Playing with history

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't think he could have done much different than how it originally played out. '38, we weren't ready, the Army Air Corp was flying WWI leftovers, there was no Armored Division, because we didn't have any armor, to speak of. Industry was just starting to plan how they would ramp up in case of war. If he had jumped into the fray, our remote, thinly maned outposts in the Pacific were in jeopardy, immediately.

But #1, with a bullet, reason? The people didn't want it. The people had been unhappy with WWI and the treatment of the veterans after the war. They wanted no part of a war in far off Europe. Remember that Europe was still half a world away in '38. It was something you'd see in magazines and maybe Pathe News Reels at the movies. You didn't actually know someone that had been there, except Grandpa in WWI, and the immigrants that lived a couple streets over...but you don't talk to them anyway.

The federal government was seeing the handwriting on the wall and gearing up their campaign to convince the people, with the help of Hollywood and the press. I've seen a couple movies that were released in '40 and early '41, that featured Nazi Spies and saboteurs running amok in our factories.

Once we took the hit at Pearl Harbor, the campaign was on, big time, with stories of Japs butchering babies and Krauts driving tanks through schools.

Ted Geisel (Dr Seuss) did an amazing series of political cartoons, ripping the Japs, through the summer of '41. For the months leading up to Pearl Harbor he ridiculed them and warned we'd kick there ass if they started anything. Then the first cartoon after Pearl, he was like, Damn, that hurt, must have been a rock in the sock. But the next cartoon after that was, Oh yeah, well you're really gonna get it now. looking at this stuff in context is interesting.

OK, one more and I'll stop rambling.
During Carters hostage crises in Iran, my brother and I were discussing the ethics of taking civilian hostages. I brought up that even after Pearl Harbor, the Japs in Washington negotiating, were allowed to leave the country.
My mother, after a couple glasses of wine, pipes up, "Well, we threw them right to hell out."
I had to smile.... yeah, no thoughts of jail, no torture, no killing, we threw them right to hell out. That was pre-WWII America. Hardly prepared for what was to come.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

My mother, after a couple glasses of wine, pipes up, "Well, we threw them right to hell out."
I had to smile.... yeah, no thoughts of jail, no torture, no killing, we threw them right to hell out. That was pre-WWII America. Hardly prepared for what was to come.

Wow. Different world.

Let's see, the Germans grab the Rhineland, George invades Sweden because the kinda look alike.

[bluesdave]

I know the history Bruce. I was wondering if GWB would have done things differently to Roosevelt, and I deliberately left out Japan because I did not want to complicate the story. You are right that the US public was not ready for war, and in 38 the armed forces were run down and poorly equipped, but the point is: would GWB have done something about the situation before Roosevelt eventually did (I'm not meaning any criticism of Roosevelt here - I know that American public opinion was vigorously against involvement, and Europe *was* a long distance away in 38)? Would GWB have instituted a draft in 38, and ramped up production of war equipment?

My guess is also that he would not have done anything differently to Roosevelt. He did not have an equivalent of 9/11, so public opinion would have been fixed in its opposition. As you say, the US did not feel "personally" involved in the war until Pearl Harbor. At least Roosevelt had the sense to bring in the draft in 1940, so he was able to increase the army somewhat, though they remained poorly equipped - I have a video of the war games the US army held in 41 (I think), and many of the men did not even carry real guns - they were wooden models!

What got me thinking about this, was GWB's constant claims that he needs to stop Iran, Syria, and North Korea before they become a threat to world peace. If he believes that now, would he have felt the same way about Germany (Hitler), if he was running the US in 38? I heard an interview on NPR with Ted Koppel this weekend, and he is convinced that the US will be at war with Iran by the end of 2007 (he said that it would only be after an act of provocation by Iran - ie. they would have to take some action against the US).