Rumsfeld and flying

Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]

old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art

One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.

I quite frankly have a lot of trouble with the WWII "poll" but know
nothing of its wording or how the question was asked. As you know,
these things can be totally meaningless (in January, some polls said
Howard Dean could beat Bush "if the election were held today", yet it
seems this same guy couldn't be a nominee). Two years after the war
perhaps the Marshall Plan discussions were causing a backlash in
public opinion???

should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

This makes sense though. WWII was a huge war compared with Vietnam.
The need for bodies was far greater by a large margin, so I'd expect
the draftee proportion to be high.

Good stuff to make one think. I've seen the book in the bookstore
but am now motivated to pick it up next visit.


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]

old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out
that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry
into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans
thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art

One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.

I quite frankly have a lot of trouble with the WWII "poll" but know
nothing of its wording or how the question was asked. As you know,
these things can be totally meaningless (in January, some polls said
Howard Dean could beat Bush "if the election were held today", yet it
seems this same guy couldn't be a nominee). Two years after the war
perhaps the Marshall Plan discussions were causing a backlash in
public opinion???

I'd suspect it had more to do with the usual economic slump that tends to
follow such an event. Unemployment was on the rise, estimated commerce was
flatlined. The commerce and GNP numbers would take off again a year or two
later, but the unemployment numbers continued to rise rather sharply, more
than doubling from the 1945 estimate of 1.3% to 3.8% in '47, then almost
again to 6.4% in 1949.


should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage
of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than
during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

This makes sense though. WWII was a huge war compared with Vietnam.
The need for bodies was far greater by a large margin, so I'd expect
the draftee proportion to be high.

Good stuff to make one think. I've seen the book in the bookstore
but am now motivated to pick it up next visit.

It is a rather interesting read--don't take the wrong idea from the
aforementioned dry statistics. Burkett and his coauthor Whitley exposed
quite a few charlatan Vietnam vets and "heroes". I happened to be surfing
through the TV channels this weekend and watched a bit of the original
"First Blood". Burkett's book game me a new way of looking at that movie--I
had known that Stallone had neatly avoided military service during the war,
but I was surprised to learn that Brian Dennehy, who played the Sheriff,
apparently had a propensity for blowing a bit of smoke about his own
military service (he has claimed to have been a Vietnam vet, but in
actuality he served on Okinawa in the USMC *before* the US sent major ground
forces into the conflict).

Brooks


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]

old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art

One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.
[snip]

The truth is that most wars in the US have been relatively
unpopular, and poorly viewed by history as well. WWII was probably
the lone exception. It's probably "improved" with age.

The US started out with a fairly isolationist tradition
and wars tended to be ones of expansion, which weren't always
popular everywhere. The Civil War was extremely unpopular and
resulted in riots in some cites which would make most Vietnam
protest look like picnics. An interesting read is "A Country
Made by War". Less about wars themselves and more about the
lead ins and their effects on the country in general.

How history treats the "cold war" will be interesting, partially in
exactly how they define it and just how "cold" they consider it.

On 9 Mar 2004 11:44:25 -0800, (me) wrote:

How history treats the "cold war" will be interesting, partially in
exactly how they define it and just how "cold" they consider it.

The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
On 9 Mar 2004 11:44:25 -0800, (me) wrote:

How history treats the "cold war" will be interesting, partially in
exactly how they define it and just how "cold" they consider it.

The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!


Well.... "They" were a serious threat to europe. I think there is
little doubt that without NATO, several european countries would
have been invaded on various pretenses. Easily Berlin would have
"fallen". Waiting until it actually happened would have been
disaster for the US. They would have been left with the choice
of going into a major superpower war over say Germany. NATO
made all of the european countries "one country" militarily
speaking and we tended to be VERY preemptive in our strategy.

They were a vastly lesser threat in the "home country" than
we made out. Of course, that is also a far distance from saying
they were "no threat" here at home. They were a huge intelligence
threat. But they had no real interest in invading or starting a
war with us directly. Truth is, in hindsight, we were more
threatening to them than they were to us.

The various proxy wars on the other had are a real mixed bag.
Vietnam was a joke, as can be seen by history. They were no
real friend of the soviets, and not much of one to the chinese.
Our hostility drove them into their arms as much as anything.
The domino theory was bunk. In my mind the real question is
in the african and south american arenas. You can make a case
that our most effective opposition was in those areas. Alternately
though, you can make the case that the Soviets never had a prayer.
Much like their inability to spread their influence through
southeast asia, it isn't clear it would spread through Africa
nor South America. Heck, in reality it didn't take hold in
Eastern Europe much less anywhere in Asia.

If there is a legacy to the cold war it is that we didn't have
the "courage of our convictions". Communism didn't take hold
for all the reasons that democracy has. We always claim to be
the "beacon of freedom". But in too many cases we've been the
supporter of despots to keep them out of the arms of communists.
We probably didn't need to, communists couldn't hold them.

The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!


Well.... "They" were a serious threat to europe.

I'm sorry! I was trying to be funny. (Or anyhow ironical.)
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

(me) wrote in message . com...
The various proxy wars on the other had are a real mixed bag.
Vietnam was a joke, as can be seen by history. They were no
real friend of the soviets, and not much of one to the chinese.
Our hostility drove them into their arms as much as anything.
The domino theory was bunk.


Perhaps true, but North Vietnamese officials did make public remarks
which instead claimed that Hanoi was part of a global Communist
effort. In 1966, Hoang Anh (Minister of Agriculture and member of the
Central Committee) rationalized the acceptance of military aid from
China and the Soviets with this explanation:

" While setting high the spirit of relying on are own strength as our
main concern, our people highly value and strive to win the sympathy
and support from the fraternal socialist countries and from the
progressive people of the world. We constantly think that our people's
fight against America for national salvation is an inseparable part of
the world revolution. With the victory of the Vietnamese people and
the defeat of the U.S. imperialists, the socialist camp, the world
revolution, and world peace will win. We are exerting all our strength
to fulfill this international duty "

'North Vietnam's Strategy For Survival', Jon M. Van Dyke, 1972.