Posted on 10/11/2006 4:43:01 PM PDT by 7thson
Just caught a trailor - online - of Flags of our Fathers. At the beginning of the trailor, a narrator says "people were tired of war." My question, was that true for back then? Or is that some current crap thrown in?
I think people are always tired of war.
But we dont have the luxury to let that prevent victory, then or now.
Which war?
Thomas Sowell's recent article talked about this, too. (the "tired of war" part). Levin mentioned it on yesterday's show.
I think people are always tired of war.
The greatest generation was not "tired of war". They were angry and wanted to crush the enemy, and then be done with it. Hmmmm. It worked.
I think the biggest difference is the fact that we used to fight wars as a nation. We rationed resources, bought war bonds and grew victory gardens. Today we send soldiers to fight then complain when things don't go the way we want.
Yes, they were. By that point, the war had gone on for over three years, and we'd just fought bloody campaigns for Aachen, the Ardennes, and the Philippines. Japan had just started using kamikaze tactics a few months earlier. As far as America could tell, we had at least another two years of war left, and that the last year on Japanese soil would be the bloodiest.
Read the book and you will find out that the narrator is correct and that Clint Eastwood did not go liberal on us.
The book is one of the best I have ever read and, yes, after four years, Americans were tired of war. The photo, and the stories of heroism on Iwo, energized the country to finish things without losing hope. Before the "photo," the War Dep't was concerned that the next bond drive would raise enough money for the next phase. But Americans were so enthused by the Iwo stories, and the heroes, that the bond drive exceeded its goals significantly.
Remember, no one knew in February 1945 that the war would be over in six months. Everyone expected a costly and bloody invasion of Japan by November.
Suggest you get the book at the library and read it before the movie. It will not spoil the movie and you will understand better the context for the movie.
Final note -- do not read anything else by the book author, James Bradley, especially his second book, "Flyboys." He is a product of the sixties generation and spent his formative years in Japan as a leftist. His political leanings do not really come out in "Flags" but in "Flyboys" all his moral relativism spews forth, and he equates Japan's evil with America's own conduct during WWII. I think the reason he got away with it is he had no adult supervision when writing the book. "Flags" was Bradley's first book and written with a co-author, an expert on WWII. "Flyboys" was written on his own.
My mother graduated high school in 1944, and yes, she's told me, they were tired of the war...more resigned to it, really. She didn't know my father at the time, but in 1945 he was in the Philippines, a sergeant in a motor pool on Leyte, and had already been told that he was probably going to be reassigned as an infantryman for Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan.
The area where my mom grew up had already suffered fairly heavily--central Virginia, around Lynchburg (the city of Bedford in particular), had lost a lot of men when the 29th Infantry Division went ashore on D-Day. Chances are, had the war continued, despite the heavy losses the 29th had suffered (around 200% casualties for the entire European campaign), most of them were going to get to storm the beaches of Japan the same way they had in Normandy.
The will to win, she always told me, hadn't diminished. But they were most definitely tired of the sacrifices and saddened by the losses.
I've never read "Flags of Our Fathers," but I got "Flyboys" as a gift and have read it, and I'll concur with your opinion. We were hypocritical at times in our foreign policy toward Japan pre-war, but he definitely goes way too far in making us as much of a bad guy as Imperial Japan was. His description of the Tokyo firebomb raid on 8-9 March 1945, though, is chilling. Not many people know that we'd already killed more civilians in bomb raids on Tokyo than we had on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The only difference was that killing 120,000 people in Tokyo took 334 planes; killing 120,000 in Hiroshima took one.
}:-)4
"The greatest generation was not "tired of war"."
My parents were of that generation. My father was in the Navy and later civil service.
Rationing, funerals, long hours of work for all, news of thousands of Americans killed in single battles creating even more fatherless children.
There was no joy in that of course.
Sacrifice is the difference between then and now.
There is little sacrifice made by the average American civilian in this war today. Life is not disrupted for the average American as it was then.
Perhaps "sick" of war is more appropriate. That does not mean one is not motivated to win and understand sacrifice.
It simply not something anyone would choose unless it is a last resort or forced upon us.
There was a job to do. They did it, and at a great cost I hope this nation never has to pay again so much.
But the hollywood commies and I mean real commies only joined the effort in favor of the war when Hitler turned and attacked Stalin. Before that the KGB guys were directing them to be aganist the war and they were. They were still traitors.
We hear today that the American people are "war weary" and that's why the Dems supposedly are poised to take control of Congress. If that is true then it indicates we have lost our will and have perhaps ceased to be great. How much do Americans have to sacrifice because of the Iraq war? I don't think most people even notice a thing in their daily lives. If we are tired of the war on terror, we'd better get used to it since that is probably never going to end as the bad guys will never give up and we can't annihilate all of them.
In WW2 I'm sure Americans had a much tougher time of it. People today have just grown too soft, IMHO.
If you think 1940s America was filled with women happy about their husbands/boyfriends/sons being thousands of miles away eating shrapnel, you have been the victim of postwar revisionism.
The good news is that the kids at Ain'titcool news hated it because it was too confusing...so it probably will not be a hit, but I suspect Hollywood will give it oodles of awards.
There was a real isolationist movement headed up by Charles Lindberg, and had Joe Kennedy Sr. as core believers.
There was even a H.R. Bill 1776 that called for us to be independent of European hostilities and remain neutral.
Also in WWII you didnt have the MSM telling the people nothing but bad news and telling them just how "war weary" they are.
Times are so different now.
The war on terror is fought right here at home in so many ways.
Is your tailer a traiter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.