The Greatest Generation

With our nation at war, a war which divides us, it is easier to talk about another war and what has become to be known as our “Greatest Generation”, the US military personal who fought in World War Two. Some who read what I am about to write will read things that I am not writing; that the US military personal of World War Two were not heroes or that they did not do a great job. I will not write that and I do not believe it either, BUT what I do believe is that by giving our military personal so much credit as the “Greatest Generation”, we take that title away from the rest of the “Greatest Generation”, the people that stayed home.

Yes, our military fought very well, but so did many on the opposite side of the line. Yes, our military was brave, but so were so many of the men on the opposite side. Many of the military personal that our brave military fought against actually believed that they were defending their country and their way of life, just as our boys did. Our military was vital to our winning the war, but there were other people who got very little credit for our victory; they were the men and women who produced the airplanes, tanks, small arms, bullets, cannons, uniforms, submarines, aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers and bombs, and the food supplies that were used by our fighting men and who also produced the merchant ships that got the supplies over to our military and our other allies.

Occasionally, I have heard talk about the men who designed our tanks and planes and also about the men who were factory owners and managers who supplied our war effort as heroes, but in my opinion, the workers, particularly the women who had been housewives, homemakers, school teachers, etc., but who became the munitions manufacturers, airplane and ship builders that “Rosie the Riveter” became the symbol for were equally the heroes of WW11. Besides working long hours, they also sacrificed their living standards as many goods were rationed or where totally kept from commercial sales.

That is why, while I do not want anything taken away from our military men who have become know as our “Greatest Generation”, I do feel that the men and women who stayed home and produced the never ending stream of supplies, be given equal recognition with the soldiers, sailors, pilots and marines who went to battle.

Many can argue about the merits of any or all of the wars since WW11. Some can even debate how we became entangled in that war so far away from our shores, but in this time when only our people who are fighting in Iraq and their families are making sacrifices, I would like to point out that one of the differences between the great war of the mid 20th century and our first war of the 21st century is the level of sacrifice and participation by the general public of the USA.

Let's extend our thanks not only to that quickly vanishing breed of WW11 soldiers for our freedom, but let's also thank those people that made those soldier's victory, the USA's victory and our freedom possible; the people who worked long hard hours with their hands to supply the military. And they did all those things while worrying about the lives of their brothers, husbands, fathers and boyfriends who were overseas and they had to keep going when the news was as bad as bad news could get about their loved ones.

My hat goes off to all of the members of the “Greatest Generation”, both the men and women who went abroad, and the men and women who stayed home. I thank you all.

Thanks for this. My mother and aunt worked at the Douglas Aircraft factory in Tulsa, Oklahoma, during the war. Mother was already married but my dad was in New Guinea. My aunt married my dad's brother when he returned from the Navy. These two valiant ladies are still alive and don't seem to think they did anything extraordinary. Mother likes to laugh and say she put in the relief tubes in bombers. Relief tubes were the bathrooms on bombers. They didn't have real bathrooms, just tubes. I bet going to the bathroom was a real thrill at 30,000 feet with no heaters or oxygen. Those guys flying those bombers made very long trips just about every day and it was very, very dangerous. I think my aunt worked on fighters in another part of the factory which is really big, about 1/2 mile long.

I think they are called the Greatest Generation because they went through the depression and WWII without complaining too much. They just got it done. I am sad that they are passing away now. But we can learn a lot from them. I too thank them -- the soldiers who faced horrible situations and the ones who stayed home to make it possible to win the war.

By the way, I study 20th century American war literature and teach a class on it. I highly recommend Paul Fussell's books on WWII. He doesn't pull any punches. One of the biggest problems was that our tanks just couldn't face the German tanks one on one. Our tanks were crummy compared to the Tiger and later tanks with their 88mm guns and superior armor. One guy says he saw one of our tanks fire on a German tank, hit it, and the shell bounced off. He was a tanker and wasn't happy about that. Fussell also gripes about the fact that the Germans had smokeless powder and we didn't. I would certainly want smokeless powder if I were in a battle. The Russians should also be thanked for winning WWII. I think they are the ones who really won it. Their tactics of simply throwing millions of people in the line of fire wasn't very good since they had lots of casualties, but the fact is that they ground down the German army in Europe, so they couldn't mount much of an offensive after the Bulge which was a desperation measure. Their airforce had been destroyed by that time by Russian and Allied planes. There are some pretty interesting memoirs from the Germans, particularly on the Eastern Front which was simply horrible. But the all time best war book is All Quiet on the Western Front, written by a German. Not surprisingly, the Germans understand war.

My Dad worked on the railroad during the war. The importance of the railroad to the war goes pretty much without saying. However when I was growing up and all my playmates and classmates were asked about where their fathers served during the war, my father was discriminated against because he wasn't on the front line. I thought that it was unfair then and I still do today.

However reading Bitter's post about how our tanks were no match for the German tanks brings to mind an earlier thread where it was brought up that the American defense industry is unnecessary and out of whack with what may someday be needed. Something about our being able to demolish the entire world X number of times over.

The fact that our equipment during WWII was inferior and dealt us a disadvantage is a big reason why the build up of our defense industry has been so important to us. But it is not just important for the numbers of weapons or planes or tanks it makes, but it also shows other nations that we are the leaders in being able to defend of our country. It demonstrates that they should not believe that they can invade our shores without serious and effective reprisal from us. Whether we ever need all these munitions is, to some extent, irrelevant to the argument that we spend too much on defense. Having a strong national defense, in fact stronger than any other nation's, is what makes us the most powerful country in the world. That is important on so many levels in preserving our capitalist way of life. However how we use that strength is what makes us good or bad.

Right now we have a bunch of people who believe that we should use our strength to make us richer, not safer. That makes our expenditures on defense look very bad. In fact in that context, you probably can't even call it our "defense" industry. But that's a whole different discussion.

I think we should all do what we can to let our politicians and military know how we feel about American aggression and the misuse of our power.

Defense is an over-used over-emotional word.

Any country with a military has either a Defense Department, Department of Defense, Ministry of Defense or some other euphemism wrapped around the word "Defense".

95% of the USA's expenditures on Defense are for Offensive weapons. In 2003 the USA invaded a country the size of California (both area and population wise) that is half way around the world "for Defense".

There are no countries chomping at the bit to overrun our shores. The Muslim Fanatics that attacked us on 911 where like all terrorists. They just wanted to get our intention and to put some fear into us so we might adjust some of our international policies. They have no intention or ability to take over the USA. They are not like Nazi Germany.

If we were honest, we would call the Defense Department; the "Ministry of Aggression". But then it might be harder to get weapons systems approved in congress. The US public would not want to hear, "we need this weapons system to be able to start wars against..."

T_O_M: I agree that Defense is a term that may not describe our military and weapons systems accurately. Ministry of Aggression is certainly a more accurate name under the current administration.

You go on to drive my point home however, when you state that there are no countries chomping at the bit to overrun our shores. That is because we have the most powerful weapons systems in the world.

Under this administration Congress didn't approve our aggressive action in Iraq. They allowed the president to make the call. That this has come about might be an argument for a smaller Department of Defense or fewer and less sophisticated weapons systems. But do you really think that this country would be as safe from Iran, China and North Korea if they thought that we don't have the strongest military in the world?

Do you remember the Russians weapons' parades? We sure thought we should be afraid of them. We tried to use diplomacy rather than might when it came to dealing with Russia.

Just because it was terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 doesn't negate the need for the U.S. to have a formidable national defense.

T_O_M: I agree that Defense is a term that may not describe our military and weapons systems accurately. Ministry of Aggression is certainly a more accurate name under the current administration.

You go on to drive my point home however, when you state that there are no countries chomping at the bit to overrun our shores. That is because we have the most powerful weapons systems in the world.

Under this administration Congress didn't approve our aggressive action in Iraq. They allowed the president to make the call. That this has come about might be an argument for a smaller Department of Defense or fewer and less sophisticated weapons systems. But do you really think that this country would be as safe from Iran, China and North Korea if they thought that we don't have the strongest military in the world?

Iran does not want to take us over. They need us to buy their oil. Same goes for China, except it is everything in Wal-Mart and Home Depot, not oil that China needs a customer for. North Korea has no means to attack us and even with 1% of our nuclear arsonal, we could wipe them off the face of the Earth if they had the weapons and the means to get them here and used them.

Besides, what does the USA have to offer any country that would want to take us over? Cheap labor? No. Oil? Yes, but many countries have much more and would be so much easier to take over. Manufacturing plants? Not many left. Farm land? China and Saudi Arabia will soon buy all our farm land when they want to spend all the money that we owe them as they finance our "National Debt".

Do you remember the Russians weapons' parades? We sure thought we should be afraid of them. We tried to use diplomacy rather than might when it came to dealing with Russia.

That was a farce presented to the US public to keep the spending high so that the "Military Industrial Complex" could prosper. Our generals knew that the Soviet Military was not as strong as pictured either here or in the Soviet Union. Why do you think Kruschev backed down against JFK in 1962? Why didn't the Soviet Union win in Afghanistan?

Just because it was terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 doesn't negate the need for the U.S. to have a formidable national defense.

I agree with you whole heartedly that the USA needs to have a formidable national defense. But we spend more money on the military than all the rest of the nations of the world combined. If we spend the money, we need to use the weapons. The "Military Industrial Complex" can not make just 100 units, it must make 1000's to recoup their "research and developement" costs, so we need to find a war to use them up, so that new ones are needed.

Does anyone ever consider that countries might be arming to protect themselves from the US? BuSh announced that there was an "Axis of Evil"; Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and then we invaded Iraq.

What would you do if you were the ruler of Iran or North Korea after that happened?

And by the way, did our $350,000,000,000 per year defense stop the terrorists on 911?

Nope. You're right. Our spiffy weapons systems can't stop terrorists. Do you think that our actions in Iraq can?

We probably agree on the principles of having a national defense and we undoubtedly agree on our misuse of bombs and other weaponry. But I confess that I have a vested interest in all this, so I should probably shut the heck up about it. I'm feeling guiltier by the minute.

Another definition of terrorist might be doing harm to the rich guys without spending as much money to do it.

19 plane tickets cost a lot less than 4 cruise missiles.

You gotta admit it was a pretty brilliant plan. If someone had told me about it before hand, I would have probably thought they couldn't pull it off. Maybe that's what G.W. thought.

Bitteroldag said: By the way, I study 20th century American war literature and teach a class on it.

..I'd love to take your class!

Defense is an over-used over-emotional word.

Any country with a military has either a Defense Department, Department of Defense, Ministry of Defense or some other euphemism wrapped around the word "Defense".

95% of the USA's expenditures on Defense are for Offensive weapons. In 2003 the USA invaded a country the size of California (both area and population wise) that is half way around the world "for Defense".

There are no countries chomping at the bit to overrun our shores. The Muslim Fanatics that attacked us on 911 where like all terrorists. They just wanted to get our intention and to put some fear into us so we might adjust some of our international policies. They have no intention or ability to take over the USA. They are not like Nazi Germany.

If we were honest, we would call the Defense Department; the "Ministry of Aggression". But then it might be harder to get weapons systems approved in congress. The US public would not want to hear, "we need this weapons system to be able to start wars against..."

I think we should go back to the old War Department. That is clear and we avoid all the B.S. about defense. Really, we have never had to really defence this country despite several incursions during WWII and 9/11. But we are very anxious to make war. I wonder why since war is so horrible.

I think we should go back to the old War Department. That is clear and we avoid all the B.S. about defense. Really, we have never had to really defence this country despite several incursions during WWII and 9/11. But we are very anxious to make war. I wonder why since war is so horrible.

The idea is not to win the war, but to stay at war.

Orwell said it best:

War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist...

..."WAR IS PEACE".

I am for a strong national defense but I am against war. So you can imagine how conflicted I am about this whole argument. Probably a large number of Americans have the same conflict.

Unfortunately the ones who are pro war in Iraq and elsewhere don't seem to understand that they are not "scaring the terrorists from planting their bombs" and they are not keeping other countries from plotting against us. I am sure they are amazed that Iran and China and Venezuela could be joining forces against us.

The fact is, under the Bush administration and Republican Congress, other countries have had every right to want to do something to stop our aggression. I guess I'm saying that in the wrong hands, all this weaponry we have developed and produced is a handicap to peace, and not a deterrent from war.

Tom: I'm rather new at this, as you probably can imagine. What do these last two posts mean to accomplish? Selling drugs?

Tom: I'm rather new at this, as you probably can imagine. What do these last two posts mean to accomplish? Selling drugs?

I never clicked on any of the links, so I have no idea.

I clicked on the links and then reported the posts.