I'm on my way out of town and don't know if I will have a wireless connection where i am going, and so I might not be able to post for a few days, but Choisya, I want to address the matter of comparing or weighing suffering for a moment. Compared to children who had to stay in the cities, mine was minor. For instance, until almost the end of the war bombers only flew over the Black Forest and we children at times enjoyed the companionship we found in the shelter at night. We played games; I was proud to be able to sleep in a bunk bed with others. And I did have my mother. When I read some of the accounts of the children in Guernsey who often were sent to England without family accompanying them, and when I heard that people in Guernsey were desperately awaiting emergency food supplies, I was humbled. And even now, I have to take a deep breath when I read about the atrocities inflicted on Jews. And you, a couple of years older than I. and probably more aware, must have endured more fear than I did. All in all I think suffering is relative when looked at from the outside, but suffering, fear, pain are uniquely amplified in my mind when they are inflicted on any one child, no matter where. A child should NEVER be on the receiving end of, what do they call it now, collateral damage!
Choisya wrote:
As for complacency on the American coast may be compared to our lives as we know it today. How many of us remember a day when the skies over our own country were a source of fear as planes were used as bombs? Most of us remember.There is a vast difference between being at war with a declared enemy whose bomber pilots are overhead every night and whose armies are only 22 miles away and being under attack by the odd suicide bomber. I narrowly missed being in Russell Square, where I had a meeting, on the day of the London tube bombings but the threat I felt then was nothing like the threat I felt every day and night during the war. At the age of 7 I watched a nearby town where relatives lived being bombed, at 8 I was in another town when that was bombed, at 10 I canoed down a river with my father when bombs were dropping behind us and at 11 a bomb dropped in the next door neighbour's garden. Meanwhile hundreds, sometimes thousands, were being killed by bombing all over Europe, which bears no comparison with Iraq or Afghanistan. I also worked in London during the 20 years of the IRA bombings and was very close to many incidents, including a Member of Parliament (Airey Neave) being blown up in his car at the House of Commons but they were random incidents and not comparable with my wartime experiences, which were ongoing for six years. In wartime you do not become complacent because horrid events are frequent, daily even; after terrorist attacks you become more complacent because they are few and far between. In wartime you face a daily struggle to survive, after terrorist attacks life soon returns to normal.I would also like to say at this point how humbled I am by Sunltcloud's experiences of the war. My own fade into insignificance compared with her tales of being bombed, turned out of her home and being hungry enough to steal bread from a trash can. Although people in London (and elsewhere, like Coventry) suffered severe bombing and displacement, they were quickly found homes by the authorities and there was no real hunger during the war, just rationing. Indeed, the generations who grew up on wartime rations are now the healthiest we have ever had and are living to great old age! Nor were the British occupied by a brutal foreign force, which can be the biggest and most long lasting trauma of war. Our 'bravery' was therefore nothing compared with those on mainland Europe who suffered much more than we did. (And nothing at all compared to the suffering of the Jews....)
Sherry_Young wrote:
Frankie thinks proudly of how Londoners "can't help" but go about their lives as they usually do, and at the same time is furious at how American's go about their own ordinary lives without any impact from the war abroad. What makes ordinary life bravery on one coast and complacency on the other? Are you furious at the Americans with Frankie? How does Frankie bridge the distance between the two countries full of people going through their daily lives during war?
The Londoners continued going about their daily routines of life, but it is not ordinary life. How is it ordinary to spend your nights huddled in a bomb shelter or an Underground station trying to sleep only to leave the shelter hoping to find your home intact? Is it ordinary to go to work or school through a city ravaged by bombs and fire? This is what makes the Londoners daily routines filled with bravery. As for complacency on the American coast may be compared to our lives as we know it today. How many of us remember a day when the skies over our own country were a source of fear as planes were used as bombs? Most of us remember. Yet how many of us know how much of what is going on this week in Iraq or Afghanistan? Do we know of the soldiers who have been wounded or killed by a bomb? Do we know of the innocent lives shed by a suicide bombing? We have much more media access and yet we tend to ignore these stories if the media hasn't already ignored them for us. Why have we become so complacent when our homeland was attacked just a few years ago? Time passes and the literal distance allows us to distance ourselves from this war. In the same way, the characters in the book have not experienced anything to make them feel they should take a stand. They are complacent because the do not feel the danger. Time passes and the distance makes the war in Europe seem like light years away. Only Frankie's voice gives them a sense that something is happening, but almost like it is a fairy tale in a land far, far away. Frankie does bridge the gap a bit when her reporting becomes more personal to her. The story of Billy's mother and Harriet carries more emotion across the ocean and she does strike a chord with Americans.
Were the people in the States during World War II complacent? I remember hearing relatives talk about listening to the radio. They were very much afraid of Hitler and the possible consquences of his rampages. Did they take it personally and to heart? I think there was a slightly isolationist feeling at that time, maybe because of the horrors of World War I. That feeling was dispelled after Pearl Harbor when young Americans went to war to defend the United States and to save the rest of the world from occupation.
I think there was a greater awareness amongst the Jewish population because they knew what was happening to their relatives in Europe. Unfortunately, because of the strong racial prejudice which existed at that time on both sides of the Pond, their lobbying of our governments was not heeded soon enough, so thousands died who could have been saved
Young Americans did not go to war to 'save the rest of the world from occupation', they went to war to defend the US and to help to fight the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Far East. Europe, except for Britain, was already occupied by 1941 and when the Germans invaded Russia in 1941, thereby bringing Russia into the war, Hitler's expansionist programme was halted. From then on the Allies, which included Britain and its Commonwealth troops, Russians, Chinese, Brazilians, the Free French, the Free Poles and quite a few other nationalities, as well as America, set about liberating Europe and fighting the war in the Far East against Japan. These tables of casualties during WWII are very salutary, giving as they do the total losses of the Allies, the Third Reich and the Russians, who lost 26 million people, far more than any other nation (and 65% of all military casualties). .
ssizemore wrote:I have been trying to digest this section of The Postmistress in order to put into words all of the thoughts I have. I find this book to be both timely and timeless. The descriptions of the radio coverage of World War II bring back films I have seen of that era. This would have been the first war when there was information, albeit censored, to come quickly to the American public. In earlier wars, the news came belatedly in newspaper coverage and was far less detailed. I then think about my college years when the war in Viet Nam came into our livingrooms nightly on television. Another war in a far off land, but the familiar sight (unfortunately) of flag draped caskets being removed from planes. And now we see the same coverage of Americans losing their lives and bombs exploding in another land which we can only imagine from television.
Were the people in the States during World War II complacent? I remember hearing relatives talk about listening to the radio. They were very much afraid of Hitler and the possible consquences of his rampages. Did they take it personally and to heart? I think there was a slightly isolationist feeling at that time, maybe because of the horrors of World War I. That feeling was dispelled after Pearl Harbor when young Americans went to war to defend the United States and to save the rest of the world from occupation.
The Viet Nam War was also more personal. During my years on college, there were draft card burnings, draft notices and lotteries, and officer training that was to help you survive the conflict. Yes, that was personal, as my future husband was to go after college. We were horrified at the films, distressed by the stories of prisoner of war and then full scale protest broke out causing a division in the thoughts of many Americans.
We have come a long way from the gathering of families around a radio to hear a familiar voice recount the news of the war in Europe. We now have 24 hour coverage and the sinking feeling that we are not doing well in this conflict or in the protection of our nation from further terrorism. I have heard a report that many young soldiers today express their desire to join the military as a consquence of 9/11. Again the war is very personal and the stakes are high.
I can't help but read this book knowing that our future role in the war in the Middle East is being debated. We all have opinions now (but not answers) as a result of the news coverage with which we are bombarded constantly. It seems so relevant to think about the people of my parents' generation, their thoughts as they saw their nation being drawn into war and the lessons that we cannot seem to learn.
Thanks for choosing this book! I am anxious to read the next section and see what happens to our characters. Sandy
I mean no disrespect but I don't think everyone would decline to help. Sometimes people do rise to the occasion. I am reminded of Israel's massive effort to save the Ethiopian Jews, in addition to the efforts of other's over the years. I myself, contributed an awful lot of money to that cause because once again, a price was put on the head's of Jews. A massive effort to save the Jews was made by the Jews themselves and Israel.
'Sometimes' yes, TWJ but the world's problems could, in fact, be solved by the world's people if every one of us helped. Even if everyone made a resolution to buy one item of food - tea, coffee, chocolate - from Fairtrade every week, it would make a massive difference but they don't. Most didn't help the Jews and most don't help starving Africans
BTW, do you think it was a good thing for Israel just to save the Ethiopian Jews? Surely people, especially children, of all creeds were in desperate need at that time? (Sir) Bob Geldorf's song and campaign 'Feed the World' also raised a great deal of money for this cause. The song reached the top of the charts at Christmas 1984 on both sides of the Pond and sold over 3 million copies, raising $70,000 worth of food and medical supplies which Geldorf personally took to Ethiopia to make sure aid got there.
thewanderingjew wrote:
I mean no disrespect but I don't think everyone would decline to help. Sometimes people do rise to the occasion. I am reminded of Israel's massive effort to save the Ethiopian Jews, in addition to the efforts of other's over the years. I myself, contributed an awful lot of money to that cause because once again, a price was put on the head's of Jews. A massive effort to save the Jews was made by the Jews themselves and Israel.
Briefly, according to my limited knowledge, America had no treaties with any nation which would make them enter the war; the war was improving the economy since we were providing ships and weapons for our allies. We were removed from the horror of it and general information was limited, although letters, short wave radios and emissaries were sent here with information. They preferred to "disbelieve", if i may coin my own term.
By the time America entered the war, our allies were broke from fighting it. Our government was well aware of some of the atrocities being committed in Europe. FDR's Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, refused entry to Jews on the basis of not favoring one group over another. Japan bombed America, not Germany.
Perhaps it was politics as usual. The consensus of Americans was stay out of harm's way. It kind of reminds me of today, quite frankly. Sometimes, we don't stop to see the forest for the trees.Bonnie824 wrote:I see what your mom was saying though Patricia. We see the same things here now when we hear about genocides in Africa or civil wars in central/south america. Even as horrible as the idea of not letting the people immigrate into safe countries as refugees seem, I can imagine if we were given that choice now to take millions of people as refugees, we would decline.
