to win the nomination.
Byrnes had a national reputation by this time.

My rationale is something like this:

Two weeks before the convention, FDR suffers
a public collapse and has to be hospitalized.
There's enough information released that pretty
much everyone agrees he can't run again.

Some Wallace supporters immediately start pushing
him for nominee. FDR hears about this and says
"OMG no! - we need someone who knows how to run
things - Jimmy Byrnes!" He endorses Byrnes covertly,
getting him the support of many insiders. But others
balk. Thus it becomes a horse race.

Wallace would I think win though.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2013-10-08 13:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by David Tenner
(1) It's really odd that if Truman betrayed FDR's legacy and Wallace sought
to uphold it,
Is it? FDR is one of the liberals' idols and for whatever reason they
dislike Truman. So, Truman must be disassociated from FDR to be smeared
freely and depicted as a maniac who ordered nuclear bombing without any
serious reason. The boring facts of life (like those you brought) are
neither here nor there in the Grand Picture.
Rich Rostrom
2013-10-09 17:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Is it? FDR is one of the liberals' idols and for whatever reason they
dislike Truman. So, Truman must be disassociated from FDR to be smeared
freely and depicted as a maniac who ordered nuclear bombing without any
serious reason.
It varies. Truman the civil rights champion (much
more so than FDR) is a liberal hero. Truman the
union supporter and New Deal advocate, likewise.

Truman the atomic bomber and anti-Communist, a
villain for the anti-ant-Communist and pacifist
far Left.

Fashions vary.

_The American Spectator_ is a right-wing magazine,
which would not be offended by description as
'mad dogs'. (They are combative, and also have a
sense of humor: they list "Solitary, Poor, Nasty,
Brutish, and SHort" as their legal counsel.)

A few years back, TAS had a favorable cover story
about Truman.

At the same time, others recall his demagogic and
unfounded personal attacks on Dewey in 1948.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
David Tenner
2013-10-09 21:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Is it? FDR is one of the liberals' idols and for whatever reason they
dislike Truman. So, Truman must be disassociated from FDR to be smeared
freely and depicted as a maniac who ordered nuclear bombing without any
serious reason.
It varies. Truman the civil rights champion (much
more so than FDR) is a liberal hero. Truman the
union supporter and New Deal advocate, likewise.
Truman the atomic bomber and anti-Communist, a
villain for the anti-ant-Communist and pacifist
far Left.
It has to be remembered that in 1948, Truman (until his upset victory) was
not really a hero to most liberals--even the anti-communist ones of the ADA
type, who launched futile attempts before the Democratic national convention
to replace him with Eisenhower (despite the absence of any real evidence
whether Ike was a liberal or a conservative) or William O. Douglas. Once
Truman was nominated, they knew they had to vote for him, but it was more as
the lesser evil than Dewey (Wallace was completely unacceptable, both beause
he couldn't win and because of the strong Communist influence on the
Progresive Party) than on his own merits. Many of them actually shared some
of Wallace's complaints about Truman, e.g., that he was replacing New Dealers
with cronies and conservative businessmen. And of course there was a
widespread belief across the political spectrum that he was politically
clumsy and couldn't win in November.

One of the few liberals who really defended Truman was David Lilienthal, who
wrote in his diaries in July:

"I am simply aghast at the unfair way in which President Truman is being
'judged,' if the current lynch-law atmosphere can be called 'judging'. And
the attitude of liberals and progressives, now whooping it up for Eisenhower
or Douglas, is the hardest to understand or to be other than damn mad about.

"Truman's *record* is that of a man who, facing problems that would have
strained and perhaps even floored Roosevelt at his best, has met these
problems head on in almost every case. The way he took on the aggressions of
Russia; the courage in calling a special session of an antagonistic Congress
controlled by the opposition to put through an extensive program for the
restoration of Europe; his civil rights program, upon which he hasn't welched
or trimmed--my God! What do these people want?

"If it is said that he wobbled on veterans' housing or Palestine or this or
that, did F.D.R. never wobble? Don't be funny; F.D.R. wobbled through the
Neutrality Act and Arms Embargo (isolation of the very worst and blindest
kind); he wobbled on economic matters all the time...

"Did F.D.R. ever stand up for public development of power, or human rights,
or labor, essentially any more firmly than Truman? And who knows what
Eisenhower would do on any of these issues! Bah!

"As for ultra-conservative appointments... who was it who put Forrestal and
Harriman and Lovett (about whom they complain, foolishly for the most part)
into public life in the first place but FDR himself?

"It is grossly unfair. They say the people want someone else; that the
people aren't for him. Well, who in the hell but the Southern extremists and
the perfectionist 'liberals' together have created the impression (eagerly
encouraged, of course, by the reactionaries and the Republicans) that the
people don't have confidence in him?

"That makes me mad and rather ill, these hounders of a real man."

http://books.google.com/books?id=grAgV8Dub_gC&pg=PA30
http://books.google.com/books?id=8fp1A2s6aQwC&pg=PA773
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
David Tenner
2013-10-09 23:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Is it? FDR is one of the liberals' idols and for whatever reason they
dislike Truman. So, Truman must be disassociated from FDR to be
smeared freely and depicted as a maniac who ordered nuclear bombing
without any serious reason.
It varies. Truman the civil rights champion (much
more so than FDR) is a liberal hero. Truman the
union supporter and New Deal advocate, likewise.
Truman the atomic bomber and anti-Communist, a
villain for the anti-ant-Communist and pacifist
far Left.
It has to be remembered that in 1948, Truman (until his upset victory)
was not really a hero to most liberals--even the anti-communist ones of
the ADA type, who launched futile attempts before the Democratic
national convention to replace him with Eisenhower (despite the absence
of any real evidence whether Ike was a liberal or a conservative) or
William O. Douglas.
BTW, the ADA liberals were not the only Democrats who, while not bolting,
were not terribly enthusiastic about Truman. A number of delegates at the
Democratic national convention wore buttons reading "I'm Just Mild About
Harry"...
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2013-10-10 12:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Is it? FDR is one of the liberals' idols and for whatever reason they
dislike Truman. So, Truman must be disassociated from FDR to be smeared
freely and depicted as a maniac who ordered nuclear bombing without any
serious reason.
It varies. Truman the civil rights champion (much
more so than FDR) is a liberal hero. Truman the
union supporter and New Deal advocate, likewise.
Truman the atomic bomber and anti-Communist, a
villain for the anti-ant-Communist and pacifist
far Left.
Stuff below is interesting but it is not exactly what I was talking about:
today's perceptions. AFAIK, modern American liberals do not value Truman
high, unlike FDR and JFK (well, he was young, cute, tall, sexy and young,
and cute .... In MA "Kennedy" is still enough to get you elected). By
whatever reason, LBJ (who was, as I heard, quite liberal) is not among
their icons either but Billy the Great is still is (I'll abstain from
commenting on our current Fearless leader).

For ideologically driven artist like Oliver Stone (I may not like
WHAT he was producing but artistic quality is there) saying bad things
about the 'bad guy' is natural: after all, the liberals (and to be fair
some of their opponents as well) are following the principle of the
socialist realism - one describes things as they SHOULD be not as
they are. :-)
Post by David Tenner
It has to be remembered that in 1948, Truman (until his upset victory) was
not really a hero to most liberals--even the anti-communist ones of the ADA
type, who launched futile attempts before the Democratic national convention
to replace him with Eisenhower (despite the absence of any real evidence
whether Ike was a liberal or a conservative) or William O. Douglas. Once
Truman was nominated, they knew they had to vote for him, but it was more as
the lesser evil than Dewey (Wallace was completely unacceptable, both beause
he couldn't win and because of the strong Communist influence on the
Progresive Party) than on his own merits. Many of them actually shared some
of Wallace's complaints about Truman, e.g., that he was replacing New Dealers
with cronies and conservative businessmen. And of course there was a
widespread belief across the political spectrum that he was politically
clumsy and couldn't win in November.
One of the few liberals who really defended Truman was David Lilienthal, who
"I am simply aghast at the unfair way in which President Truman is being
'judged,' if the current lynch-law atmosphere can be called 'judging'. And
the attitude of liberals and progressives, now whooping it up for Eisenhower
or Douglas, is the hardest to understand or to be other than damn mad about.
"Truman's *record* is that of a man who, facing problems that would have
strained and perhaps even floored Roosevelt at his best, has met these
problems head on in almost every case. The way he took on the aggressions of
Russia; the courage in calling a special session of an antagonistic Congress
controlled by the opposition to put through an extensive program for the
restoration of Europe; his civil rights program, upon which he hasn't welched
or trimmed--my God! What do these people want?
"If it is said that he wobbled on veterans' housing or Palestine or this or
that, did F.D.R. never wobble? Don't be funny; F.D.R. wobbled through the
Neutrality Act and Arms Embargo (isolation of the very worst and blindest
kind); he wobbled on economic matters all the time...
"Did F.D.R. ever stand up for public development of power, or human rights,
or labor, essentially any more firmly than Truman? And who knows what
Eisenhower would do on any of these issues! Bah!
"As for ultra-conservative appointments... who was it who put Forrestal and
Harriman and Lovett (about whom they complain, foolishly for the most part)
into public life in the first place but FDR himself?
"It is grossly unfair. They say the people want someone else; that the
people aren't for him. Well, who in the hell but the Southern extremists and
the perfectionist 'liberals' together have created the impression (eagerly
encouraged, of course, by the reactionaries and the Republicans) that the
people don't have confidence in him?
"That makes me mad and rather ill, these hounders of a real man."
http://books.google.com/books?id=grAgV8Dub_gC&pg=PA30
http://books.google.com/books?id=8fp1A2s6aQwC&pg=PA773
--
David Tenner
David Tenner
2013-10-11 01:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Stuff below is interesting but it is not exactly what I was talking
about: today's perceptions. AFAIK, modern American liberals do not value
Truman high, unlike FDR and JFK (well, he was young, cute, tall, sexy
and young, and cute .... In MA "Kennedy" is still enough to get you
elected). By whatever reason, LBJ (who was, as I heard, quite liberal)
is not among their icons either but Billy the Great is still is (I'll
abstain from commenting on our current Fearless leader).
For ideologically driven artist like Oliver Stone (I may not like
WHAT he was producing but artistic quality is there) saying bad things
about the 'bad guy' is natural: after all, the liberals (and to be fair
some of their opponents as well) are following the principle of the
socialist realism - one describes things as they SHOULD be not as
they are. :-)
The thing is that those people who are far enough to the left to share
Stone's views of Truman and Wallace (and plenty of liberals disagree with
Stone on them; it's pretty hard to call Sean Wilentz, who wrote a critique of
Stone in the New York Review of Books http://tinyurl.com/knwpctb a
conservative [1]) do not necessarily agree with him on JFK. To people like
the late Alexander Cockburn, JFK was just another imperialist, and the idea
that the right wing would conspire to murder him makes no sense:

***


COLUMN LEFT : Why Bother to Conspire Against J.F.K.? : Oliver Stone has
bought into the fascist fantasy that Kennedy was a father-leader-hero.

December 26, 1991|ALEXANDER COCKBURN | Alexander Cockburn writes for the
Nation and other publications.

Whether John F. Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin or by a conspiracy has
about as much to do with the subsequent contours of American politics as if
he had tripped over one of Caroline's dolls and broken his neck in the White
House nursery.

Many people think otherwise, reckoning that if it can be demonstrated that
the Warren Commission was wrong and Oswald not the lone killer, then we are
faced with the reality of a rightist conspiracy successfully engineered to
change the course of history.

Among them is Oliver Stone, who definitely adopts the view that a right-wing
conspiracy came to fruition on Nov. 22, 1963. He sets forth the motive of the
conspirators thus: "Kennedy was moving to end the Cold War and sign a nuclear
treaty with the Soviets; he would not have gone to war in Southeast Asia. He
was starting a back-door negotiation with Castro." And therefore there was
"the first 'coup d'etat' in America."

In "JFK," Stone leaves no doubt about the coup's sponsors. A sequence in
grainy black-and-white news film, presumably designed for extra 'verite,'
shows L.B.J. coordinating plans for the assassination with the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. So Stone has really made a $40-million equivalent of Barbara
Garson's 1960s satire, "MacBird," though Stone's model is a different
Shakespeare play.

As the Jim Garrison character says in the movie: "We have all become Hamlets
in our country, children of a slain father-leader whose killers still possess
the throne. The ghost of John Kennedy confronts us with the secret murder at
the heart of the American dream."

In its fascist yearning for the "father-leader" taken from the "children-
people" by conspiracy, this speech accurately catches the crippling nuttiness
of what passes in many radical circles for mature analysis and propaganda:
that virtue in government died at Dallas and that, ever since, a "secret
agenda" has perverted the national destiny.

With this demented optic, left ultimately joins hands with right. Just as the
right-wing populists and Birchers see a secret conspiracy--Bilderberg, the
Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, the bankers, the Jews--at the heart of
the state's proceedings, so too do many on what passes for the left, though
the ascribed nature of the conspirators sometimes differs. The assassination
of J.F.K. powerfully fueled this tendency. Many are the meetings I've
addressed on the open secrets and agenda of American capitalism in our time,
only to be lectured from the floor about the impossibility of an authentic
politics emerging in America until the conspiracy at Dallas is revealed.
Stone is tapping into a mother lode of historical paranoia.

"Get a life," Captain Kirk once told some Trekkies. Get some history, too.
Tom Wicker fretted in the New York Times that "in an era when mistrust of
government and loss of confidence in institutions (the press not least) are
widespread and virulent, such a suggestion (that representatives of the
ruling elites murdered J.F.K.) seems a dubious public service." In fact, the
dubious public service is to suggest that J.F.K. himself was not a functional
representative of those elites.

The real J.F.K. presided over a vast military buildup, backed a military coup
in Guatemala, denied the Dominican Republic the possibility of land reform,
helped promote a devastating cycle of Latin American history and backed a
Ba'athist coup in Iraq. J.F.K. presided over Operation Mongoose, inflicting
terror upon Cuba. Even as bullets brought J.F.K.'s life to its conclusion in
Dallas, a CIA officer operating firmly within the bounds of J.F.K.'s policy
was handing poison intended to assassinate Fidel Castro to a Cuban agent in
Paris.

Lawrence J. Bassett and Stephen Pelz wrote in the 1989 collection, "Kennedy's
Quest for Victory," that "by putting American advisers in harm's way . . . he
helped to engage American patriotism in a war against the Vietnamese people.
By arguing that Vietnam was a test of the West's ability . . . and a test of
American credibility in the Cold War, he raised the costs of withdrawal for
his successor."

J.F.K. sent in 16,000 advisers, sponsored the "strategic hamlet" program,
launched napalm and defoliation upon the South and covert terror and sabotage
upon the North. He never entertained the possibility of a negotiated
settlement.

Thomas Paterson, the editor of this same volume, put it well. History forces
us to "reckon with a past that has not always matched the selfless and self-
satisfying images Americans have of their foreign policy and of Kennedy as
their young, fallen hero who never had a chance. Actually, he had his chance,
and he failed."

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-12-26/local/me-1179_1_oliver-stone

***

Noam Chomsky takes a similar view:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199209--.htm

So bascally, (1) mainstream liberals tend not to agree with Stone on Truman
and Wallace, (2) the hard left (Cockburn and Chomsky) disagrees with him
about JFK, (3) in between there are doubtless some left-liberals who share
Stone's denunication of the anti-communist liberal Truman and worship of the
anti-communist liberal JFK, but this is hardly as ubiquitous a position on
the left as you seem to think.

[1] "Radosh, who grew up as a Red Diaper baby in Washington Heights and only
later turned to the right, thinks of himself as intimately familiar with the
'old stuff.' But fearing he might be dismissed as partisan, he insisted I
reach out to Sean Wilentz, a Princeton historian who, owing to his strident
defense of Bill Clinton during his impeachment hearings and to his 2006
Rolling Stone cover article on George W. Bush, 'The Worst President in
History?' is regarded as decidedly left-leaning. When I spoke to him, Wilentz
said: 'You can’t get two historians more unlike each other than me and Ronnie
Radosh. But we can agree about this. It’s ridiculous.' Wilentz was in the
middle of writing a review of Stone’s book. 'Always beware of books that
describe themselves as the untold history of anything, because it’s usually
been told before,' he said. 'It sets up this thing that there is some sort of
mysterious force suppressing the true facts, right? Glenn Beck does this all
the time. It’s the same thing here, except this is basically a very standard
left-wing, C.P., fellow traveler, Wallace-ite vision of what happened in
1945-46.' It’s not, Wilentz continued, that the questions raised aren’t worth
raising. 'Is there a legitimate argument to be made about the origins of our
nuclear diplomacy or the decision to build the H-bomb?' he said. 'Of course
there is. But it’s so overloaded with ideological distortion that this
question doesn’t get raised in an intelligent way. And once a question gets
raised in an unintelligent way, then you are off in cloud-cuckoo land.'"
http://tinyurl.com/cb5h8cs
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
The Horny Goat
2013-10-11 04:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 06:26:16 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
[]
Post by David Tenner
(1) It's really odd that if Truman betrayed FDR's legacy and Wallace sought
to uphold it,
Is it? FDR is one of the liberals' idols and for whatever reason they
dislike Truman. So, Truman must be disassociated from FDR to be smeared
freely and depicted as a maniac who ordered nuclear bombing without any
serious reason. The boring facts of life (like those you brought) are
neither here nor there in the Grand Picture.
Indeed - had the atomic bomb been available before FDR's death is
there any doubt he would have ordered its use? (Assuming Germany or
Japan didn't unexpectedly surrender first?)

Assuming FDR was well enough to be fully in command in early April
1945 when he received Ike's report on his trip to Ohrdruf which was
far from the worst of the camps I have little doubt he would have
ordered use of the atomic bomb.

Similarly I consider Ike's order after seeing the camps first-hand
quintessentially American. He ordered film crews into the camps saying
something to the effect that it was critical that all this be captured
on film lest someone in 40-50 years deny it ever happened.

No question there was a lot of anti-Japanese hatred during the war far
more so than anti-German and while some of it was racial, most was in
response to Pearl Harbor. Nonetheless, Americans had no trouble hating
in April 1945 when news of the camps became broadly known.

Besides - can you imagine what would be said in Congress had they
known the amounts that were spent on the Manhattan project, that the
bomb was available AND NOT USED? Particularly if the projected
casualties for Operation Olympic (the invasion of Kyushu in October
1945) actually occured?

I cannot conceive of any US president Republican or Democrat that
would have chosen not to drop the bomb. I know the United States did
not employ poison gas but this is a different issue entirely.
jerry kraus
2013-10-07 18:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
This is an interesting series (I've only seen the first and am
watching the second episode which is tellingly called "Roosevelt,
Wallace and Truman").
Stone is clearly a huge fan of Henry Wallace - one would wonder what
Stone would think of the For All Time timeline....
As expected I'm enjoying the filmi footage much of which I've never
seen before but am rolling my eyes at the interpretations.
There are some obvious errors that would make any SHWI regular giggle
- particularly his coverage of the Stalingrad campaign which Stone
believes was part of a drive on Baku. Somehow he thinks von Paulus
(sic - Paulus was no Junker) was in charge of both 6th Army AND 4th
Panzer Army.
Again - great photos (I'm watching the portion on Yalta now) though
clearly his political / historical conclusions vary from what most
mainstream historians (of the sort most SHWIers would respect) would
conclude about the era.
Did I say enough times that Stone is a big fan of Wallace?
Wallace was fascinating character. A self-made man, a scientific and business genius. Also, a near Communist, philosophically. Not that uncommon, at the time, by the way.

Did I ever post a what-if here, of what would have happened if Wallace had not been replaced by Truman? Interesting to speculate what a President Wallace might have done.

Of course, Churchill would never have permitted this. Mind you, Roosevelt didn't know that Churchill himself would be gone by the end of the war, turfed out by his own people as a right wing nut. What if Roosevelt had anticipated this?
Bill
2013-10-07 19:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:32:08 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Wallace was fascinating character. A self-made man, a scientific and business genius. Also, a near Communist, philosophically. Not that uncommon, at the time, by the way.
Did I ever post a what-if here, of what would have happened if Wallace had not been replaced by Truman? Interesting to speculate what a President Wallace might have done.
Of course, Churchill would never have permitted this.
How on earth would he have stopped it?
The Horny Goat
2013-10-08 13:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
Post by jerry kraus
Wallace was fascinating character. A self-made man, a scientific and business genius. Also, a near Communist, philosophically. Not that uncommon, at the time, by the way.
Did I ever post a what-if here, of what would have happened if Wallace had not been replaced by Truman? Interesting to speculate what a President Wallace might have done.
Of course, Churchill would never have permitted this.
How on earth would he have stopped it?
Excellent question - the last British general election had been in
1935 and the main reason there was no wartime election (Canada and
Australia both had two elections in the 1939-45 era though the
Canadian election of 1945 was in June i.e. after VE but before VJ day
though campaigning did take place before VE day.) was that Churchill
had made an agreement with Labour leaders that while there would not
be an election during the war, one would be held within 90 days of the
German surrender.

Can't remember the date but early in Churchill's rule - 1941 or 1942.
jerry kraus
2013-10-08 21:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:32:08 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Did I ever post a what-if here, of what would have happened if Wallace had not been replaced by Truman? Interesting to speculate what a President Wallace might have done.
Of course, Churchill would never have permitted this.
How on earth would he have stopped it?
Good Question. But, you have to understand the context. Churchill and Roosevelt were damn near homosexual lovers, their relationship was so close! The whole structure of the planet was largely being developed by these two men, alone, during the second world war. And Stalin was "the other woman", if you like. Wallace was a Russophile and anti-imperialist. If Wallace had become President, and Churchill had been reelected, the "special relationship" between Britain and the U.S. could have collapsed completely, with Wallace forming an alliance with Stalin, and Britain, once more, on its own, trying to salvage its foundering world empire.

Churchill's influence on U.S. politics at the time should not be underestimated. It was massive, at the very least through his close relationship with Roosevelt. If Churchill had made enough of a fuss, Roosevelt would likely have folded on the point. He certainly had folded before Churchill's tantrums on previous occasions.
Bill
2013-10-08 22:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:11:14 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:32:08 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Did I ever post a what-if here, of what would have happened if Wallace had not been replaced by Truman? Interesting to speculate what a President Wallace might have done.
Of course, Churchill would never have permitted this.
How on earth would he have stopped it?
Good Question. But, you have to understand the context. Churchill and Roosevelt were damn near homosexual lovers, their relationship was so close!
Did I just read what I think I did?
Post by jerry kraus
If Wallace had become President, and Churchill had been reelected, the "special relationship" between Britain and the U.S. could have collapsed completely,
And if my granny had wheels she'd be a cart.

To stick to the 'what if' rules, what's your single point of
departure for this incredible departure from history?
Post by jerry kraus
with Wallace forming an alliance with Stalin, and Britain, once more, on its own, trying to salvage its foundering world empire.
The UK had more or less decided to abandon its Far Eastern empire in
1936.

Eighteen months after the end of WWII South Asia (Which was the big
important bit) was gone.

Twenty years after WWII ended almost all of the rest of it was gone...
Post by jerry kraus
Churchill's influence on U.S. politics at the time should not be underestimated.
How?

He was out of power remember...
Post by jerry kraus
It was massive, at the very least through his close relationship with Roosevelt.
Who was dead...
Post by jerry kraus
If Churchill had made enough of a fuss, Roosevelt would likely have folded on the point. He certainly had folded before Churchill's tantrums on previous occasions.
Which point?

His vice presidential candidate?

Is there any proof that Churchill ever involved himself in the
internal politics of the USA?
jerry kraus
2013-10-09 18:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:11:14 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Is there any proof that Churchill ever involved himself in the
internal politics of the USA?
Of course not, Bill. Churchill had no effect on U.S. politics, anymore than Roosevelt had any effect on British politics. They're two different countries after all. How could they?

I was just joking.
Matt Giwer
2013-10-10 07:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:32:08 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Did I ever post a what-if here, of what would have happened if Wallace had not been replaced by Truman? Interesting to speculate what a President Wallace might have done.
Of course, Churchill would never have permitted this.
How on earth would he have stopped it?
Good Question. But, you have to understand the context. Churchill and Roosevelt were damn near homosexual lovers, their relationship was so close! The whole structure of the planet was largely being developed by these two men, alone, during the second world war. And Stalin was "the other woman", if you like. Wallace was a Russophile and anti-imperialist. If Wallace had become President, and Churchill had been reelected, the "special relationship" between Britain and the U.S. could have collapsed completely, with Wallace forming an alliance with Stalin, and Britain, once more, on its own, trying to salvage its foundering world empire.
Churchill's influence on U.S. politics at the time should not be underestimated. It was massive, at the very least through his close relationship with Roosevelt. If Churchill had made enough of a fuss, Roosevelt would likely have folded on the point. He certainly had folded before Churchill's tantrums on previous occasions.
Where did you get this FDR/Churchill relationship? Both Stalin and FDR
were quite pragmatic in recognizing Britain was an also ran in the war.
It has nothing but manpower to contribute to the war after D-Day and
then mainly with equipment made in America. FDR had deliberately
stripped Britain of every cash asset before instituting lend-lease
essentially bankrupting the country which was kept afloat by the US
only. And that was so bad that in the 1956 Egypt war Eisenhower was able
to tell both Britain and France to withdraw else he would make their
currencies worthless. Both were still trying to recover from the war
without colonies to pillage. Damned if he was going to let them have the
Suez as an asset.
--
An Iranian bomb is no greater threat than
Palestinian statehood.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4425
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Thu, Oct 10, 2013 3:28:09 AM
jerry kraus
2013-10-10 17:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Bill
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:32:08 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Where did you get this FDR/Churchill relationship? Both Stalin and FDR
were quite pragmatic in recognizing Britain was an also ran in the war.
It has nothing but manpower to contribute to the war after D-Day and
then mainly with equipment made in America. FDR had deliberately
stripped Britain of every cash asset before instituting lend-lease
essentially bankrupting the country which was kept afloat by the US
only. And that was so bad that in the 1956 Egypt war Eisenhower was able
to tell both Britain and France to withdraw else he would make their
currencies worthless. Both were still trying to recover from the war
without colonies to pillage. Damned if he was going to let them have the
Suez as an asset.
--
An Iranian bomb is no greater threat than
Palestinian statehood.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4425
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Thu, Oct 10, 2013 3:28:09 AM
Well, Matt, I rather had the impression that the U.S. and Britain worked pretty closely during the second world war. Certainly, Churchill and FDR were in much more regular contact than FDR and Stalin. Among other points, it was Churchill who put pressure on FDR to support Charles De Gaulle, and the rebuilding of France. FDR detested De Gaulle and saw France as a failed state. Without Churchill's influence, which was very considerable, France might not exist now. Which would certainly have been Stalin's preference, by the way!

The Eisenhower years are a completely different matter. By that time it was clear imperialism was kaput, and Britain was too big for her boots.
Bradipus
2013-10-10 17:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Among other points, it was Churchill who put pressure on FDR
to support Charles De Gaulle, and the rebuilding of France.
FDR detested De Gaulle and saw France as a failed state.
Without Churchill's influence, which was very considerable,
France might not exist now.  Which would certainly have been
Stalin's preference, by the way!
Please explain this oddity.
--
o o
Bill
2013-10-10 17:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bradipus
Post by jerry kraus
Among other points, it was Churchill who put pressure on FDR
to support Charles De Gaulle, and the rebuilding of France.
FDR detested De Gaulle and saw France as a failed state.
Without Churchill's influence, which was very considerable,
France might not exist now.  Which would certainly have been
Stalin's preference, by the way!
Please explain this oddity.
It's a very odd idea isn't it.

The only real issue with France was about who was going to run the
government in exile.

Everyone loathed De Gaulle because he was 'difficult', however he was
the only realistic candidate.

As for France not existing, it looks like Jerry has been at mummy's
cooking sherry again...

But I'd be interested in a 'what if' where France could be made to
disappear between 1939 and 1945...
jerry kraus
2013-10-10 18:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
But I'd be interested in a 'what if' where France could be made to
disappear between 1939 and 1945...
I'm going to tell you a secret Bill. France did disappear between 1940 and 1944. Effectively, anyway. Don't tell anyone though. It'll be our little secret.
Bill
2013-10-10 22:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Bill
But I'd be interested in a 'what if' where France could be made to
disappear between 1939 and 1945...
I'm going to tell you a secret Bill. France did disappear between 1940 and 1944. Effectively, anyway. Don't tell anyone though. It'll be our little secret.
Well, no it didn't.

The situation was probably more complex than you can comprehend, but
France, as a country, did exist.
Matt Giwer
2013-10-10 07:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerry kraus
Post by The Horny Goat
This is an interesting series (I've only seen the first and am
watching the second episode which is tellingly called "Roosevelt,
Wallace and Truman").
Stone is clearly a huge fan of Henry Wallace - one would wonder what
Stone would think of the For All Time timeline....
As expected I'm enjoying the filmi footage much of which I've never
seen before but am rolling my eyes at the interpretations.
There are some obvious errors that would make any SHWI regular giggle
- particularly his coverage of the Stalingrad campaign which Stone
believes was part of a drive on Baku. Somehow he thinks von Paulus
(sic - Paulus was no Junker) was in charge of both 6th Army AND 4th
Panzer Army.
Again - great photos (I'm watching the portion on Yalta now) though
clearly his political / historical conclusions vary from what most
mainstream historians (of the sort most SHWIers would respect) would
conclude about the era.
Did I say enough times that Stone is a big fan of Wallace?
Wallace was fascinating character. A self-made man, a scientific and business genius. Also, a near Communist, philosophically. Not that uncommon, at the time, by the way.
Did I ever post a what-if here, of what would have happened if Wallace had not been replaced by Truman? Interesting to speculate what a President Wallace might have done.
Of course, Churchill would never have permitted this. Mind you, Roosevelt didn't know that Churchill himself would be gone by the end of the war, turfed out by his own people as a right wing nut. What if Roosevelt had anticipated this?
Actually FDR was more kissy-kissy with the mass murderer Stalin. It is
actually sort of odd he did not embrace Wallace save maybe seeing him as
serious competition for the office.
--
If there is a jewish people independent of religion
then the Palestinians are Jews.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4420
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Thu, Oct 10, 2013 3:25:36 AM
Matt Giwer
2013-10-10 07:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
This is an interesting series (I've only seen the first and am
watching the second episode which is tellingly called "Roosevelt,
Wallace and Truman").
Stone is clearly a huge fan of Henry Wallace - one would wonder what
Stone would think of the For All Time timeline....
As expected I'm enjoying the filmi footage much of which I've never
seen before but am rolling my eyes at the interpretations.
There are some obvious errors that would make any SHWI regular giggle
- particularly his coverage of the Stalingrad campaign which Stone
believes was part of a drive on Baku. Somehow he thinks von Paulus
(sic - Paulus was no Junker) was in charge of both 6th Army AND 4th
Panzer Army.
Again - great photos (I'm watching the portion on Yalta now) though
clearly his political / historical conclusions vary from what most
mainstream historians (of the sort most SHWIers would respect) would
conclude about the era.
Did I say enough times that Stone is a big fan of Wallace?
Look forward to being disappointed. The closer it gets to modern times
the more it is an obvious rehash of old news. Thus one suspects the
first two eps were once a similar rehash.
--
Hodie sexto Idus Novembres MMXIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a17
Thu, Oct 10, 2013 3:12:54 AM
Matt Giwer
2013-10-10 07:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
This is an interesting series (I've only seen the first and am
watching the second episode which is tellingly called "Roosevelt,
Wallace and Truman").
Stone is clearly a huge fan of Henry Wallace - one would wonder what
Stone would think of the For All Time timeline....
As expected I'm enjoying the filmi footage much of which I've never
seen before but am rolling my eyes at the interpretations.
There are some obvious errors that would make any SHWI regular giggle
- particularly his coverage of the Stalingrad campaign which Stone
believes was part of a drive on Baku. Somehow he thinks von Paulus
(sic - Paulus was no Junker) was in charge of both 6th Army AND 4th
Panzer Army.
Again - great photos (I'm watching the portion on Yalta now) though
clearly his political / historical conclusions vary from what most
mainstream historians (of the sort most SHWIers would respect) would
conclude about the era.
Did I say enough times that Stone is a big fan of Wallace?
By which I meant to say the more you know about the actual events,
those you lived through or which were current in your lifetime, the more
they look like a presentation limited so as to produce an episode on the
general theme. Not a damn thing I lived through could EVER be described
as hidden. It isn't even unacknowledged history.

If I were doing hidden history I would cover all of Britain's open and
clandestine efforts to get the US into WWII. If I really wanted to do a
"Stone" as with JFK I would leave it with the implication the US would
have let Britain sink without those efforts.
--
What shape were women's bodies before
the hourglass was invented?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4422
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Thu, Oct 10, 2013 3:15:57 AM
Loading...