Asymmetrical Information

One question is whether the government will have as much control over the post-war coverage of the war. Yes, Hitler's regime was awful, but there was also a serious effort after the war was over to justify a war that drained the nation and created great. Hollywood, newspapers, history books, you name it - they were all drawn into service to make WWII "the good war." Will that be done again? Is US culture as receptive to such stuff now as then?

We may have been a bit less tolerant of dissent then (though there is plenty of "dissent means disloyalty" nonsense going around now). A far greater share of the population went to war in WWII, then rejoined their communities. Our smaller professional army returns to its bases and their surrounding community, so soldiers' thinking is likely to have less influence on thinking of the rest of the citizenry.

I don't know how to compare atrocities, but I think we have grown accustomed to the idea that they are not all that rare. There was a very powerful notion in the aftermath of WWII that German culture was somehow uniquely prone to engage in inhuman behavior. Turns out that behavior wasn't inhuman, just evil. There is widespread understanding that the US winked at such behavior among its allies during the Cold War, that we have let such behavior go on in Africa without going in to stop it. If the Iraqi regime is unique in its evil, then the revelation of that unique evil may sway the public. If the the presently unconvinced members of the public are not shown evidence of unique evil, then uncovering the extent of Saddam's atrocities and evil won't be what changes minds.

Something more mundane may go to work, though. Once the war is over, the emotion necessary for real opposition, for some, will not be worth the effort as time passes. Some old enough to remember Vietnam remain committed to a position. Others don't bother.

Till her dying day my Grandmother cursed the Brits, whom she blamed for getting us into the Second World War (and, indirectly, subjecting us to a decade of "Roosevelt communism"). Anyone who thinks that that war was an obvious, simple, or unopposed thing just wasn't paying attention.

Of course, schoolkids today are probably hearing that same everyone-rallied-'round-the-flag lie about the First World War as well; jingoistic bullshit extends backward into the past from every period of patriotic fervor.
--G

Exactly, even less people supported WWI...it was so bad, we had to go to JP Morgan to cut a deal just to buy uniforms.

Thus, in essence, the group that was wrong then continues to be wrong now. Quite a legacy!

it seems, ever so subtly, as if the post is comparing saddam hussein with adolf hitler, yet again. i didn't buy it when that argumnent was first made, and i still don't buy it.

it seems as if the post wants us, subtly, to draw the connection that saddam hussein is of the same "calibre" as adolf hitler. i didn't buy that argument when it was first made to help support this war, and i am not buying it now.

Are we only allowed to resist evils as bad as Hitler? Or can some lesser evils also be resisted?

Good point, Sebastian. I believe the term for that is 'defining deviancy down.' To wit: if x isn't as bad as the worst ever of its type, it must be ok.

On a side note, I don't think the comparisons to Hitler are that out of line. That Baath party, I believe, started as sort of an offshoot of the Nazi party which made its way in through Egypt and Syria thanks to the Vichy government which controlled that region. Both have a strong anti-semitic bent. Hitler and Saddam both rose to power through street-thug tactics. They both employ a combination of fear and blame to remain in power. They both conscript children into paramilitary youth movements. They both have history of military aggression against neighbors. Neither had a problem with ethnic cleansing.

Yeas, the 'as bad as Hitler' analogy is horribly overused. No, the comparison is not identical. But I do believe it is both instructive, and appropriate.

Just an observation

The percentages that oppose the various wars may be similar but the tone of the opposition is very different. Opposition to previous wars tended to be based on a philosophy of isolation. The sentiment was usually something about why should our boys die for Europe. Today the antiwar crowd (those protesting in the streets) is based on the idea tha America itself is evil. "Bush is Hitler".

To me, at least, this is what is disturbing about the current protests and why I don't see a lot of relevance to past peace movements.

Just a note on the accuracy of polls during and immediately after WWII....

I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in the poll numbers from WWII or before.

Assuming the cited support was based on polls, it is likely that phone polls were used. Mail-in polls were prohibitively expensive to do, very rare, and were almost without exception unscientific (meaning that they give a +/- 5% or higher margin of error...at which point the poll is meaningless).

Phone polls today are fairly accurate, usually giving a +/- margin of error around 3%. However, we live in an era where everyone has a phone, whereas during WWII that was not the case. In fact, a home phone was considered something of a luxury to a degree.

One of the perfect and most famous examples of the problems with polls from that era is the Truman-Dewey election in 1948. The reason that the Chicago Tribune (I think) said "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" on its front page is that poll numbers showed that Dewey had a 55-45% lead or greater. Remember the aforementioned +/- 5% margin of error? Right.

The problem turned out to be that those who had a home phone (and were therefore more wealthy) were more likely to vote for Dewey, so the poll turned out to be horribly wrong.

So when they say that the US was 40% antiwar in WWII, you have to ask two questions: who was polled, (the 12 million people in uniform weren't, I bet) and was the methodology sound (unlikely).

So while I can't refute the assertion made that 30-40% of Americans were against the war, I wouldn't trust poll numbers from that period, either.

Ok Cas maybe Hitler is a poor analogy (I don't hold that opinion). So let's look at Stalin and his regime. Overall, leftists (not only hard line communist but the successful intellectuals who were at odds with their own cultures--like Bernard Shaw) were enthralled with the Soviet regime, especially his many vile actions.

Maybe one of the famous apologists was Walter Duranty, Pulitzer Prize-winning Moscow NYT correspondent, who at the height of the famine, wrote in 1933:

"There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition. ...Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."

In truth, approximately 6 to 7 million died in the Ukraine alone in the 30s as well as estimated an additional 30 million in the various Soviet purges.

You are right Cas, Stalin is a much better analogy than Hitler.

"One of the perfect and most famous examples of the problems with polls from that era is the Truman-Dewey election in 1948. The reason that the Chicago Tribune (I think) said "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" on its front page is that poll numbers showed that Dewey had a 55-45% lead or greater. Remember the aforementioned +/- 5% margin of error? Right."

Nope, the problem with the polling done during the Truman-Dewey race was that it stopped too soon! They did not poll until the very last minute before people went into the voting booths.

the interesting thing about the hitler comparison is that saddam sees his idol as stalin. i think that is more appropriate (great, he is clearly a kinder gentler kind of individual!).

as for the question of degree of "badness", i find that approach problematic as well. what one is left with is a set of ad hoc criteria that shift like the winds (as in winds of public opinion). sometimes we intervene, sometimes not. why kosovo and not rwanda? how does one reconcile human rights abuses with the more hard headed argument of a bakerian (and bushian) "we have no dog in that fight"? purely self-interest? in that case, the argument about intervention on the basis of the brutality of a regime is much LESS forceful in determining what a nation should do. in the end, it has little weight. sorry, its a realpolitik view of the world.

It's true that most Americans didn't realize the full extent of genocide and barbarism that Hitler's Germany had been undertaking. The governments of the U.S. and Britain however did. The Jews, and others, were left to die. People escaped from concentration camps. These people brought stories and sometimes even photographs of Nazi horrors to our governments. Our governments turned them away saying these were nothing more than rumors.

So the question becomes, why didn't people know in 1944 what they knew in 1945? Why did our governments turn away Jews who tried desparately to save themselves by fleeing AFTER we had knowledge of what fate lay in wait for these people. Why didn't our governments honestly provide this information to their citizens.

Why did the US protect Iraq when it first used chemical warfare?

Don't try to compare my educated and studied opposition to this war to the ignorant support for a separate peace during World War II. That was born of people who wanted to look the other way while atrocities occured. Despite your disagreements with the anti-war camp, you can't seriously claim that we are trying to look the other way during this war. Rather, it is the TV news fed masses who are ignoring the suffering of people this moment, and those are the people you should be taking aim at.

I want a better source for this than some guy and a movie critic on NPR.

M: I have to vehemently disagree with you. I protested in the streets. I love America. 90% of the people there with me, marching from UN Plaza in San Francisco, loved America. I saw more American flags waved with pride in the protest than otherwise -- more flags with stars than peace signs, corporate logos, et al combined.

We protest because we love America and what it stands for. Your comment is a slander and is false.

You've tripped a little pet-peeve of mine. Public radio stations don't have strict network affiliations like network television stations: ABC, UPN, etc. So WNYC is a public radio station that accepts programming from NPR as well as other public radio networks: PRI, BBC, and so on.

Most "NPR" stations will identify themselves as "NPR News Stations" which is what they are if they get their news updates and programs from NPR. However, a private station might have a CBS radio news feed, or CNN for that matter, but it doesn't make them a CBS or CNN station; likewise NPR news does not make the station an NPR station, exactly. NPR doesn't own or operate stations-- they produce content themselves (All Things Considered, etc.) or syndicate content from other radio stations (such as WBUR's Car Talk). PRI only syndicates, and BBC, as far as I know, only produces its own content since they have no real competition.

But the show you (or Jeff, I should say) mention here is a locally-produced WNYC show, not a program associated with NPR.

Jack, I absolutely believe that many of the anti-war camp (including yourself, it seems) are looking the other way while atrocities occur. Whether this is due to a remarkable naivety or a willful blindness on your part I can't say, but after the horror stories surfacing from Iraq in recent days I find it unbelievable that people are still couching opposition to the war in terms of concern for the people of Iraq. Concern for the people of Iraq is reason to support the war, even absent any WMD/terrorism issues.

If you still oppose war, fair enough, but I would hope to hear arguments strong enought to justify condemning the Iraqi people to the Stalinist Hell they have been enduring.

Yeah, those comparisons of Saddam and Hitler are so superficial. I mean, it's only the moustache, the boots, the uniform, the torture chambers, the prison camps, the Socialist Party monopoly, the poison gas, the bunkers, the Jew hatred, the militarization of the country, the Hitler/Saddam Youth, the "medical" experiments on prisoners, the aggressive invasions of the neighbours, and a few other petty surface details. It makes for a quick Reader's Digest piece, but it doesn't fool sophisticated intellectuals.

Sean, I'm sure that some people in the anti-war camp are ignoring the atrocities performed by Saddam. But not all of us. I'm terribly aware of what a cruel man he is. I also do think its relevant that we(meaning the US, not me) supported him for a long time with full knowledge of his cruelty and complicity in his crimes both by providing material and logistical support and by protecting him from the UN.

But, Sean, I don't think this war is going to make it better. Is it so hard for you to believe that I believe that? You don't have to agree, but I don't understand how otherwise reasonable sounding people can think that all of us anti-war folks "don't get it".

We get it. We don't trust the US. We think that things are about to get worse in Iraq. Obviously I can't use this single post to detail all the many, many reasons I'm opposed to this war, but, even if you were to disagree with all of my reasons, ignorance still isn't one of them.

Instead of just talking about our ignorance, why don't we discuss the war. That's what those of us in the streets want. We want to talk. But those in power won't talk to us. Those who want power (The Democrats) DON'T speak for us. What are we left with?

yeah jack.. you're anti american

you "dont trust the US"

"things are about to get worse"

wtf???

saddam rapes, tortures, kills, gases, and enslaves his people while invading his neighbours... but the US is going to be SO MUCH WORSE

huh? i'm on the socialist international mailinbg list... you have better talking points than this.. where the hell are you coming from???

this is the reason things are so messed up... the two sides don't even agree as to what shape the earth is...

i can hanlde peple who are isolationist/pacifist

but how do you discuss with someone who thinks that the US willbe objectively worse than saddam???? is it the evil capitalism? crushing muslim culture? rolling back stalinism?? what?

Jack, lets discuss the war as well as your protests against it. By the way, we started our relationship with Saddam in 1979 not in the mid-80s.

Self Defense, as outlined by Bush, himself:

"The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our power."

Violation of international law, read UN Resolution 1441 referencing material breach and what was it, yes, serious consequences.

Congressional Authority--
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Die is Cast, we are at war and not only are Americans at risk but so are British and Iraqi lives. I look at the antiwar movement and placing them in three boxes:

Antibush--purely political (if a Dem was president, they would support the war).

Antiamerican-just hate the US

Moral realativistsy-those who believe all values are "relative" except for the value of peace.

Jack, let's talk!

Jack, lets discuss the war as well as your protests against it. By the way, we started our relationship with Saddam in 1979 not in the mid-80s.

Self Defense, as outlined by Bush, himself:

"The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our power."

Violation of international law, read UN Resolution 1441 referencing material breach and what was it, yes, serious consequences.

Congressional Authority--
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Die is Cast, we are at war and not only are Americans at risk but so are British and Iraqi lives. I look at the antiwar movement and placing them in three boxes:

Antibush--purely political (if a Dem was president, they would support the war).

Antiamerican-just hate the US

Moral realativists-those who believe all values are "relative" except for the value of peace.

Jack, let's talk!

Jack, lets discuss the war as well as your protests against it. By the way, we started our relationship with Saddam in 1979 not in the mid-80s.

Self Defense, as outlined by Bush, himself:

"The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our power."

Violation of international law, read UN Resolution 1441 referencing material breach and what was it, yes, serious consequences.

Congressional Authority--
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Die is Cast, we are at war and not only are Americans at risk but so are British and Iraqi lives. I look at the antiwar movement and placing them in three boxes:

Antibush--purely political (if a Dem was president, they would support the war).

Antiamerican-just hate the US

Moral realativists-those who believe all values are "relative" except for the value of peace.

Jack, let's talk!

This is pure wishful thinking. In 1944 the population of the USA (and, indeed the world) was largely ignorant of the atrocities of the Nazi regime.

In 2003, the information is much more avaliable about Saddam's regime than there was about Hitlers. And what the people of the USA believe is relatively accurate (for the informed) or wildly inaccurate. Many believe that Saddam is much more dangerous and guilty of atrocity then he really is. This is particularly true of the roughly 40% of the population that have fallen for the administration's propaganda campaign, and think that Saddam was behind 9/11 and has committed genocide.

Whatever happens, there is simply no chance that we will learn that Saddam was worse than we currently believe him to be. And a very good chance we will discover that he had no viable WMD and that his brutal regime was actually necessary to prevent the country from fragmenting into anarchy.

Bones

This is particularly true of the roughly 40% of the population that have fallen for the administration's propaganda campaign, and think that Saddam was behind 9/11 and has committed genocide.

Genocide, noun: The systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.

1 for 2, and the meaning of that remaining '1' has been twisted by liars and statisticians alike to the point where it is not a credible argument.

Adam, come on. I've seen the protests here and the majority of the protesters are not, as you're implying, chanting, signing, or otherwise proclaiming their love for America. The most frequent meme seems to be George Bush, not love of country.

Jack, others have already responded to your comments at least as well as I can. I just wanted to say that I do believe that you believe the war isn't going to make things better for the people of Irag. I just don't understand how you can believe that.

Bones:
"And a very good chance we will discover ... that his brutal regime was actually necessary to prevent the country from fragmenting into anarchy."

Oh. My. God. Rare to see an anti-war Fascist express themselves so openly.

Here's one quote that stands out among many similar stories lately:

"Former United Nations worker Vanessa Lough says that over the past two weeks children as young as four have been snatched from their parents and hung from lampposts or burned alive in southern Iraq. Scores of children have been executed as a way of punishing their parents."

Here's the link:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/columnists/tonyparsons/

Necessary? What kind of person can even entertain an idea like that?

David Thomson wrote:

"Nope, the problem with the polling done during the Truman-Dewey race was that it stopped too soon! They did not poll until the very last minute before people went into the voting booths."

Not all polls predicted Dewey. The "popcorn poll", an entirely self-selected sample, predicted Truman fairly early. It also predicted winners ofsix subsequent elections.

See http://www.habermas.org/sampling01.htm

See also http://www.oakridger.com/stories/041399/stt_0413990026.html
for information on the pollster.

(Saddam's) brutal regime was actually necessary to prevent the country from fragmenting into anarchy.

Unbelievable, Bones... using that logic, it sounds like wife beaters behave the way they do just to keep their sweethearts in line.

Talk about blaming the victim... sheesh!

I had a friend in college whose parents were adults in the 30's and 40's, unlike mine. He told me that his parents were very much against American involvment in WWII, and that this sentiment was unchanged for many people after Pearl Harbor. The mainstream media of the day did little to inform people about the Nazi concentration camps, the NYT being a prime and shameful example of a conspiracy of silence. Given these two facts, the poll numbers are easier to understand.

Comments are Closed.