realjohnboy
 
  1  
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 04:00 pm
There have been 62 views of this thread since I started the Pop Quiz. But only Cyclo, Okie and Spendius ventured guesses. I posted invites on a couple other A2K political threads. No takers from the people known to be on-line.
So it goes.
My guesses would have been:
1) Bush, Jr.
2) Nixon
3) Bush, Jr.
4) JFK
5) Nixon
okie
 
  0  
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 04:46 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, do you have the proof of your answers and can you provide the proof with a link or links?
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 04:46 pm
Envelopes, please...
1) Which President enjoyed the HIGHEST approval rating during his term(s)?

Bush, Jr hit 90% after 9/11. Bush, Sr got 89% on 2/28/91 followed by Truman at 87% on 6/1/45. FDR and JFK got up to 84% and 83%, respectively.
Ike, LBJ and Carter managed to get to the mid to high 70's, with Clinton (73), Ford (71), Obama (69), Reagan (68) and Nixon (67) trailing.

2) Which President had the LOWEST approval rating during his term(s)?

Truman (2/9/52) at 22% followed by Nixon (8/2/74) at 24% and Bush, Jr with 25% (10/31/08). Carter was at 28% followed by Bush, Sr at 29% and LBJ, Reagan, Ford and Clinton in the 35% range. Obama so far, and quite recently, 44%. Ike and FDR were never below 48%. JFK, in his short term, never went below 56%.

3) Which President had the biggest swing between high and low approval ratings?

Truman and Bush, Jr take the prize. dropping 65 points each. Bush, Sr dropped 60. Carter, LBJ and Nixon follow. Obama is down 25 so far from his high.

4) Which President had the smallest swing?

JFK, Ike, Reagan, Ford and Clinton.

5) Which President had the highest disapproval rating?

Bush, Jr (10/10/08) at 71%. Truman (67%) and Nixon (66%) followed.


0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 05:00 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

rjb, do you have the proof of your answers and can you provide the proof with a link or links?


A completely fair question, Okie. You must appreciate. though, that I have never been able to master links. I am not too bright.
Please google in "bush obama approval rating comparison"
The 1st entry, from Wikipedia, has a link to "Current President Obama - Historical Comparison"
That is where I got my data, which I printed out.
I mentioned that there are a lot of footnotes that I find cautionary.

Let me know if you spot any flaws. Thanks.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 04:56 pm
@realjohnboy,
Thanks rjb, an interesting exercise or set of data to consider. I sympathize with you in regard to mastering things on the computer, but posting a link is pretty simple. Simply click on the web address at the top of the browser when you have the page you want to link open, and copy it, which can be done easily by going to Edit and Copy or if on a pc by simply hitting control c, then pasting it into your post by going to Edit and Paste, or by simply hitting control v if you are on a pc.

I agree with your cautionary footnotes, and one big thing to consider would be that all of your poll numbers are from Gallup, which is okay if we understand the source, at least it is consistently the same polling outfit. The caution I would point out about that is that Gallup may vary over time in regard to their accuracy, after all we are spanning several decades here, so the data might be a bit like comparing apples and oranges. It kind of depends upon how much Gallup has changed in how it has conducted its polling and how its accuracy has varied over a long period of time. That same question could be asked of any polling outfit if the data spanned over a half century. After all, the people in the company would have changed, plus their approaches and methods are bound to have been tweaked at least a little bit.

The question that I think may have one of the most significant cautionary notes would be the president that has had the smallest swing in approval ratings. The answer according to your source is JFK at 27%, but there should be an asterisk by that number by virtue of the fact that JFK only held office from 1961 to 1963. In fact a swing of 27% over just 2 plus years is not a very good indicator of how he was going as president. If he had held office the normal term of 4 years, the possibility is strong that his swing in approval would have exceeded that of Eisenhower who served for 8 years, about 4 times as long as JFK. So when you look at Eisenhower in office for 8 years with an approval rating swing of only 31%, that is a remarkable record, and indeed I can remember as a kid how well liked Ike was, and he remained so throughout his presidency. My parents did not vote for Ike, but they still spoke of him with affection by the time his service was done. And even Reagan who also served 8 years, his approval rating swing of just 33% is also a remarkable record. He is also remembered as a very well liked and beloved president, that was not only favored by Republicans but was able to attract a sizeable portion of Democrats, now known as Reagan Democrats.

Anyway, thanks for the information on all of that, rjb.

okie
 
  0  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 05:12 pm
@okie,
rjb, the question about the swing in approval ratings for presidents, that caused me to check Obama's numbers again. Using Rasmussen here, it appears his number for swing in approval from high to low might be aided by the fact that his high was never that high to begin with, only about 65% according to Rasmussen, but it was probably higher according to other pollsters. I see Gallup had him at 69%. He has now hit a low flirting with 40%, so that the swing in less than 2 years is already about 25%, but still less than what JFK's number was. However, I doubt the number for the swing from high to low will be that high by the time his term is over, by virtue of the fact that his approval rating was never that high to begin with. In contrast, Bush had a high of 90%, which is astoundingly high, so no wonder the swing was significant after the press and the Democrats beat up on him for years.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 05:13 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

rjb, the question about the swing in approval ratings for presidents, that caused me to check Obama's numbers again. Using Rasmussen here, it appears his number for swing in approval from high to low might be aided by the fact that his high was never that high to begin with, only about 65% according to Rasmussen, but it was probably higher according to other pollsters. I see Gallup had him at 69%. He has now hit a low flirting with 40%, so that the swing in less than 2 years is already about 25%, but still less than what JFK's number was. However, I doubt the number for the swing from high to low will be that high by the time his term is over, by virtue of the fact that his approval rating was never that high to begin with. In contrast, Bush had a high of 90%, which is astoundingly high, so no wonder the swing was significant after the press and the Democrats beat up on him for years.


Bah, his rating only hit 90% the week after 9/11, when people were all scared and panicky. It wasn't reflective of his term.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 05:25 pm
Thanks for them kind words, Okie. This was a throw-away posting by me when it was over a 100 degrees in Charlottesville and I had nothing better to do. In the Gallup data are graphs of each President's approval rating during his term(s). I didn't print those out, but I suspect Cyclo is right that G.W. Bush got a big spike with 9/11 but then there began a steady decline.
okie
 
  1  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 05:28 pm
@realjohnboy,
I can agree with cylcops on the spike from 9/11, I think that would happen with any president, as the American people tend to rally around their presidents in times of crisis, that is just our nature. But that does not change the fact that Bush was in office much longer and he took a tremendous beating from the Democrats and from the press, so his swing in approval ratings is not surprising. I still think history will look upon Bush more kindly than we are now led to believe.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 06:47 pm
@okie,
As a total aside, it's story time.
I was raised in D.C. Born in 1946. The 1st President I remember was Ike. Yes, Okie, everyone liked Ike. He was a personable guy with a stellar WW2 record. He played golf a lot.
My dad got his pay check from the Navy Department, but he never wore a uniform. He never said what he did when he went off to work every day. Never. He died at age 88. Never would talk about. He also was totally apolitical.
My mom had tea with Mamie Eisenhower - albeit with a few hundred other women.
Mom had no great fondness for Jackie Kennedy.
My mom was an activist in the civil rights movement, particularly when our new home of Charlottesville, Virginia, agreed to take the hit for the Governor closing the public schools rather then integrate. Our schools were closed for a year when I was about 14.
Carter. I lived in GA and worked as a very junior CPA. I worked on audits for a large firm. I traveled all over the state in the summer he was running for Gov. I would go to county fairs in the evenings and there he would be, delivering the same speech over and over again. I did get to talk with him on occasion, albeit briefly.
I met Nelson Rockefeller in an elevator.
And Jerry Brown's dad, also a former Gov of CA. I can't remember the father's name. Met him in a bar in Egypt. He was, perhaps, a bit tipsy and his wife admonished him to stop talking to me when she realized that perhaps I knew a bit about the somewhat shady lobbyist he kept talking about.
Carry on. I'll be quiet.
okie
 
  1  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 08:34 pm
@realjohnboy,
Thanks for the stories. Curious, was your Mom a Republican, and can you, or she confirm if still alive, that the Republicans were at that time at the forefront of doing more for civil rights than the Democrats had even dreamed? Not until LBJ decided to throw a bone to blacks for their votes did the Democrats gain the black vote.

By the way, I have always thought that part of the reason Eisenhower was a good president is that he didn't do too much other than play golf. Presidents are not meant to be activists and create all the crap they are want to do if left unfettered anyway, thats my thought on it.
JTT
 
  0  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 08:52 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
He was a personable guy with a stellar WW2 record.


Not so stellar, RJB. Ike, it turns out, was a war criminal of gigantic proportions.

Quote:
In 'Eisenhower’s Death Camps': A U.S. Prison Guard Remembers

Martin Brech
In October 1944, at age eighteen, I was drafted into the U.S. army. Largely because of the “Battle of the Bulge,” my training was cut short, my furlough was halved, and I was sent overseas immediately. Upon arrival in Le Havre, France, we were quickly loaded into box cars and shipped to the front. When we got there, I was suffering increasingly severe symptoms of mononucleosis, and was sent to a hospital in Belgium. Since mononucleosis was then known as the "kissing disease," I mailed a letter of thanks to my girlfriend.

By the time I left the hospital, the outfit I had trained with in Spartanburg, South Carolina, was deep inside Germany, so, despite my protests, I was placed in a “repo depot” (replacement depot). I lost interest in the units to which I was assigned, and don't recall all of them: non-combat units were ridiculed at that time. My separation qualification record states I was mostly with Company C, 14th Infantry Regiment, during my seventeen-month stay in Germany, but I remember being transferred to other outfits also.

In late March or early April 1945, I was sent to guard a POW camp near Andernach along the Rhine. I had four years of high school German, so I was able to talk to the prisoners, although this was forbidden. Gradually, however, I was used as an interpreter and asked to ferret out members of the S.S. (I found none.)

In Andernach about 50,000 prisoners of all ages were held in an open field surrounded by barbed wire. The women were kept in a separate enclosure that I did not see until later. The men I guarded had no shelter and no blankets. Many had no coats. They slept in the mud, wet and cold, with inadequate slit trenches for excrement. It was a cold, wet spring, and their misery from exposure alone was evident.

Even more shocking was to see the prisoners throwing grass and weeds into a tin can containing a thin soup. They told me they did this to help ease their hunger pains. Quickly they grew emaciated. Dysentery raged, and soon they were sleeping in their own excrement, too weak and crowded to reach the slit trenches. Many were begging for food, sickening and dying before our eyes. We had ample food and supplies, but did nothing to help them, including no medical assistance.

Outraged, I protested to my officers and was met with hostility or bland indifference. When pressed, they explained they were under strict orders from “higher up.” No officer would dare do this to 50,000 men if he felt that it was “out of line,” leaving him open to charges. Realizing my protests were useless, I asked a friend working in the kitchen if he could slip me some extra food for the prisoners. He too said they were under strict orders to severely ration the prisoners’ food, and that these orders came from “higher up.” But he said they had more food than they knew what to do with, and would sneak me some.

When I threw this food over the barbed wire to the prisoners, I was caught and threatened with imprisonment. I repeated the “offense,” and one officer angrily threatened to shoot me. I assumed this was a bluff until I encountered a captain on a hill above the Rhine shooting down at a group of German civilian women with his .45 caliber pistol. When I asked, “Why?,” he mumbled, “Target practice," and fired until his pistol was empty. I saw the women running for cover, but, at that distance, couldn't tell if any had been hit.

This is when I realized I was dealing with cold-blooded killers filled with moralistic hatred. They considered the Germans subhuman and worthy of extermination; another expression of the downward spiral of racism. Articles in the G.I. newspaper, Stars and Stripes, played up the German concentration camps, complete with photos of emaciated bodies. This amplified our self-righteous cruelty, and made it easier to imitate behavior we were supposed to oppose. Also, I think, soldiers not exposed to combat were trying to prove how tough they were by taking it out on the prisoners and civilians.

These prisoners, I found out, were mostly farmers and workingmen, as simple and ignorant as many of our own troops. As time went on, more of them lapsed into a zombie-like state of listlessness, while others tried to escape in a demented or suicidal fashion, running through open fields in broad daylight towards the Rhine to quench their thirst. They were mowed down.

Some prisoners were as eager for cigarettes as for food, saying they took the edge off their hunger. Accordingly, enterprising G.I. “Yankee traders” were acquiring hordes of watches and rings in exchange for handfuls of cigarettes or less. When I began throwing cartons of cigarettes to the prisoners to ruin this trade, I was threatened by rank-and-file G.I.s too.

The only bright spot in this gloomy picture came one night when. I was put on the “graveyard shift,” from two to four a.m. Actually, there was a graveyard on the uphill side of this enclosure, not many yards away. My superiors had forgotten to give me a flashlight and I hadn't bothered to ask for one, disgusted as I was with the whole situation by that time. It was a fairly bright night and I soon became aware of a prisoner crawling under the wires towards the graveyard. We were supposed to shoot escapees on sight, so I started to get up from the ground to warn him to get back. Suddenly I noticed another prisoner crawling from the graveyard back to the enclosure. They were risking their lives to get to the graveyard for something. I had to investigate.

When I entered the gloom of this shrubby, tree-shaded cemetery, I felt completely vulnerable, but somehow curiosity kept me moving. Despite my caution, I tripped over the legs of someone in a prone position. Whipping my rifle around while stumbling and trying to regain composure of mind and body, I soon was relieved I hadn't reflexively fired. The figure sat up. Gradually, I could see the beautiful but terror-stricken face of a woman with a picnic basket nearby. German civilians were not allowed to feed, nor even come near the prisoners, so I quickly assured her I approved of what she was doing, not to be afraid, and that I would leave the graveyard to get out of the way.

I did so immediately and sat down, leaning against a tree at the edge of the cemetery to be inconspicuous and not frighten the prisoners. I imagined then, and still do now, what it would be like to meet a beautiful woman with a picnic basket under those conditions as a prisoner. I have never forgotten her face.

Eventually, more prisoners crawled back to the enclosure. I saw they were dragging food to their comrades, and could only admire their courage and devotion.

On May 8, V.E. Day [1945], I decided to celebrate with some prisoners I was guarding who were baking bread the other prisoners occasionally received. This group had all the bread they could eat, and shared the jovial mood generated by the end of the war. We all thought we were going home soon, a pathetic hope on their part. We were in what was to become the French zone [of occupation], where I soon would witness the brutality of the French soldiers when we transferred our prisoners to them for their slave labor camps.

On this day, however, we were happy.

As a gesture of friendliness, I emptied my rifle and stood it in the corner, even allowing them to play with it at their request. This thoroughly “broke the ice,” and soon we were singing songs we taught each other, or that I had learned in high school German class (“Du, du, liegst mir im Herzen”). Out of gratitude, they baked me a special small loaf of sweet bread, the only possible present they had left to offer. I stuffed it in my “Eisenhower jacket,” and snuck it back to my barracks, eating it when I had privacy. I have never tasted more delicious bread, nor felt a deeper sense of communion while eating it. I believe a cosmic sense of Christ (the Oneness of all Being) revealed its normally hidden presence to me on that occasion, influencing my later decision to major in philosophy and religion.

Shortly afterwards, some of our weak and sickly prisoners were marched off by French soldiers to their camp. We were riding on a truck behind this column. Temporarily, it slowed down and dropped back, perhaps because the driver was as shocked as I was. Whenever a German prisoner staggered or dropped back, he was hit on the head with a club and killed. The bodies were rolled to the side of the road to be picked up by another truck. For many, this quick death might have been preferable to slow starvation in our “killing fields.”

When I finally saw the German women held in a separate enclosure, I asked why we were holding them prisoner. I was told they were “camp followers,” selected as breeding stock for the S.S. to create a super-race. I spoke to some, and must say I never met a more spirited or attractive group of women. I certainly didn't think they deserved imprisonment.

More and more I was used as an interpreter, and was able to prevent some particularly unfortunate arrests. One somewhat amusing incident involved an old farmer who was being dragged away by several M.P.s. I was told he had a “fancy Nazi medal,” which they showed me. Fortunately, I had a chart identifying such medals. He'd been awarded it for having five children! Perhaps his wife was somewhat relieved to get him “off her back, ”but I didn't think one of our death camps was a fair punishment for his contribution to Germany. The M.P.s agreed and released him to continue his “dirty work.”

Famine began to spread among the German civilians also. It was a common sight to see German women up to their elbows in our garbage cans looking for something edible -- that is, if they weren't chased away.

When I interviewed mayors of small towns and villages, I was told that their supply of food had been taken away by “displaced persons” (foreigners who had worked in Germany), who packed the food on trucks and drove away. When I reported this, the response was a shrug. I never saw any Red Cross at the camp or helping civilians, although their coffee and doughnut stands were available everywhere else for us. In the meantime, the Germans had to rely on the sharing of hidden stores until the next harvest.

Hunger made German women more “available," but despite this, rape was prevalent and often accompanied by additional violence. In particular I remember an eighteen-year old woman who had the side of her faced smashed with a rifle butt, and was then raped by two G.I.s. Even the French complained that the rapes, looting and drunken destructiveness on the part of our troops was excessive. In Le Havre, we’d been given booklets warning us that the German soldiers had maintained a high standard of behavior with French civilians who were peaceful, and that we should do the same. In this we failed miserably.

“So what?” some would say. “The enemy's atrocities were worse than ours.” It is true that I experienced only the end of the war, when we were already the victors. The German opportunity for atrocities had faded, while ours was at hand. But two wrongs don't make a right. Rather than copying our enemy's crimes, we should aim once and for all to break the cycle of hatred and vengeance that has plagued and distorted human history. This is why I am speaking out now, 45 years after the crime. We can never prevent individual war crimes, but we can, if enough of us speak out, influence government policy. We can reject government propaganda that depicts our enemies as subhuman and encourages the kind of outrages I witnessed. We can protest the bombing of civilian targets, which still goes on today. And we can refuse ever to condone our government’s murder of unarmed and defeated prisoners of war.

I realize it’s difficult for the average citizen to admit witnessing a crime of this magnitude, especially if implicated himself. Even G.I.s sympathetic to the victims were afraid to complain and get into trouble, they told me. And the danger has not ceased. Since I spoke out a few weeks ago, I have received threatening calls and had my mailbox smashed. But its been worth it. Writing about these atrocities has been a catharsis of feelings suppressed too long, a liberation, that perhaps will remind other witnesses that “the truth will make us free, have no fear.” We may even learn a supreme lesson from all this: only love can conquer all.

Martin Brech lives in Mahopac, New York. When he wrote this memoir essay in 1990, he was an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Mercy College in Dobbs Ferry, New York. Brech holds a master’s degree in theology from Columbia University, and is a Unitarian-Universalist minister.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p161_Brech.html



plainoldme
 
  0  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 08:57 pm
@JTT,
Everyone take cover before okie sees the above post!
JTT
 
  0  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 09:57 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
Taking cover isn't what's needed, POM. Honesty, facing up to the truth, speaking out is the only way to stop these horrors from happening, as they have happened, time and again, from US incursions into numerous foreign lands.

It's all too apparent. It's ingrained in the US psyche and that of the military; "we can do anything we want, we can commit the most horrendous war crimes, engage in torture, rape and murder and we're untouchable".

Okie's normal response is no different than that of MM, Ican, Cycloptichorn, FailuresArt, you, or the hundreds of others who see and read without so much as a peep.


Quote:

OTHER LOSSES: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MASS DEATHS OF GERMAN PRISONERS AT THE HANDS OF THE FRENCH AND AMERICANS AFTER WORLD WAR II by James Bacque. Toronto: Stoddart, 1989, hardbound, 248 pages, bibliography, index, photographs, $26.95. ISBN: 0-7737-2269-6.

Journal of Historical Review

Reviewed by Arthur S. Ward



What actually befell the German POWs has been succinctly stated by Col. Ernest F. Fisher, a former senior historian with the United States Army, in the foreword to James Bacque's explosive new book, Other Losses:

More than five million German soldiers in the American and French zones were crowded into barbed wire cages, many of them literally shoulder to shoulder. The ground beneath them soon became a quagmire of filth and disease. Open to the weather, lacking even primitive sanitary facilities, underfed, the prisoners soon began dying of starvation and disease. Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated about one million men, most of them in American camps.

...

After sifting though U.S. Army files stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., where he was assisted by Col. Fisher, as well as relevant Canadian, British, and French records, Bacque has come to the conclusion that:

… enormous numbers of men of all ages, plus some women and children, died of exposure, unsanitary conditions, disease and starvation in the American and French camps in Germany and France … The victims undoubtedly number over 800,000, almost certainly over 900,000 and quite likely over a million. Their deaths were knowingly caused by army officers who had sufficient resources to keep the prisoners alive.

Bacque's research indicates that Germans who surrendered to the British or Canadians shared a different fate from that of the Germans in American, French, or Soviet hands when the war ended. The Canadian Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, early on issued a protest to the American authorities - which was ignored. Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, who had no love for the Germans, seemed to reflect the views of many British, when he remarked:

"I hold no brief for the Germans except humane treatment … I do not think we should provide a ration less than Belsen."

Under the Geneva convention, German prisoners should have received adequate food, shelter, and medical attention. As the war-time records disclose, food and other needed supplies were available in abundance in the Western occupation zones. But thousands of POWs were kept for months in wire cages with little food and virtually no shelter.

By arbitrarily classifying their captives as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" rather than "prisoners of war," American military authorities were able to keep the Red Cross from monitoring conditions in the holding pens and to prevent the IRC from delivering surplus food and supplies to the German POWs. Train loads of provisions were actually turned away.

Since SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Forces) imposed stricter censorship after VE- Day than during the war, the general American public was largely kept ignorant of conditions prevailing in post-war Europe (opinion polls clearly indicated that, despite years of propaganda, the American public did not favor a vengeful peace).

When rumors began to circulate about the treatment received by prisoners in some of the camps, the French stated that the POWs were well treated. The American authorities planted stories in the New York Times blaming the French. Later, both the French and Americans denied having as many prisoners as they actually had captured. They said that missing soldiers were undergoing Soviet captivity (the existing U.S. records put paid to this lie).

Who was responsible for these crimes? Bacque blames the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, as well as General Charles De Gaulle. Ike is portrayed as the architect of the policy, which resulted in "slow deaths," since it was he who implemented general directives that originated with Franklin Roosevelt and Henry Morgenthau. Care of the POWs was among Eisenhower's official responsibilities. The author presents evidence that Ike knew what was going on and took active measures to reduce rations and prevent other necessities from reaching German detainees. As stated above, many prisoners were reclassified as Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEFs). They remained in captivity. But since they were no longer recognized as POWs, their treatment was not conditioned by provisions of the Geneva Convention.

Bacque's detective work has resulted in what amounts to a terrible indictment of U.S. and French policy. Professor Stephen E. Ambrose, an Eisenhower biographer and editor of his official papers, admits that Bacque "has made an important discovery."

Yet, Other Losses, for several months now a best-seller in Canada and Germany, has been rejected by over thirty publishers in this country. It is currently available only by mail from the IHR and to those who are able to visit Canada.

Bacque's book, and the reception it has been accorded in the United States, raises a number of questions. It highlights the failure of international law to protect combatants and non- combatants, alike. And it shows the consequences of over thirty years of anti-German propaganda, dating from before the outbreak of World War I. The "German as Beast" was a familiar theme and if Eisenhower and his associates had little regard for the Germans, they were reflecting views nurtured by the Allies during both world wars.

Bacque, who is not an academic historian, has embarrassed the Establishment here. His book reflects the low state of academic and officer government history in this country. Anfl the fact that he can't find a U.S. publisher is another example of how censorship works in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." His book has not been banned. Like other important works that deal with what James J. Martin characterizes as "inconvenient history," Other Losses simply has not been printed. After all, you don't have to go to the trouble of "banning" what never gets into print in the first place.

Other Losses is a fine example of historical investigation, which also serves as a reminder of what sort of country Americans really live in.


http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/10/2/Ward227-231.html


firefly
 
  2  
Tue 27 Jul, 2010 11:53 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Not until LBJ decided to throw a bone to blacks for their votes did the Democrats gain the black vote.


I think that from the time of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, until now, the Democrats have had the black vote. Truman, for instance, won 70% of the black vote in 1948. He supported a Fair Employment Practices Commission to fight job discrimination and he desegregated the military.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jul, 2010 05:32 am
@firefly,
Your post reminded me of a song from the New Deal Era that I could only remember a snatch of chorus from.

Here are some links should anyone want to pursue songs about FDR written and performed by black people:

http://teachddd.blogspot.com/2008/11/fdr-songs.html

http://www.upress.state.ms.us/books/640

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1121808
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jul, 2010 09:01 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Martin Brech lives in Mahopac, New York. When he wrote this memoir essay in 1990, he was an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Mercy College in Dobbs Ferry, New York. Brech holds a master’s degree in theology from Columbia University, and is a Unitarian-Universalist minister.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p161_Brech.html


Just a curiosity, can anyone else confirm who this Martin Brech really is and if he existed? The only reference I could find to this guy is his supposed writings, and otherwise I found this Martin Brecht, spelled differently, but curiously similar, but a professor in Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Brecht
okie
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jul, 2010 09:25 am
@okie,
Another curiosity, at the end of the essay published on the web, it says:
Revised, updated: Nov. 2008), which would make this guy Brech at least 82 when it was supposedly updated, which would require he live beyond the average life span.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jul, 2010 09:45 am
@JTT,
Some but not all Americans acted like gangsters during WWII. But try as they may, these American gangsters never ecen came close to a tenth of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis gangsters. It was very hard for some Americans to control their hatred of the Nazis. Nonetheless, almost all did.
JTT wrote:
Quote:
Under the Geneva convention, German prisoners should have received adequate food, shelter, and medical attention. As the war-time records disclose, food and other needed supplies were available in abundance in the Western occupation zones. But thousands of POWs were kept for months in wire cages with little food and virtually no shelter.

okie
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jul, 2010 09:52 am
@ican711nm,
ican, there are a few red flags with this Martin Brech essay, supposedly detailing atrocities against Germans. See my previous posts on this. Also, I have not mentioned it yet, but I have in fact a relative, past 90 now, that was part of the allied forces entering Germany, and none of this matches anything he has ever told about it, nothing whatsoever. Count me a skeptic about this Brech essay until we have more evidence for its accuracy.

Remember, this all started here in an effort to demonize Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose quality of character we already know, and I doubt very seriously he would have sanctioned such stuff, no I don't believe it, not based upon some questionable and possibly fictitious internet page.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1727
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/23/2025 at 11:53:50