[HIDEK6]

You're scratching the surface of something that's troubling me. Why were media accounts of WWII, not just news reels, so pro-America? Why was WWII not a major political theme in the general elections of 1942 or 1944? Are those days gone, or just missing?

The media promoted the righteousness of WWII because FDR was a socialist and it was his war. And Stalin was on our side for that one.

It's like the media cheerleading during all of Clinton's "wars."

[backtothestreets]

"The media promoted the righteousness of WWII because FDR was a socialist and it was his war. And Stalin was on our side for that one."

From the close of the 19th Century and the Spanish American War, until his death in 1951, the United States had a singular media mongol that dwarfed all his competitors.  William Randolph Hearst was not a socialist, yet his support of United States war efforts during WWI and WWII never took partisan form despite the presence of Democrat presidents.  Hearst would never have supported WWII if it had been FDR's war.  Hearst supported the war because it was America's war.  Hearst and the first President Roosevelt, Theodore, shared an imperialistic vision for the future of the United States that was far from socialistic.

Further, in 1939 in opposition to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Willkie campaigned against the government's lack of military preparedness. During the election, Roosevelt preempted the military issue by expanding military contracts.  For this, Willkie changed tactics and accused Roosevelt of warmongering.  After the election, Willkie called for greater national support for controversial Roosevelt initiatives such as the Lend-Lease Act and embarked on a new campaign to awaken America from its isolationist slumber. On July 23, 1941, he urged unlimited aid to the United Kingdom in its struggle against Nazi Germany.

No, Americans did not fight this war because it was FDR's war, or because FDR was a socialist.  My own father, a disabled WWII veteran of German decent and a lifelong Republican, was very opposed to FDR, yet served our country.  He, and millions of other Republican veterans would turn in thier graves to hear WWII was FDR's war, and they supported it.

Also, the ties between the USA and the USSR did not begin with the wartime relationship between FDR and Stalin.  They were rooted much earlier in the 1920's before the rise of Stalin.  Americans of all political persuasions were intrigued with the events of post czar Russia.  This initial interest led to the depression era migration of US citizens to the USSR (1930-1932).  These were the only years in our history where the number of migrants out of the country outpaced immigration.  Without this drain of intellectual and technological talent, it is questionable if the USSR could have produced the wartime industries necessary to fight Germany, or later challenge the USA.  The migration of American citizens to Soviet Russia was viewed as relieving the impact of the depression here in the USA, and received tacit government approval.  It is due to this experience, that the United States has worked with post communist Russia to prevent a similar "brain drain" to potential future adversaries.

What America needs to win wars is America, all of America.  GWB has the capacity to unite the entire nation in this effort.  When he chides Kerry and Democrats for trying to politicize our war efforts, he must also chide Republicans politicizing the war.  As Commander-in-Chief, he must bring all political factions to understand America is greatest when united.

I believe President Bush can do this, and handily win reelection.  I further believe his efforts in bringing all political factions into the War on Terrorism will translate into other political victories that now seem unattainable.