quote:So let's see. There's nothing to back up the statement that American sentiment in the 1930s and early 40s was against involvement in WWII across the board, huh?
You didn't offer any with your post.
Actually, as I read your response, I see no statistical breakdown between liberal interests and conservative ones.
My post identified "left leaning" newspapers with being critical of isolationism.
quote:Gradually Congress permitted embargoes to be lessened. But it took time.
Much of your argument centers on pitting Roosevelt against Congress. Which party was in the majority at that time? (I confess I'm not able to find a breakdown.)
quote:One of the most remarkable episodes in American history was the spontaneous and widespread opposition to Franklin Roosevelt's obvious attempts to embroil the United States in the European war that broke out in 1939. That opposition was centered in the America First Committee. In modern accounts of the war period, the committee is either ignored or maligned as a pro-fascist, anti-Semitic organization. It was nothing of the kind.
Spontaneous and widespread, Glenn. And a bunch of college students, no less.
Pardon, but your quote backs up my previous statement that Roosevelt was accused of trying to get us into the war. As to college students, you're talking about a time when college students were a very distinct subgroup, being largely the sons of the very wealthy. Again, what evidence do you provide that any of these college students were left of center? No breakdown at all.
quote:“In the United States the German Embassy, under the direction of Hans Thomsen, the chargé d’affaires, was spending every dollar it could lay its hands on to support the isolationists in keeping America out of the war and thus discourage Britain from continuing it” (Shirer 747). Thomsen put particular effort into the party conventions occurring in 1940. He tried influencing both parties to include anti-war planks, especially the Republicans (748). According to German papers captured after their defeat, a Republican Congressman was paid $3,000 “to invite fifty isolationist Republican Congressmen to the Republican convention ‘So that they may work on the delegates in favor of an isolationist foreign policy’”.
As to Sargent Shriver, Norman M Thomas, and Gore Vidal, you're arguing by example, which is a fallacy. Would you care to bring your argument to exhaustion?
Of course, " the statement that American sentiment in the 1930s and early 40s was against involvement in WWII across the board" merely states the obvious. Most people are against war in general, which is as it should be. But isolationist rhetoric did tend to come from conservatives, and criticism of that rhetoric did tend to come from liberals.
Also, do you have a particular reason for the repeated use of my given name? It has a strong flavor of ad hominem.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What centrist democrats? The only quotations opposing "anti-Bush tactics" there are from one guy, who isn't any sort of politician, much less a member of Congress. They don't even mention the name of a member of Congress who agrees. Furthermore, the guy works for a think tank, so his job is to say provocative things.
I suggest you take your own advice and read the article next time.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My post identified "left leaning" newspapers with being critical of isolationism.
No it didn't.
quote:So to put the cartoon in perspective: If the characters in the boat are Americans, they should be republicans, because that was who was making these kinds of arguments at the time.
&
Oddly enough, prior to WWII, it was the liberals like Dr. Seuss that argued in favor of entering the war.
Are among the things you actually said. You didn't go into specifics, either. You spoke in vague generalities constructed to imply that liberals=anti-isolationism and conservatives=pro-isolationism.
You actually cited individuals when you were specific at all, but you were implying generalities. So...I spoke as you did, really.
As for using your given name...well, I didn't even know it was your given name, really. I just know it's the name that comes up next to all of your posts. Usually that's the name I use when I'm talking to people on Hatrack. As for repetition, that's due to the fact that I started and stopped frequently. Had to help remove Christmas decorations, after all. But the flavor comes from your palette, not my...umm...spicing? To try and stick with the culinary wording.
But if you want specifics, I've had difficulties finding breakdowns, too. Until I remembered Wikipedia. Seems a good resource for this sort of thing.
Your statements about who was for and against isolationism are wrong. It was Democrats and not Republicans who maintained control over the White House and the Senate (and I believe the Congress as well, although I haven't counted everything for the House of course).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: My post identified "left leaning" newspapers with being critical of isolationism.
No it didn't.
Rakeesh, I see your problem Rakeesh. You see, Rakeesh, you just can't read, Rakeesh.
quote: quote:During World War Two, Geisel wrote editorial cartoons from the pages of the left-leaning New York newspaper PM that scathingly criticized Naziism, Fascism, American isolationism
[/rakeesh style smugness]
Oh, and thanks for providing the breakdown of Congress. Now turn you attention to the actual argument.
Getting back you to your original accusation:
You claim my post demonstrates my bias, as if I came up with the idea myself. As I said in my last post, I didn't pull this idea out of a hat. All I needed to do was show that this "bias" has been around longer than me to debunk that idea. Done.
You accuse me of labeling the "sentiment against involvement in the war" as being Republican. No, I accused Republicans of being isolationist, and using the kind or rhetoric in the cartoon in order to defend their economic interests. Prescott Bush comes to mind.
And that's the real point. It's not who was for or against the war. It's the reasoning behind it.
And BTW, you completely missed the bit about Yamomoto, who did make such statements, except they weren't empty rhetoric.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't always necessary to come up with an idea yourself to prove that there is bias...bias works just as well in what you choose to believe, even which examples of what sources to cite.
Not that I am claiming it is bias in this case....I just thought that that was an imortant point to make.
quote:Rakeesh, I see your problem Rakeesh. You see, Rakeesh, you just can't read, Rakeesh.
Ohhh! Zinger! You sure showed me. My skin is still tinging from that electronic trouncing! Or maybe that's just static shock from the computer. Because actually, now that I look back, I see that I used your name twice in a paragraph only once. That was twice in two sentences, yes, and it was unnecessary. But it was an accident, and not meant to be insulting, as I explained. Other than that, I used it to begin the post, and then after quotes and links, seperated by blocks of quote and links.
So if you're going to be a whiny jackass, let's just be clear what it is you're actually whining about: a non-malicious mistake for which I apologized. The past-tense on that is entirely appropriate now though, because any regret for my mistake has evaporated.
This is the entirety of your original post to which I responded.
quote:What I find ironic about this cartoon is that this kind of rhetoric did occur both before and after Pearl Harbor - but it came from the conservatives, who saw the war as a danger to american economic interests.
Today rhetoric rests on the same fulcrum point, except that industry sees the control of oil as being in "America's best interest." In fact, the logic behind an unprovoked attack is remarkably similar to the logic the Japanese used to justify the attack against Pearl Harbor.
So to put the cartoon in perspective: If the characters in the boat are Americans, they should be republicans, because that was who was making these kinds of arguments at the time. But more accurately, the characters in the boat should be Japanese, such as Yamomoto, who recognized that a war with America could not be limited to the issues the Japanese wanted to fight about.
Oddly enough, prior to WWII, it was the liberals like Dr. Seuss that argued in favor of entering the war.(italicization mine)
Your original post makes plain the general point that prior to WWII, it was conservatives generally who were in favor of isolationism, and liberals who opposed it. That was my original point. As for who came up with the wrongheaded idea you posted-and I'm confused now, is it just a thought you were putting out there that wasn't yours?-it was that idea I was primarily addressing.
You posted an idea that it was the Republicans who were more Isolationist than the Democrats prior to WWII. (Actually, conservatives and liberals). This idea was flat-out wrong. Democrats maintained control of the White House and the Congress from the 30s through the end of WWII.
quote:And that's the real point. It's not who was for or against the war. It's the reasoning behind it.
You didn't make that very clear in your first post. Especially the part at the end where you say that it's liberals who opposed isolationism. You used the plural there. Your only real meat there was a single man.
The fact of the matter-nice try backepdaling and dodging, by the way, can you even see your original post from all the way back there?-is that isolationism in America prior to WWII was across the board. This fact is one which you argued against in your original post, in general and in particular.
Oh, and I used your name only once this time. Is that better? I certainly wouldn't want to offend. Let me know if I have. Or just stop being so hypersensitive. That'd probably save you more trouble.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Oh, and as for the first part of your post, when I said, "No, it didn't," I misspoke. I was not specific enough. I should have said, "No, it didn't. Your original post implied much more than that," rather than saying, "No, it didn't," as though it were never mentioned at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
