Parallels
The other night I watched "The Perilous Fight" on pbs. It was very good. It told the story of WW2, mostly with color footage from the era.
The first part of it covered the build up to the war. The parallels with today were everywhere.
One thing I didn't know is that we had several ships attacked, and two sunk, by German U-boats, prior to Pearl Harbor. Several hundred Americans died in the attacks. FDR was making speeches that "America's sons will not die in Europe's wars". There were several anti-war groups opposing US intervention, including the American Communist Party, and American Nazi Party. They showed the Nazi training that went on during the German Historic Society field trips in New Jersey. Many members of congress came out against getting into the war.
It really makes you think what a difference a strong leader makes, and how history will remember that leader, compared to how he is thought of by his contemporaries.
The first part of it covered the build up to the war. The parallels with today were everywhere.
One thing I didn't know is that we had several ships attacked, and two sunk, by German U-boats, prior to Pearl Harbor. Several hundred Americans died in the attacks. FDR was making speeches that "America's sons will not die in Europe's wars". There were several anti-war groups opposing US intervention, including the American Communist Party, and American Nazi Party. They showed the Nazi training that went on during the German Historic Society field trips in New Jersey. Many members of congress came out against getting into the war.
It really makes you think what a difference a strong leader makes, and how history will remember that leader, compared to how he is thought of by his contemporaries.
posted by Exador at
6:25 PM
4 Comments:
This is what is known in the biz as a bad analogy. Where is this strong leader of which you speak? 20-odd guys in a stolen jet attacking a civilian target for the purpose of terror is somehow equivalent to a nation sending its air force to a military base to wipe out a big chunk of the Pacific navy at one fell swoop? I don't see it working on anything but the most superficial level.
By
bridgett, at 6:19 PM
Bridgett,
I can always count on you to defend the commies.
You leftists just can't get your mind around an enemy if they don't call themselves a country. I thought you guys hated nationalism.
Your 20-odd guys were part of a loose organization that's been attacking us for 25 years. But you already knew that.
By
Exador, at 4:58 AM
I'm not defending commies or Al Qaida. (By the way, Al Qaida isn't communist by any stretch of the imagination. Communism doesn't equal "any political organization Exador doesn't like" and it certainly doesn't equal a trans-state (not non-state) Islamic fundamentalist outfit.) What I'm saying is that the strike on 9/11 was aimed at a civilian target -- not a military target. And that killing 3000 stockbrokers and office workers, no matter how tragic that was, isn't really close to being the same as severely damaging the Pacific Navy. On 9/12, our military was still fully functional and could be mobilized to go tear hell out of Afghanistan. (And they did so shortly thereafter.) On Dec. 8, 1941, our Pacific fleet was in a hell of a mess and the US had difficulty effectively mobilizing to retaliate.
It's really not the same thing at all.
By
bridgett, at 11:21 AM
I agree with everything in your last post, but I fail to see your point.
Also, Osama considered the 911 attacks to be military targets. The pentagon is easy, but he said that those stockbrokers and office workers support our military with their taxes, so they are legitimate targets. Of course he considers anybody who doesn't support his plan for an Islam-controlled world to be a legitimate target.
By
Exador, at 5:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home