Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



TiggerBear wrote:
True TiggerBear..you should join us in MY EARLY LIFE; not to respond to you in lieu of Choisya who I know will see your posting and respond herself.
-------------------------------------------------------
Hmm well I'm still lurking trying to decide if I want to read the book. It's not my typical read.

But I've been enjoying everyone's thoughts so far.




If you like the discussions, you will probably like the book. You don't have to lurk.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR (Mitsuo Fuchida) TIMBUKTU AS PROMISED

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



Choisya wrote:
I remember asking my father if Churchill was a great man. His reply "He was great for England". Do you understand that answer? It implies that somehow he wasn't that great for the US. I have no idea what he meant but he was generally very astute about politics and history so I'm still wondering...
 
I expect he would have meant that he persuaded Roosevelt to enter the war and the war cost America a great deal in terms and men and money.  Churchill had persuaded Roosevelt to ask Congress for money a couple of years before Pearl Harbour made it more inevitable that the US would enter the war.  Mind you, we paid it back with good interest and American arms manufacturers made millions out of the war so perhaps your Dad worried unnecessarily - except about the loss of American servicemen.  
 


bentley wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote:
I think the issue of THE BOMB makes a lot of sense. It changed our thinking about war.

I didn't mean to imply that on a conscious level parents decide their children are expendible. Although that is going on in the mideast today. Yasser Arafat used to tell Palestinian women to have l2 sons so that they can sacrifice most of them for the cause. What I was getting at was a root cause for an ethos. But demographics were the cause India and China would be the most warlike nations, so obviously there's more at work here.

I think in retrospect getting into WWII seems easier than it was. After all, we were never attacked by Germany and until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor Roosevelt could not gather sympathy for war. I know there were rallies of America Firsters and generally Americans are not pro-war.
I hear that Pat Buccanan has just come out with a book saying that it was our fault that Hitler did what he did.

Churchill was certainly the right man at the right time!

Can I ask you a question? You have so much information on Churchill and I have almost none. I remember asking my father if Churchill was a great man. His reply "He was great for England". Do you understand that answer? It implies that somehow he wasn't that great for the US. I have no idea what he meant but he was generally very astute about politics and history so I'm still wondering...




Yes, these long range missiles change a lot; and nuclear power could mean the end of the world for extremists who believe that the hereafter is more glorious than the here and now and more fulfilling for them and everyone else.

Yes, it is going on in the Middle East today; one sacrifices their life so the remainder get martyr perks. That is the kind of thinking which is the most dangerous to counter. Countries and enemies without structured armies; now just cells out there ready to go off.

Because of Japan, we were then ready for war; the decision had been made for us.

Does Buchanan mean that we should have done something sooner; I think that is true the world over; a lot of people knew what was going on at least to a small extent and what they are all saying now is that it was all a secret; when whole communities disappear where does everyone think they are going. I would certainly expect the worst if all of the neighbors on the even side of the street were taken off into the night as hostages. I wouldn't be able to imply that I never suspected that these folks were in trouble and go on with my life as if nothing happened. Many did help out and at great peril to themselves on an individual level; but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.

I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.

China and places like India/Pakistan are scary in a way; because they do not value life or each other and see people as expendable. Conducting a war and losing many would not affect them as much due to this philosophy on life's worth and humanity.

Churchill was great for England; he was also a great man period; maybe some of Churchill's party politics may have not been in agreement with your Dad; maybe he thought that the English people much as they queue up to take a bus were more apt to respond to the temperament and dynamics of a Churchill where maybe here in America we need things to be more expedient and more self gratifying; I am not sure not knowing your Dad or what he felt he wanted to gain from his government. My father revered Churchill and thought he was a dynamo; which he was.

I think it would be great to have someone so imperturbable sitting handling the daily affairs and steadily checking them off and getting them done. It could have been that Churchill came off as a Sir Winston to your Dad and maybe he felt that he might be unapproachable. When folks really got to know him on a personal level they really felt that they had made a loyal friend for life.

Well I love the guy; so I am not the best person to ask I guess.

Bentley







Choisya,

I just want to say how much I appreciate your educating all of us. Everything you've said has the ring of such truth. It's almost word for word what my father would say and I think there's a reason for that. You lived through it. Every generation re-writes history, like it or not. I know with my own son, as bright as he is, as much as he thinks he understands, he doesn't quite "get it". It's hard to explain what another time was like. Every generation seems to pick and choose what it needs from the past and that becomes their reality. Only it's not real.

I don't want to offend anyone but I think it's offensive to compare what went on in England to 9/ll. Or Pearl Harbor. It's just not comparable. It feels disrespectful to equate the two. After 9/ll we were told to go out and shop to keep the economy going. Thanks to what the government has done, we have not been attacked since. I think most people in the US are very complacent, we have had to sacrifice almost nothing and we feel generally safe. It's almost as though it never happened and there is no threat.

I'm sure in a few years this time will be re-interpreted to fit the present perceptions. I only hope that I will be able to convey, as clearly as you, what the reality was like. Thank you.
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

Just discovered that in five months in l940, 22,000 civilians were killed in London.
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

I just heard an interview with an aide of his during the war. He said every day he'd have champagne at lunch, followed by brandy. After his nap (no wonder he took a nap!) he'd sip watered down whiskey all day. At dinner more champagne, followed by more brandy.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

[ Edited ]
Bentley wrote:
but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.
 
'What countries were thinking' was part of the anti-semitism of the time, of all time!:smileysad: There were many people in both our nations who agreed with Hitler's views on the Jews, particularly in the upper-classes and it is to Churchill's credit that he opposed this.
I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.
 
You aren't giving much credit to democracy here Bentley.  The Conservatrive Government was the people's choice and Churchill was theirs.  Nor are you acknowledging that half of Churchill's government, led by Clement Attlee, were socialists without 'pedigree' and with very different beliefs.  
 
China and places like India/Pakistan are scary in a way; because they do not value life or each other and see people as expendable. Conducting a war and losing many would not affect them as much due to this philosophy on life's worth and humanity.

Do not equate India with Pakistan - India is a great democracy and conducts its government in much the same way as we do and they have many of the same egalitarian beliefs.  The Hinduism of India is also very different to the Islam of Pakistan.  China is improving very slowly but, alas! Pakistan has a long way to go and is thought by many to be the current source of Islamic terrorism, together with Saudi Arabia.  Killing 'infidels' is therefore OK with many of their leaders, mullahs etc.     

I think it would be great to have someone so imperturbable sitting handling the daily affairs and steadily checking them off and getting them done.

And great to have someone so often drunk in charge of things?  Thank goodness that he also had so many able people around him.  No one man runs any country anytime, except in extreme dictatorships.

 



Does Buchanan mean that we should have done something sooner; I think that is true the world over; a lot of people knew what was going on at least to a small extent and what they are all saying now is that it was all a secret; when whole communities disappear where does everyone think they are going. I would certainly expect the worst if all of the neighbors on the even side of the street were taken off into the night as hostages. I wouldn't be able to imply that I never suspected that these folks were in trouble and go on with my life as if nothing happened. Many did help out and at great peril to themselves on an individual level; but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.

I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.

China and places like India/Pakistan are scary in a way; because they do not value life or each other and see people as expendable. Conducting a war and losing many would not affect them as much due to this philosophy on life's worth and humanity.

Churchill was great for England; he was also a great man period; maybe some of Churchill's party politics may have not been in agreement with your Dad; maybe he thought that the English people much as they queue up to take a bus were more apt to respond to the temperament and dynamics of a Churchill where maybe here in America we need things to be more expedient and more self gratifying; I am not sure not knowing your Dad or what he felt he wanted to gain from his government. My father revered Churchill and thought he was a dynamo; which he was.

I think it would be great to have someone so imperturbable sitting handling the daily affairs and steadily checking them off and getting them done. It could have been that Churchill came off as a Sir Winston to your Dad and maybe he felt that he might be unapproachable. When folks really got to know him on a personal level they really felt that they had made a loyal friend for life.

Well I love the guy; so I am not the best person to ask I guess.

Bentley







Message Edited by Choisya on 07-17-2008 07:31 AM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Casualties

[ Edited ]
Higher than this Timbukto:  London was bombed for 57 consecutive nights from 7 September to 2nd November 1940 and over 1 million bombs were dropped there.  41,000 is the estimate for deaths and 137,000 were injured.  I lived in one of the northern cities which produced steel and then in one of the Midlands cities which produced armaments and nightly bombing was a fact of life during the 40s. 
 
Anecdotes: Once my father and I were canoeing down the River Trent in Nottingham when a German bomber pilot swooped down and aimed bombs into the  river behind us - he had been raiding a munitions factory nearby.  It was very scary for an 8 year old and I remember to this day my father shouting instructions to me about how fast I should paddle - ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, CHANGE [paddle].... .  The bombs created a 'swell' in the river which made steering difficult but fortunately we were not hurt.  On another occasion the house next door but one from us (in a row of terraced houses) was completely annihilated by an incendiary bomb and all that remained was a hole, which later became a swimming pool for us children (no-one was hurt because everyone was in an  outdoor shelter).  I was also in Grimsby, a port, with my mother when German pilots dropped 'butterfly bombs' which were shaped like toys and attractive to children.  As we walked down the street to the railway station 'sappers' were exploding these bombs in the street quite near to us. The windows of my grandparent's house had shattered the night before but we were under a table in a 'Morrison shelter'.  I had a lucky war!   

Timbuktu1 wrote:
Just discovered that in five months in l940, 22,000 civilians were killed in London.








Message Edited by Choisya on 07-17-2008 08:05 AM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

[ Edited ]
From Timbukto
 
Choisya,

I just want to say how much I appreciate your educating all of us. Everything you've said has the ring of such truth. It's almost word for word what my father would say and I think there's a reason for that. You lived through it. Every generation re-writes history, like it or not. I know with my own son, as bright as he is, as much as he thinks he understands, he doesn't quite "get it". It's hard to explain what another time was like. Every generation seems to pick and choose what it needs from the past and that becomes their reality. Only it's not real.

I don't want to offend anyone but I think it's offensive to compare what went on in England to 9/ll. Or Pearl Harbor. It's just not comparable. It feels disrespectful to equate the two. After 9/ll we were told to go out and shop to keep the economy going. Thanks to what the government has done, we have not been attacked since. I think most people in the US are very complacent, we have had to sacrifice almost nothing and we feel generally safe. It's almost as though it never happened and there is no threat.

I'm sure in a few years this time will be re-interpreted to fit the present perceptions. I only hope that I will be able to convey, as clearly as you, what the reality was like. Thank you.
 
Thankyou Timbukto - your post made me cry:smileysad:. I do try to be as factual as I can but of course my views are influenced by my experiences and personal background.
 
 I think it is true that the wartime experiences of our countries are not comparable, nor is 9/ll comparable with, say, prolonged IRA terrorism.  The experiences of our troops were similar, of course, but not those of the civilian populations.  I have posted elsewhere about the bombing and my own (lucky) personal experiences. 
 
I was an only child in a political family and so was exposed more than most people to what was going on by way of books, newspapers, magazines, newsreel film and, above all, conversation. My father also took Hansard and read the proceedings of Parliament every day.   My mother was on important repatriation committees which dealt with prisoners of war and through her I met Germans and Italians (non-Nazis, ordinary soldiers/airman) on parole from our Prisoner of War camps so learned of their POV too.  I also met a fair number of American, Canadian and Afro-Caribbean soldiers/airman during the war because of my mother's various social activities in promoting entertainment for them. 





Message Edited by Choisya on 07-17-2008 08:11 AM
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



Choisya wrote:
From Timbukto
 
Choisya,

I just want to say how much I appreciate your educating all of us. Everything you've said has the ring of such truth. It's almost word for word what my father would say and I think there's a reason for that. You lived through it. Every generation re-writes history, like it or not. I know with my own son, as bright as he is, as much as he thinks he understands, he doesn't quite "get it". It's hard to explain what another time was like. Every generation seems to pick and choose what it needs from the past and that becomes their reality. Only it's not real.

I don't want to offend anyone but I think it's offensive to compare what went on in England to 9/ll. Or Pearl Harbor. It's just not comparable. It feels disrespectful to equate the two. After 9/ll we were told to go out and shop to keep the economy going. Thanks to what the government has done, we have not been attacked since. I think most people in the US are very complacent, we have had to sacrifice almost nothing and we feel generally safe. It's almost as though it never happened and there is no threat.

I'm sure in a few years this time will be re-interpreted to fit the present perceptions. I only hope that I will be able to convey, as clearly as you, what the reality was like. Thank you.
 
Thankyou Timbukto - your post made me cry:smileysad:. I do try to be as factual as I can but of course my views are influenced by my experiences and personal background.
 
 I think it is true that the wartime experiences of our countries are not comparable, nor is 9/ll comparable with, say, prolonged IRA terrorism.  The experiences of our troops were similar, of course, but not those of the civilian populations.  I have posted elsewhere about the bombing and my own (lucky) personal experiences. 
 
I was an only child in a political family and so was exposed more than most people to what was going on by way of books, newspapers, magazines, newsreel film and, above all, conversation. My father also took Hansard and read the proceedings of Parliament every day.   My mother was on important repatriation committees which dealt with prisoners of war and through her I met Germans and Italians (non-Nazis, ordinary soldiers/airman) on parole from our Prisoner of War camps so learned of their POV too.  I also met a fair number of American, Canadian and Afro-Caribbean soldiers/airman during the war because of my mother's various social activities in promoting entertainment for them. 





Message Edited by Choisya on 07-17-2008 08:11


AM







Choisya, have you thought of writing a book?
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



Choisya wrote:
Bentley wrote:
but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.
 
'What countries were thinking' was part of the anti-semitism of the time, of all time!:smileysad: There were many people in both our nations who agreed with Hitler's views on the Jews, particularly in the upper-classes and it is to Churchill's credit that he opposed this.
I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.
 
You aren't giving much credit to democracy here Bentley.  The Conservatrive Government was the people's choice and Churchill was theirs.  Nor are you acknowledging that half of Churchill's government, led by Clement Attlee, were socialists without 'pedigree' and with very different beliefs.  
 
China and places like India/Pakistan are scary in a way; because they do not value life or each other and see people as expendable. Conducting a war and losing many would not affect them as much due to this philosophy on life's worth and humanity.

Do not equate India with Pakistan - India is a great democracy and conducts its government in much the same way as we do and they have many of the same egalitarian beliefs.  The Hinduism of India is also very different to the Islam of Pakistan.  China is improving very slowly but, alas! Pakistan has a long way to go and is thought by many to be the current source of Islamic terrorism, together with Saudi Arabia.  Killing 'infidels' is therefore OK with many of their leaders, mullahs etc.     

I think it would be great to have someone so imperturbable sitting handling the daily affairs and steadily checking them off and getting them done.

And great to have someone so often drunk in charge of things?  Thank goodness that he also had so many able people around him.  No one man runs any country anytime, except in extreme dictatorships.

 



Does Buchanan mean that we should have done something sooner; I think that is true the world over; a lot of people knew what was going on at least to a small extent and what they are all saying now is that it was all a secret; when whole communities disappear where does everyone think they are going. I would certainly expect the worst if all of the neighbors on the even side of the street were taken off into the night as hostages. I wouldn't be able to imply that I never suspected that these folks were in trouble and go on with my life as if nothing happened. Many did help out and at great peril to themselves on an individual level; but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.

I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.

China and places like India/Pakistan are scary in a way; because they do not value life or each other and see people as expendable. Conducting a war and losing many would not affect them as much due to this philosophy on life's worth and humanity.

Churchill was great for England; he was also a great man period; maybe some of Churchill's party politics may have not been in agreement with your Dad; maybe he thought that the English people much as they queue up to take a bus were more apt to respond to the temperament and dynamics of a Churchill where maybe here in America we need things to be more expedient and more self gratifying; I am not sure not knowing your Dad or what he felt he wanted to gain from his government. My father revered Churchill and thought he was a dynamo; which he was.

I think it would be great to have someone so imperturbable sitting handling the daily affairs and steadily checking them off and getting them done. It could have been that Churchill came off as a Sir Winston to your Dad and maybe he felt that he might be unapproachable. When folks really got to know him on a personal level they really felt that they had made a loyal friend for life.

Well I love the guy; so I am not the best person to ask I guess.

Bentley







Message Edited by Choisya on 07-17-2008 07:31 AM






I was thinking about the anti-semitism issue last night. You mentioned that from l933 everyone knew what Hitler was planning. The implication was that the war had to be fought for that reason. Of course that would be true if people did such things! But my father explained to me that although he felt that Roosevelt would have liked to get into the war sooner, he dared not mention the Jews. American's largest minority at the time was German. In addition, there was so much anti-semititism that even mentioning war and jews in the same breath would have created a furor. The last thing the country would have wanted to do would be to fight and lose lives to save Jews. I don't really blame them in a way, who wants to fight for another people? Certainly not for a despised minority.
I think even today, it's tricky.

I attended a speech that Clinton gave in l999. He said that when we went in to Bosnia, it was the first time in history that one country fought for another for purely humanitarian reasons. He was such a liar that I don't put much stock in what he says but I can't think of another case.

BTW, the behavior of the French.... the police were positively gleeful to round up innocent Jews and send them off to the camps!
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR


Choisya wrote:
Bentley wrote:
but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.
 
'What countries were thinking' was part of the anti-semitism of the time, of all time!:smileysad: There were many people in both our nations who agreed with Hitler's views on the Jews, particularly in the upper-classes and it is to Churchill's credit that he opposed this.
I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.
 
You aren't giving much credit to democracy here Bentley.  The Conservatrive Government was the people's choice and Churchill was theirs.  Nor are you acknowledging that half of Churchill's government, led by Clement Attlee, were socialists without 'pedigree' and with very different beliefs.

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Bentley responds:
With all due respect Choisya, Clement Atlee is not one of my favorites. I still stand by my statement and I respect yours. Democracy is of course important; England has an odd combination in my way of thinking; an absolute monarchy (not as absolute as it used to be thank goodness) and a parliamentary process (where folks do not vote in the same way as we do in America); I still think by the luck of the process in England that you did come out with the right man for the job at the right time. I realize that party and belief may influence your response and you are English; so I respect your knowledge of the circumstances. And I also understand Chamberlain trying the peaceful approach first which he was so badly damaged for. We can agree to disagree; but to me Atlee does not measure up to Churchill; otherwise we would probably be honoring him worldwide as one of the most inflential men in the century; and of course we are not; he did serve as many other good men in the coalition government and of course did his part too. We all have our interpretations of world events based upon our reading and our interpretation at that time or our families' times as well as our political views I imagine.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



Timbuktu1 wrote:


Choisya wrote:
Bentley wrote:
but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.
 
'What countries were thinking' was part of the anti-semitism of the time, of all time!:smileysad: There were many people in both our nations who agreed with Hitler's views on the Jews, particularly in the upper-classes and it is to Churchill's credit that he opposed this.
I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.
 
You aren't giving much credit to democracy here Bentley.  The Conservatrive Government was the people's choice and Churchill was theirs.  Nor are you acknowledging that half of Churchill's government, led by Clement Attlee, were socialists without 'pedigree' and with very different beliefs.  
 
China and places like India/Pakistan are scary in a way; because they do not value life or each other and see people as expendable. Conducting a war and losing many would not affect them as much due to this philosophy on life's worth and humanity.

Do not equate India with Pakistan - India is a great democracy and conducts its government in much the same way as we do and they have many of the same egalitarian beliefs.  The Hinduism of India is also very different to the Islam of Pakistan.  China is improving very slowly but, alas! Pakistan has a long way to go and is thought by many to be the current source of Islamic terrorism, together with Saudi Arabia.  Killing 'infidels' is therefore OK with many of their leaders, mullahs etc.     

I think it would be great to have someone so imperturbable sitting handling the daily affairs and steadily checking them off and getting them done.

And great to have someone so often drunk in charge of things?  Thank goodness that he also had so many able people around him.  No one man runs any country anytime, except in extreme dictatorships.

 



Does Buchanan mean that we should have done something sooner; I think that is true the world over; a lot of people knew what was going on at least to a small extent and what they are all saying now is that it was all a secret; when whole communities disappear where does everyone think they are going. I would certainly expect the worst if all of the neighbors on the even side of the street were taken off into the night as hostages. I wouldn't be able to imply that I never suspected that these folks were in trouble and go on with my life as if nothing happened. Many did help out and at great peril to themselves on an individual level; but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.

I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.

China and places like India/Pakistan are scary in a way; because they do not value life or each other and see people as expendable. Conducting a war and losing many would not affect them as much due to this philosophy on life's worth and humanity.

Churchill was great for England; he was also a great man period; maybe some of Churchill's party politics may have not been in agreement with your Dad; maybe he thought that the English people much as they queue up to take a bus were more apt to respond to the temperament and dynamics of a Churchill where maybe here in America we need things to be more expedient and more self gratifying; I am not sure not knowing your Dad or what he felt he wanted to gain from his government. My father revered Churchill and thought he was a dynamo; which he was.

I think it would be great to have someone so imperturbable sitting handling the daily affairs and steadily checking them off and getting them done. It could have been that Churchill came off as a Sir Winston to your Dad and maybe he felt that he might be unapproachable. When folks really got to know him on a personal level they really felt that they had made a loyal friend for life.

Well I love the guy; so I am not the best person to ask I guess.

Bentley







Message Edited by Choisya on 07-17-2008 07:31 AM






I was thinking about the anti-semitism issue last night. You mentioned that from l933 everyone knew what Hitler was planning. The implication was that the war had to be fought for that reason. Of course that would be true if people did such things! But my father explained to me that although he felt that Roosevelt would have liked to get into the war sooner, he dared not mention the Jews. American's largest minority at the time was German. In addition, there was so much anti-semititism that even mentioning war and jews in the same breath would have created a furor. The last thing the country would have wanted to do would be to fight and lose lives to save Jews. I don't really blame them in a way, who wants to fight for another people? Certainly not for a despised minority.
I think even today, it's tricky.

I attended a speech that Clinton gave in l999. He said that when we went in to Bosnia, it was the first time in history that one country fought for another for purely humanitarian reasons. He was such a liar that I don't put much stock in what he says but I can't think of another case.

BTW, the behavior of the French.... the police were positively gleeful to round up innocent Jews and send them off to the camps!




What Clinton said was true; I also think and believe that you should fight for your friends and allies as they fight and protect you. What happened to the jewish people was abhorrent; I am not jewish but you do not have to be to know abhorrent when you see it. The world should have done something but they did not. Very hard to understand. It is hard to understand that kind of ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world especially today. But that is a very sensitive subject as I believe the other situation was at that time in history.
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



bentley wrote:


Timbuktu1 wrote:


Choisya wrote:
Bentley wrote:
but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.
 
'What countries were thinking' was part of the anti-semitism of the time, of all time!:smileysad: There were many people in both our nations who agreed with Hitler's views on the Jews, particularly in the upper-classes and it is to Churchill's credit that he opposed this.
I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.
 
You aren't giving much credit to democracy here Bentley.  The Conservatrive Government was the people's choice and Churchill was theirs.  Nor are you acknowledging that half of Churchill's government, led by Clement Attlee, were socialists without 'pedigree' and with very different beliefs.  
 
China and places like India/Pakistan are scary in a way; because they do not value life or each other and see people as expendable. Conducting a war and losing many would not affect them as much due to this philosophy on life's worth and humanity.

Do not equate India with Pakistan - India is a great democracy and conducts its government in much the same way as we do and they have many of the same egalitarian beliefs.  The Hinduism of India is also very different to the Islam of Pakistan.  China is improving very slowly but, alas! Pakistan has a long way to go and is thought by many to be the current source of Islamic terrorism, together with Saudi Arabia.  Killing 'infidels' is therefore OK with many of their leaders, mullahs etc.     

I think it would be great to have someone so imperturbable sitting handling the daily affairs and steadily checking them off and getting them done.

And great to have someone so often drunk in charge of things?  Thank goodness that he also had so many able people around him.  No one man runs any country anytime, except in extreme dictatorships.

 



Does Buchanan mean that we should have done something sooner; I think that is true the world over; a lot of people knew what was going on at least to a small extent and what they are all saying now is that it was all a secret; when whole communities disappear where does everyone think they are going. I would certainly expect the worst if all of the neighbors on the even side of the street were taken off into the night as hostages. I wouldn't be able to imply that I never suspected that these folks were in trouble and go on with my life as if nothing happened. Many did help out and at great peril to themselves on an individual level; but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.

I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.

China and places like India/Pakistan are scary in a way; because they do not value life or each other and see people as expendable. Conducting a war and losing many would not affect them as much due to this philosophy on life's worth and humanity.

Churchill was great for England; he was also a great man period; maybe some of Churchill's party politics may have not been in agreement with your Dad; maybe he thought that the English people much as they queue up to take a bus were more apt to respond to the temperament and dynamics of a Churchill where maybe here in America we need things to be more expedient and more self gratifying; I am not sure not knowing your Dad or what he felt he wanted to gain from his government. My father revered Churchill and thought he was a dynamo; which he was.

I think it would be great to have someone so imperturbable sitting handling the daily affairs and steadily checking them off and getting them done. It could have been that Churchill came off as a Sir Winston to your Dad and maybe he felt that he might be unapproachable. When folks really got to know him on a personal level they really felt that they had made a loyal friend for life.

Well I love the guy; so I am not the best person to ask I guess.

Bentley







Message Edited by Choisya on 07-17-2008 07:31 AM






I was thinking about the anti-semitism issue last night. You mentioned that from l933 everyone knew what Hitler was planning. The implication was that the war had to be fought for that reason. Of course that would be true if people did such things! But my father explained to me that although he felt that Roosevelt would have liked to get into the war sooner, he dared not mention the Jews. American's largest minority at the time was German. In addition, there was so much anti-semititism that even mentioning war and jews in the same breath would have created a furor. The last thing the country would have wanted to do would be to fight and lose lives to save Jews. I don't really blame them in a way, who wants to fight for another people? Certainly not for a despised minority.
I think even today, it's tricky.

I attended a speech that Clinton gave in l999. He said that when we went in to Bosnia, it was the first time in history that one country fought for another for purely humanitarian reasons. He was such a liar that I don't put much stock in what he says but I can't think of another case.

BTW, the behavior of the French.... the police were positively gleeful to round up innocent Jews and send them off to the camps!




What Clinton said was true; I also think and believe that you should fight for your friends and allies as they fight and protect you. What happened to the jewish people was abhorrent; I am not jewish but you do not have to be to know abhorrent when you see it. The world should have done something but they did not. Very hard to understand. It is hard to understand that kind of ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world especially today. But that is a very sensitive subject as I believe


the other situation was at that time in history.






This is one of the reasons I do like Bush. He's the first US president that I can remember who generally treats Israel with respect. He's not afraid to say that there is no moral equivalency between the Arab tyrants and Israel. Every other president has told Israel to allow it's people to be killed to appease their murderers. I think that if America had not stayed Israel's hand in it's self-defense, for decades, there would possibly be peace in the mid-east today. I think his behavior shows courage and conviction. Especially when y ou consider not only our need for oil but his family ties to the oil-producing countries.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR


Choisya wrote:
Bentley wrote:
but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.
 
'What countries were thinking' was part of the anti-semitism of the time, of all time!:smileysad: There were many people in both our nations who agreed with Hitler's views on the Jews, particularly in the upper-classes and it is to Churchill's credit that he opposed this.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, there is still anti-semiticism today; Churchill I think was greatest when he stood up for what was right and what he believed in versus what he was told or what was the belief of his peers; sometimes wrong is always wrong no matter how it is packaged. I still think the belief system at that time was wrong and question how they could possibly have bought into that collective thinking at the time. We know it happened; but it is still hard to imagine mankind being capable of atrocities such as what actually did occur; as bad as mankind has been shown to be through the ages; this was a new low.

I have traveled and stayed in China for extensive periods. The vast population and country would surprise many first hand. China is a very powerful global economy and it is still tricky dealing with them. I certainly know the difference between India and Pakistan; I would not think of visiting Pakistan especially since I value my life. But India I have gone to; and I can certainly see the vestiges of British rule; I think Winston saw India as the jewel of the Empire and remembered so fondly his days there. Gandhi offended Churchill more "I think" because of his not wearing clothes and trying to embarrass Great Britain more than his arguments. Gandhi also has achieved icon status for his peaceful protests and end result much attributed to his actions but if you examine some of Gandhi's statements about Hitler and other topics; you wonder about that status and whether it was deserved. I imagine as in everything else; history seems to look at the end result not the steps or statements between. As far as Churchill drinking; I think some of this was exaggerated and in some instances not. I did not think the whisky drinking in India was doing much for his future health; but of course all of us know the end of the story (more than a little foreshadowing).
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



bentley wrote:

Choisya wrote:
Bentley wrote:
but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.
 
'What countries were thinking' was part of the anti-semitism of the time, of all time!:smileysad: There were many people in both our nations who agreed with Hitler's views on the Jews, particularly in the upper-classes and it is to Churchill's credit that he opposed this.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, there is still anti-semiticism today; Churchill I think was greatest when he stood up for what was right and what he believed in versus what he was told or what was the belief of his peers; sometimes wrong is always wrong no matter how it is packaged. I still think the belief system at that time was wrong and question how they could possibly have bought into that collective thinking at the time. We know it happened; but it is still hard to imagine mankind being capable of atrocities such as what actually did occur; as bad as mankind has been shown to be through the ages; this was a new low.

I have traveled and stayed in China for extensive periods. The vast population and country would surprise many first hand. China is a very powerful global economy and it is still tricky dealing with them. I certainly know the difference between India and Pakistan; I would not think of visiting Pakistan especially since I value my life. But India I have gone to; and I can certainly see the vestiges of British rule; I think Winston saw India as the jewel of the Empire and remembered so fondly his days there. Gandhi offended Churchill more "I think" because of his not wearing clothes and trying to embarrass Great Britain more than his arguments. Gandhi also has achieved icon status for his peaceful protests and end result much attributed to his actions but if you examine some of Gandhi's statements about Hitler and other topics; you wonder about that status and whether it was deserved. I imagine as in everything else; history seems to look at the end result not the steps or statements between. As far as Churchill drinking; I think some of this was exaggerated and in some instances not. I did not think the whisky drinking in India was doing much for his future health; but of course all of us know the end of the story (more than a little foreshadowing).






Bentley, I think I agree with you. Again, there's no moral equivalency between Pakistan and India. And I certainly don't understand the intricacies of the culture and relgions. But I do think that the Judeo-Christian attitude toward the sanctity of life is different. It's different than the East today. It's different than the Greeks and Romans. It stands alone and can't be taken for granted or dismissed. Of course, that doesn't explain the Nazis, does it?
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR


I think we need to bear in mind that there are beliefs other than the Judeo-Christian one which deserve respect.  Hinduism is possibly the world's oldest religion and it places more emphasis on the 'sanctity of life' than Christians do in that even the smallest insect has a right to life and is not knowingly killed etc. Meat is not eaten by Hindus because of the 'sanctity of life'.  Islam too (despite what is happening today in its name!) places just the same regard on sanctity of life and the Koran states that to kill one man is to kill all.  Christians  have also had periods in their history where sanctity of life meant little and where thousands were killed and/or tortured in the name of their faith. IMO we need to learn to understand these religions and not have a superior attitude towards them - only then  do we stand a chance of gaining some sort of world peace.

 

And yes, Hitler was brought up as a catholic and one of his mottoes for the Third Reich was 'kirk, kuchen and kinder' (church, kitchen/women and children).

But he, of course, only believed in the sanctity of Aryan Christian life...

 

Ghandi wore the simple traditional dress of a Hindu guru and Churchill was wrong to criticise him on this account.  Did he expect Indians to wear tail coats and top hats?   Ghandi is widely acknowledged as one of the world's greatest men too but of course he was opposed to the British rule in India and led (peaceful) protests against that.  His letter to Hitler was that of a pacifist and can be equated with Chamberlain's 'appeasement' policy.  He has been called naive but he was certainly not a fascist or a supporter of Hitler.  

 

I do not think we can discount the many stories of Churchill''s drunkeness, which was even commented upon by his aides, like Colville, who also commented upon his inability to carry out his government work after the 1951 election.  It is not only his detractors which mention this in their diaries.   Modern medical opinion is inclined towards the idea of alcoholism being hereditary so perhaps Churchill inherited this illness from his father. 

 

 

 

bentley wrote:


Choisya wrote:
Bentley wrote:
but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.
'What countries were thinking' was part of the anti-semitism of the time, of all time!:smileysad: There were many people in both our nations who agreed with Hitler's views on the Jews, particularly in the upper-classes and it is to Churchill's credit that he opposed this.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, there is still anti-semiticism today; Churchill I think was greatest when he stood up for what was right and what he believed in versus what he was told or what was the belief of his peers; sometimes wrong is always wrong no matter how it is packaged. I still think the belief system at that time was wrong and question how they could possibly have bought into that collective thinking at the time. We know it happened; but it is still hard to imagine mankind being capable of atrocities such as what actually did occur; as bad as mankind has been shown to be through the ages; this was a new low.

I have traveled and stayed in China for extensive periods. The vast population and country would surprise many first hand. China is a very powerful global economy and it is still tricky dealing with them. I certainly know the difference between India and Pakistan; I would not think of visiting Pakistan especially since I value my life. But India I have gone to; and I can certainly see the vestiges of British rule; I think Winston saw India as the jewel of the Empire and remembered so fondly his days there. Gandhi offended Churchill more "I think" because of his not wearing clothes and trying to embarrass Great Britain more than his arguments. Gandhi also has achieved icon status for his peaceful protests and end result much attributed to his actions but if you examine some of Gandhi's statements about Hitler and other topics; you wonder about that status and whether it was deserved. I imagine as in everything else; history seems to look at the end result not the steps or statements between. As far as Churchill drinking; I think some of this was exaggerated and in some instances not. I did not think the whisky drinking in India was doing much for his future health; but of course all of us know the end of the story (more than a little foreshadowing).






Bentley, I think I agree with you. Again, there's no moral equivalency between Pakistan and India. And I certainly don't understand the intricacies of the culture and relgions. But I do think that the Judeo-Christian attitude toward the sanctity of life is different. It's different than the East today. It's different than the Greeks and Romans. It stands alone and can't be taken for granted or dismissed. Of course, that doesn't explain the Nazis, does it?

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

[ Edited ]

Let us be clear about this:  Whatever post-war mythology says, we did NOT go to war because of Jewish persecution and we largely ignored the plight of the Jews until they began to organise mass emigration after 1935 when Hitler passed the Nuremberg Laws stating that Jews were no longer German citizens. Mein Kampf was published in 1926 and gave a clear indication of Hitler's thinking.  We went to war because Hitler violated the Munich Agreement (signed by Chamberlain) and invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia and because it was by that time clear that Hitler was intent on conquering Europe, as Napoleon had been.

 

And it wasn't only the French who gleefully rounded up Jews, most of the nations in Europe did so:smileysad::smileysad:.

 

The myth that we went to war 'because of the Jews' arose after the war when we realised the extent of the massacre/Holocaust of their people.  It was the result of a collective guilty conscience!

 

The war in Bosnia was just another example of the lingering divisions in the Balkans which are largely religious or about ancient boundaries.  Christians were again persecuting and ethnically cleansing Muslims and retaliation occurred.  There was no altruism involved in our intervention, as Clinton erroneously suggested, it was the fear that once again such a conflict would involve Western Europe in another war.  Again, we had a guilty conscience because we did not intervene soon enough and large massacres had already taken place. 

 

Churchill rightly called the Balkans 'a Pandora's box' at the Treaty of Potsdam, when those countries were ceded to Russia.  (Incidentally, Churchill also called Iraq a Pandora's Box in 1921 during the Cairo Conference. He also said: 'I feel some misgivings about the political consequences to myself of taking on my shoulders the burden and odium of the Mesopotamia entanglement'.  Blair/Bush may be saying the same thing! )

 

 

 

Especially when you consider not only our need for oil but his [Bush] family ties to the oil-producing countries.

 

This says it all doesn't it and shows why millions of people around the world are at odds with American foreign policy.  Who made those 'tyrants'?  Who has financed Saudi Arabia and the extreme Muslims (Wahabis) there?  Who financed Saddam Hussein?  Who financed Bin Laden in Afghanistan?  I despair!   

 

 

 

Timbukto wrote: 

I was thinking about the anti-semitism issue last night. You mentioned that from l933 everyone knew what Hitler was planning. The implication was that the war had to be fought for that reason. Of course that would be true if people did such things! But my father explained to me that although he felt that Roosevelt would have liked to get into the war sooner, he dared not mention the Jews. American's largest minority at the time was German. In addition, there was so much anti-semititism that even mentioning war and jews in the same breath would have created a furor. The last thing the country would have wanted to do would be to fight and lose lives to save Jews. I don't really blame them in a way, who wants to fight for another people? Certainly not for a despised minority.
I think even today, it's tricky.

I attended a speech that Clinton gave in l999. He said that when we went in to Bosnia, it was the first time in history that one country fought for another for purely humanitarian reasons. He was such a liar that I don't put much stock in what he says but I can't think of another case.

BTW, the behavior of the French.... the police were positively gleeful to round up innocent Jews and send them off to the camps!





What Clinton said was true; I also think and believe that you should fight for your friends and allies as they fight and protect you. What happened to the jewish people was abhorrent; I am not jewish but you do not have to be to know abhorrent when you see it. The world should have done something but they did not. Very hard to understand. It is hard to understand that kind of ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world especially today. But that is a very sensitive subject as I believe


the other situation was at that time in history.






This is one of the reasons I do like Bush. He's the first US president that I can remember who generally treats Israel with respect. He's not afraid to say that there is no moral equivalency between the Arab tyrants and Israel. Every other president has told Israel to allow it's people to be killed to appease their murderers. I think that if America had not stayed Israel's hand in it's self-defense, for decades, there would possibly be peace in the mid-east today. I think his behavior shows courage and conviction. Especially when y ou consider not only our need for oil but his family ties to the oil-producing countries.

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 07-18-2008 05:23 AM
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

I was thinking of this post when I was re-reading the section about how the Pathan tribesmen gained a new respect for Christian civilization when they discovered the power of their new rifles.  I think Churchill does an amazing job of poking fun at himself as a young man.  It's becoming clearer, as we read on, that he's very aware of his mistaken attitudes.    

 

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

Timbuktu1 wrote:

I think Churchill does an amazing job of poking fun at himself as a young man.  It's becoming clearer, as we read on, that he's very aware of his mistaken attitudes.    

 

 

 

Yes, I am sure he 'came to his senses' regarding his attitudes towards foreigners, just as the majority of people did at the time.  My Liberal grandparents' attitudes towards Commonwealth people, for instance, was much more patronising and racist than those of my parents.  It was a sign of the times. (Queen Victoria was unusual in that she was very proud of her 'native' subjects and showed very little racism.  One of her favourite servants was Abdul Karim, an Indian Hindu, and she was even reputed to have had an affair with him.) 

 


 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR


Choisya wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote:

I think Churchill does an amazing job of poking fun at himself as a young man.  It's becoming clearer, as we read on, that he's very aware of his mistaken attitudes.    

 

 

 

Yes, I am sure he 'came to his senses' regarding his attitudes towards foreigners, just as the majority of people did at the time.  My Liberal grandparents' attitudes towards Commonwealth people, for instance, was much more patronising and racist than those of my parents.  It was a sign of the times. (Queen Victoria was unusual in that she was very proud of her 'native' subjects and showed very little racism.  One of her favourite servants was Abdul Karim, an Indian Hindu, and she was even reputed to have had an affair with him.) 

 


 

The love-hate relationship between the British and the Indians is one of the most interesting and complicated parts of this story.