Frightening Quote about Domestic Support of War

[John Galt]

A friend passed this along to me and it gave me a chill up my spine. The strange thing is that I wonder if we have reached a point where this process has become automatic. The period of persuasion seems to have decreased and support doesn't seem to be that hard to garner (what was the last war a domestic populace stopped before it started?).

Anyway, here is the quote:

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946.

[SplitPersonality1]

Fortunately for us, there is a very large difference between the regime of Nazi Germany and our current American government.

[Brillig]

If the domestic populace stopped a war before it started, then by definition, there would be no war. How could you tell it was about to start?

For example - U.S. domestic opinion kept the U.S. from unleashing a nuclear holocaust on the Middle East after 9/11. Disprove.

[Aylmar]

Originally posted by John Galt
(what was the last war a domestic populace stopped before it started?).

That's actually happened?

[Fritz]

john, that quote is used SO often

[Fritz]

dola, how would you know you have stopped a war unless it started?

[Butter]

Originally posted by Brillig
For example - U.S. domestic opinion kept the U.S. from unleashing a nuclear holocaust on the Middle East after 9/11. Disprove.

Prove that we were going to unleash a nuclear holocaust first! Are you serious?

[John Galt]

I'll try to answer everyone's issues:

Yes, there are big differences between Nazi Germany and the US, but in terms of waging war, there may be some similarities.

This quote may be used a lot, but I've never heard it.

And, by stopping a war before it starts, I mean in the buildup and rallying phase (the last several months). Many people on this board have aggressively attacked the protestors for continuing to oppose the war now that has begun. One of the implications of the quote above, is that if protesting never succeeds before the war, then that is all the more reason to oppose it once it has begun or we risk engaging in every conflict our leaders want (and that is something that scares me to death).

[dacman]

Originally posted by Fritz
john, that quote is used SO often

Not to mention its the 3rd time someone here has posted it in the last 2-3 weeks.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Prove that we were going to unleash a nuclear holocaust first! Are you serious?

Brillig's point was that you can't prove it. My reply is that the public doesn't seem to ever stop a war once the idea is floated. One could argue that the leaders are very Clintonesque and are on the pulse of America before they propose war, but one would expect to see at least some miscalculation and failed efforts to garner war support if that were the case.

[RonnieDobbs]

Originally posted by John Galt
A friend passed this along to me and it gave me a chill up my spine. The strange thing is that I wonder if we have reached a point where this process has become automatic. The period of persuasion seems to have decreased and support doesn't seem to be that hard to garner (what was the last war a domestic populace stopped before it started?).

What was the first war a domestic populace stopped before it started?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by dacman
Not to mention its the 3rd time someone here has posted it in the last 2-3 weeks.

I just did a search and saw that it was posted once before in a Tarkus war thread. Since I was trying to avoid further conflict with him, I didn't read that thread. I apologize for those who have already seen the quote.

[Maple Leafs]

Part of me wants to make fun of John for posting something that's been sent around the Internet so often over the last few months.

Then again, part of me wants to thank him for not posting that annoying "we talk more, but listen less" sermon instead.

[Drake]

People both in the U.S. and in the former Soviet Union seemed to do a pretty damned good job of stopping what should have been an inevitable war between super powers. We did it a bunch of times, in fact. Every day for about 30 years - and despite provocations and often hysterical fearmongering.

The people of the U.S. also kept FDR from getting into World War II until we were actually attacked by Axis forces at Pearl Harbor. The nation's unwillingness to join Britain's war from 1939 - 1941 is, I believe, quite well documented.

Let's see: There was a big push to get the U.S. involved in Rwanda a few years ago to stop the genocide efforts going on there. Admittedly, that was the media pushing rather than the government.

There was also Somalia. Again, elements in the media really pushed for U.S. involvement there, and the government agreed that something must be done to feed the Somali people. Mogadishu changed people's minds. That was a war we could have fallen into, but the negative opinions of the population pulled us out of.

[RonnieDobbs]

Originally posted by Drake
People both in the U.S. and in the former Soviet Union seemed to do a pretty damned good job of stopping what should have been an inevitable war between super powers. We did it a bunch of times, in fact. Every day for about 30 years - and despite provocations and often hysterical fearmongering.

The people of the U.S. also kept FDR from getting into World War II until we were actually attacked by Axis forces at Pearl Harbor. The nation's unwillingness to join Britain's war from 1939 - 1941 is, I believe, quite well documented.

Cold War: Couldn't you argue that it wasn't the people that stopped the Cold War, but rather the leaders? Both sides knew that no one would win that war, but everyone would lose. This was a driving part of our containment policy, and why it is called the cold war. I guess I just don't see how the people stopped this from happening. I wasn't alive then and haven't read anything that would indicate this was so, but were there widespread protests during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or was it handled internally mostly? I use the CMC as a point because it was probably the closest we came to war with the Soviets.

WWII: I would agree with the point that the people didn't want to get involved at first. Rampant isolationism, etc. However, couldn't one make the point that FDR manipulated the people into getting into the war? Lend-lease and other policies essentially goaded the Axis into attacking us as they saw our joining the war as inevitable.

So, I think one could argue in both cases that the people didn't do squat, really.

[Drake]

I'll accept your point about the Cold War to some extent. But when I say that "people stopped the war", it has nothing to do with war protests and waving placards - it has everything to do with the pervasive attitude among the population about the legitimacy, survivability and morality of the potential war. Those of us alive during the Cold War knew that it was a no-win proposition. It wasn't the government cautioning us to calm down - it was the other way around.

Regarding Lend-Lease (and other lesser known U.S. goads towards Japan and the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere): these don't count as manipulations as far as I'm concerned. They represented FDR opposing Axis actions in the only ways that public opinion allowed. Whether or not those actions goaded Japan into action really don't have anything to do with the question John posed. Public opinion kept us out of a war that the President wanted until which time the enemy acted so egregiously hostile that we could not stand by and accept it.

I suspect Japan would have attacked us one way or the other eventually.

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by SplitPersonality1
Fortunately for us, there is a very large difference between the regime of Nazi Germany and our current American government.

You could also argue that there are also a large amount of similarities, but heck its the weekend so I'm not going to

But one question - why is the goverment of Germany called a regime, and the American one isn't ?

[The Afoci]

because it was ran by a absolute ruler who took power by force.

edit, or was it elections, I can't remember now. my brain is turning to mush, so it could be completely wrong.

[SplitPersonality1]

Originally posted by CAsterling
You could also argue that there are also a large amount of similarities, but heck its the weekend so I'm not going to

But one question - why is the goverment of Germany called a regime, and the American one isn't ?

regime versus government. Hmmm.
Interesting question. I really had no ulterior motive when I posted this.

For me, it's just a matter of what sounds best to my ears. "Nazi regime" is a fairly common expression, as is "American government".

If you really want to change my original post to Nazi government and American regime, go right ahead. It doesn't change the spirit of my original post

To expand on my first post a bit:

What bothers me most about John Galt's initial post and others like it, is the faulty logic that is used to compare the two goverments/regimes.

[And no, this is not a slam of John Galt or anti-war posters, so flamers need not respond]

The Nazi's used a tactic to get people to agree with thier views on a war. The US used a tactic to get people to agree with thier views on a war. Oh my goodness. Nazi Germany equals 2003 America!

Uh, no.

Just because two people or two governments in this case, do the same thing; it is not logical to equate the two. It's like saying, SplitPersonality plays chess; Gary Kasparov plays chess. SplitPersonality must be a Grandmaster! (Truth be told, I suck)

I know there is term for this type of faulty logic but it's been nearly 20 years since I took my college logic class. I'm sure someone out there will come up with it.

I like a good debate on any topic, including pro and anti-war. I just wish people (on both sides of the issue) would think things through a bit.

[NoMyths]

It's still a good quote, mainly because it's so true.
Denouncing John for posting it "again" is a shameful tactic. But I suppose so is behaving as Goering indicated, which a handful on this board are doing.

[TroyF]

I listened to a professor from Denver University last week who was very anti-war. He made some outstanding points against the war. He also admitted that he could be wrong.

I guess that's what really gets me about the anti-war protesters I've spoken with and seen on TV. Their view is the right one. Period.

If we win the war and do everything we said we were going to do, it was still the WRONG decision.

Sorry, that attitude pisses me off. Being for this war, I could always see the dangers in it. I can easily envision a way it goes horribly wrong. Still, I think it's the right thing to do and that it should have been completed 12 years ago.

When the anti-war crowd brings up a Nazi quote and tells me that what happened then and now are the same things, I'm a tad insulted. First off, read some books on Nazi Germany and you'll find some "other" methods that were used to keep the public in line with the rulers thinking. Things like going into a factory, grabbing a random worker and beating him within an inch of his life. Then letting him go back to the factory and telling him and the other workers if anyone speaks badly about the Nazi party, they'll be next. (note: in most cases the random man picked hadn't said a single negative thing about the party)

Even the actual quote itself is wrong in my case. (and I'm sure others cases as well) I've read books on Saddam and his regime (government or whatever the hell else you want to call it) I didn't fall into some trap my government set for me. I've actually been upset my government let this go on for as long as it has.

The most outspoken of the anti-war crowd are quick to slam us "pro-war" people when we stereotype them. Yet I see those same people stereotyping me and other intelligent people who disagree with their views. I think both cases are sad.

There are MANY educated, intelligent opinions on this war. Some are for and some are against. IN MY OPINION, the case against is weak and morally shallow. I have no problem having a discussion of the subject, but please don't tell me I'm some mindless sheep following everything my government says when you do it.

TroyF

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by TroyF
I listened to a professor from Denver University last week who was very anti-war. He made some outstanding points against the war. He also admitted that he could be wrong.

I guess that's what really gets me about the anti-war protesters I've spoken with and seen on TV. Their view is the right one. Period.

If we win the war and do everything we said we were going to do, it was still the WRONG decision.

Sorry, that attitude pisses me off. Being for this war, I could always see the dangers in it. I can easily envision a way it goes horribly wrong. Still, I think it's the right thing to do and that it should have been completed 12 years ago.

When the anti-war crowd brings up a Nazi quote and tells me that what happened then and now are the same things, I'm a tad insulted. First off, read some books on Nazi Germany and you'll find some "other" methods that were used to keep the public in line with the rulers thinking. Things like going into a factory, grabbing a random worker and beating him within an inch of his life. Then letting him go back to the factory and telling him and the other workers if anyone speaks badly about the Nazi party, they'll be next. (note: in most cases the random man picked hadn't said a single negative thing about the party)

Even the actual quote itself is wrong in my case. (and I'm sure others cases as well) I've read books on Saddam and his regime (government or whatever the hell else you want to call it) I didn't fall into some trap my government set for me. I've actually been upset my government let this go on for as long as it has.

The most outspoken of the anti-war crowd are quick to slam us "pro-war" people when we stereotype them. Yet I see those same people stereotyping me and other intelligent people who disagree with their views. I think both cases are sad.

There are MANY educated, intelligent opinions on this war. Some are for and some are against. IN MY OPINION, the case against is weak and morally shallow. I have no problem having a discussion of the subject, but please don't tell me I'm some mindless sheep following everything my government says when you do it.

TroyF

Thank you.