Excellent book, Albion's Seed Four British Folkways in America.

Lori wrote: "I haven't really narrowed it down yet. At the moment I would like to find material on the beginnings of the US, from discovery (whoever it was) to the Revolution. I'm especially interested in our..."

So I would say your interest is American Colonial History. I recommend Albion's Seed by Davis Hackett Fischer, a survey of the four colonial cultures. Well written, and interesting.

Lori, Geoff, dhenning:

This is a P.S. to my reply to Lori. My book, "Thanksgiving: The Pilgrims' First Year in America," is a giveaway for the next couple of days. If you read the excerpts at NLLibrarium.com and think you might be interested, by all means toss your name into the contest.

Lori wrote: "I haven't really narrowed it down yet. At the moment I would like to find material on the beginnings of the US, from discovery (whoever it was) to the Revolution. I'm especially interested in our..."

Lori:

Perhaps you might be interested in a book I wrote, "Thanksgiving: The Pilgrims' First Year in America." It covers just about every known detail of what happened in Plymouth between the landing of the Mayflower and the famous harvest feast of the following autumn.

You can read excerpts and reviews at NLLibrarium.com. And of course there are a few reviews at goodreads.

End of commercial.

Glenn Alan Cheney

American History. For about two years I have been reading a lot of bios on the founding fathers and some other works on that period of time.

Lori wrote: "I haven't really narrowed it down yet. At the moment I would like to find material on the beginnings of the US, from discovery (whoever it was) to the Revolution. I'm especially interested in our..."

You might enjoy "Ghost Empire" by Philip Marchand. It is an offbeat account of the French in America, 1500-1763.

I haven't really narrowed it down yet. At the moment I would like to find material on the beginnings of the US, from discovery (whoever it was) to the Revolution. I'm especially interested in our forefathers. Most of the books I've tried to read about them has been fact after fact after fact...snore! Suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks for the link to the WWII Museum article.

Joan wrote: "To Peggy
The scary part is that the Germans did vote---66 percent against Hitler. Voting wasn't enough."

True. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but still got the office. I've heard Ben Franklin was quoed to say "If voting really mattered, it would be outlawed." but I've never been able find a verifiable source. We have the electoral college because our founding fathers thought us average Americans were too stupid to vote.

Americans these days tend to complain more than act. Voting is not in and of itself acting.

Check out the new WWII Museum addition in New Orleans
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Jack Woodville London
French Letters: Virginia's War
www.virepress.com

I like to study Texas history, since I am a Texan and like to know my own history. Mainly, I love to read about common men and women who rose to the occasion. Which is the story of Texas heroes. I've learned with American history, you have to study events because studying people gets mired in hero worship and folklore is used as facts. Texas history doesn't do that, unless it is written by a non Texan. wink wink

I love to read about how the American Revolution started, unfolded, and came up to the Constitution. It is a fascinating chain of events by people with a vision.

The last 5 years, the Mexican Revolution started to get my attention. I think it is infinitely more relevant than the French Revolution, at least to the Americas. The only thing the French Revolution did for us was get some land cheap from Napoleon which we could have taken for free. I don't understand why it isn't covered as much. The people involved are exciting characters to follow and it was so long in the coming. My Spanish is not so good though, which makes it hard for me to follow. That revolution resulted in the later Texas Revolution, which helped the US win the Mexican American War, which brought land that produced America's early wealth through precious medals.

The difference between George Washington and Santa Ana is striking and the reason for the opposite direction of the 2 countries. One had no interest in being the first King of America and helped push forth a new nation. The other ripped up a constitution and claimed Presidency for life and ultimately broke up the nation, keeping it strife the next 100 years.

Geoff wrote: I have to say that I think it is inaccurate to propose that autocracy was unchallenged before the American Revolution.
You are correct and I should have been more specific. It is not that autocracy was not challenged, rather that the idea of democracy, (the idea that the right to govern resided in the governed), was not part of the challenge. Challenges were made by and for an oligarchy, a small group of nobles, not for the masses. For instance, the nobles who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta on the plains of Runnymede in 1215 had absolutely no intention of extending rights and freedoms to the serfs back home on their estates. In France it came as a shock to many who wrote so beautifully of the rights of man and the age of enlightenment when upstart Americans wrote that there was no “Devine right to rule.” Even a few of our own founders were doubtful that commoners should be entrusted with the right to govern themselves. A few did not want democracy, they wanted a different monarch. (As I watch my fellow citizens I remember that Jefferson warned us that we needed an educated population to have a democracy. Actor, Richard Dreyfus, recently made a speaking tour encouraging schools to do a better job of teaching civics. If anyone knows the name of the group he spoke for, please send it to me. It's a good cause.)

Joan wrote: "I have started another topic on the book The Great upheaval by Jay Winik. I am new to this site and not sure where it went but think it went to a different spot than this history one so to my frien..."

“He covers the American and French revolutions and the resulting upheaval of the autocratic forms of government that had existed without challenge for over 2000 years…”

This sounds like an interesting book, but I have to say that I think it is inaccurate to propose that autocracy was unchallenged before the American Revolution.

The struggle for human rights went on in a number of areas, with greater or lesser degrees of success. Iceland had one of the first experiments in democracy; males were represented in an institution called the Allthing as early as 1000 AD. Swiss cantons were holding votes by the end of the thirteenth century. Sweden had a form of parliament by 1450. I’m sure there are many more examples.

One of the longest campaigns for democracy and human rights went on in Britain. The Magna Carta established some basic rights in 1215, and more were wrestled away from the monarchy over the ensuing years. The US based much of its constitution on previous British successes such as the Magna Carta, and the 1689 Bill of Rights. This is not surprising as the inhabitants of the US at the time were essentially Englishmen who were in dispute over the tax system. They were offered representation in parliament (belatedly) by King George, but turned it down.

And the American democracy of 1776 was not, of course, what we would recognize as a democracy today. Only white male landowners could vote, women were excluded from roles of power in society, and it was considered debatable at the time whether blacks were even human. Idealists such as Franklin and Jefferson tried to improve on some of the corruption and shortcomings of the British system, and I suppose did to an extent. But as far as rights went, it was more of an evolution from the British model, rather than a revolution.

In fact US democratic rights evolved more or less in parallel with other major western countries. At times, some were further ahead than others. Britain and France abolished slavery before the US, but the US had some better ideas about the separation of government and the judiciary. New Zealand trumped everyone on voting rights for women, establishing them in 1870.

I would also like to read your new thread if it can be found.

Great news, Jerry. Way to go!!!!! On word and up word!!

Congrats, Jerry

PRESS RELEASE,

For Immediate Release

September 28, 2009

Jerry Yellin
5250 E Harbor Village Dr.
Vero Beach, FL 32967
772-563-0414

Vero Beach resident, 85 year old Jerry Yellin wins Branson Literary Award.

Yellin was the winner of the prestigious Stars and Flags Award for his book, The Blackened Canteen in Historical Fiction. The announcement was made on September 27.

This story is fiction based on facts about five Americans and three Japanese men whose lives intertwined after the bombing of Shizuoka, Japan on June 20, 1945. It begins in 1941, before Pearl Harbor and failed negotiations by Prince Konoye of Japan and Cordell Hull, American Secretary of State, leads to war and follows the lives of the characters until present day.

Jack O’Connor, Newton Towle, Monroe Cohen, and Ken Colli enlist in the Air Corps and become members of B-29 crews. Richard Fiske is the bugler on the West Virginia. Fukumatsu Itoh, a 49-year-old Shizuoka City council member, Hiroya Sugano, 12 years old in 1945 and Takeshi Maeda, A Japanese flyer who drops the torpedo that sinks the battleship West Virginia are the featured characters in the book.

Yellin was a fighter pilot who flew missions over Japan from Iwo Jima. He knew 16 young men who died in combat during the war. He hated the Japanese all of his adult life. On March 6, 1988, he attended a wedding between the daughter of a Japanese Imperial Air Force veteran and his youngest son, Robert. This wedding between children of former enemies made him rethink, not only of his life as a warrior, but the lives of all of who served in combat. Today he has three grandchildren living in Japan, aged 19, 17, and 13. “They love me, I love them,” he says, and I cannot help feeling that all of Humanity is the same, that the pure purpose of war is to kill and the pure purpose of life is to connect to all of Nature. It is up to the young people of our World to find a way to eliminate War and find a way to live in Unity with all of Humanity, in Harmony with Nature and find Peace for our Planet.”


Historically correct, The Blackened Canteen is available on the Internet through bn.com or Amazon.com.

An excerpt from Yellin’s memoir, Of War and Weddings, is a finalist in the Military Writers Society of America People Choice Award. Voting will continue until October 5, 2009 at www.MWSAPeoplesChoice.com. The winners in each division will be announced at the MSWA convention in Orlando on October 10.

I have started another topic on the book The Great upheaval by Jay Winik. I am new to this site and not sure where it went but think it went to a different spot than this history one so to my friend here I am going to copy it here.
Jay Winik's book , The Great Upheaval is written in a style that is very readable and in places even waxes poetic. Quotable lines abound. It also comes as close as any history I have read to viewing the birth of the current age in a way that is similar to my views. He covers the American and French revolutions and the resulting upheaval of the autocratic forms of government that had existed without challenge for over 2000 years. His detailed description of in the improbable success of a handful of political idealists who created this wonderful change in the world structure is a joy to read.
I take the view a bit further and include a third revolution (the Russian revolution) and also the coinciding Evolution of Power. That transition of power was a natural result of the upheaval Winik tells so well. As monarchies lost power and wealth, corporations and other capitalistic forms gained in wealth and power. We are now left with a world-wide power structure best defined in a quote that is widely attributed to Mussolini, that Fascism should be called Corporatism because it is the marriage of state power and corporate power.

Geoff has already commented on your question. I too, do not fear too many parties as it is very difficult to establish another national party in Canada . We basically have three right now and a separatist party in Quebec. The Green Party had yet to win a seat in the National House.

I worry more if it is practically impossible to establish another party. I do not believe two is always enough. The minority government of Pearson introduced Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan. Two parties were close enough in principle to make this change which was desired by the public at large.

The Governor General allowing the Conservative government to end the session of parliament until winter and to stay in power was within her rights. Canadians watch too much American television. A coalition government which included Liberals, NDP, and the separatist party of Quebec was not logical and would create serious alienation in western Canada which has had little say in the federal government for 40 years.

It is interesting to note that this political event (the Governor General's decision) caused the Liberal Party (the official opposition party) to choose a new leader (in an unconventional way) very quickly and broke the coalition before it was hardly established. Reason: Political polls in western Canada would indicate the Liberal party would lose the west for another generation.

The NDP would have the best chance of gaining seats in the west with the coalition. The traditional governing party of Canada (Liberals) could go the way of the Liberal government in England. I think the Liberals did not want to risk so much to form a short term minority government. NDP supporters were particularly disappointed as the Liberals had made a serious political error in agreeing on the coalition.

The NDP may now have to support the Conservatives (odd match) as they are afraid a new election will send a lot of NDP to another party (probably Liberals) as that is the most likely way to defeat the Conservatives. Right now the Conservatives probably have about a 5 point lead on the Liberals. In other words, it is very close.

Geoff wrote: "Joan wrote: "To Geoff

You and Glen, both from Canada, have given me new information on the Government there. Thank you.

In Germany, the year before Hitler took power, there were nine election..."

Geoff wrote: "Jerry wrote: "This is what The Blackened Canteen is about and Of War and Weddings too. Jerry Yellin
I landed my P-51 on Iwo Jima on March 7,1945 after the Marines cleared the area around a dirt ai..."

Geoff wrote: "Joan wrote: "To Geoff

You and Glen, both from Canada, have given me new information on the Government there. Thank you.

In Germany, the year before Hitler took power, there were nine election..."

Joan wrote: "To Geoff

You and Glen, both from Canada, have given me new information on the Government there. Thank you.

In Germany, the year before Hitler took power, there were nine elections and the peo..."

Joan wrote: "To Geoff

You and Glen, both from Canada, have given me new information on the Government there. Thank you.

In Germany, the year before Hitler took power, there were nine elections and the peo..."

Geoff, Germany and Japan were adversaries of the United States, this could be misinterpreted in your comment. The only progress we have made as Humans since David killed Goliath with a slingshot and a pebble 5000 plus years ago is invent better slingshots and better pebbles. The 1945 Pebble took 4000 years of Japanese history of a Divine Emperor out of the fantasy and myth category that gave them reason to kill, rape, commit atrocities and start wars with impunity. Their belief system was shattered into reality, all Humans are the same. Today the belief systems of countries, individuals, political parties and they worship of deities that separate us will lead to the delivery of the 2009 Pebble that will destroy humanity.

In a recent conversation, it was thought that with today's children connecting to "friends" all over the world through the WWW there might come a time when "other" refers only to species from off planet.

History does cycle back eventually but the clans keep getting bigger.

Jerry wrote: "This is what The Blackened Canteen is about and Of War and Weddings too. Jerry Yellin
I landed my P-51 on Iwo Jima on March 7,1945 after the Marines cleared the area around a dirt air strip. For th..."

War truly is madness Jerry. My father also flew in combat during WW2, and I know did much that he did not want to have to do.

And war has a way of changing little. The players are changed around, but the world goes on as before. Germany and Japan were adversaries during the war, but are now cornerstones of the world community.

After France’s defeat in 1940, many in that country, in the military anyway, sided with the axis through the Vichy government. Many bitter battles were fought with British and other allied forces in Dakar, Syria, Madagascar, and North Africa. At one point during the conflict, strategists in Washington and London even considered a military occupation and allied control of France after the war, along the same lines as what was planned for Germany.

There is no inherent enemy, only those that can be defined as “other” at particular point, and for a particular reason in history. If we look back far enough in history, it is easy to see that participants are interchangeable.

Joan wrote: "To Geoff

You and Glen, both from Canada, have given me new information on the Government there. Thank you.

In Germany, the year before Hitler took power, there were nine elections and the peo..."


I don’t see a big problem with parliament itself. The British parliamentary system has been honed and refined over the years, and generally stumbles along in a satisfactory, if imperfect, manner.

Apathy and a lack of knowledge are much bigger problems, I would say.

In the Canadian system, a governing political party must have the “confidence of parliament” in order to form a government and govern. If opposing parties can effectively demonstrate that they do not have the support of parliament, then the Governor General can dissolve the house and call for either an alternative government, based on the opposition parties, or new elections. This doesn’t happen very often, but it did just recently, when the current conservative government lost a confidence vote. Instead of the above procedure being applied by the G.G., the prime minister managed to argue, convince, beg, plead, or strong arm his way out of it during a private meeting. We will probably never know. Many in Canada were outraged because they never knew that the Governor General had this power. They only found out because of the swirl of media attention caused by the vote and resulting P.M./ G.G. meeting. This is however, how the system works, and has since 1867, and before that in British tradition.

Glen briefly mentioned the referendum on proportional representation recently held in BC. This would have been part of the honing process, giving a fairer translation of votes into seats in parliament. I worked at a polling station during that vote, and had many, many people ask questions that indicated that they did not understand the issue in question at all. Never the less, they voted, not really knowing what they were voting for, or against.

To Peggy
The scary part is that the Germans did vote---66 percent against Hitler. Voting wasn't enough.

To Geoff

You and Glen, both from Canada, have given me new information on the Government there. Thank you.

In Germany, the year before Hitler took power, there were nine elections and the people were tired of them. In addition, thier parliament had many parties and had trouble putting together votes to get things done. Do either of you see a problem for Canada in this?

To Glen
Thank you for the informative comments on the Canadian government. I learned a lot.

You wrote: “At the end of WWI, there was little noticeable war damage in Germany and poor understanding of why the German military surrendered.”
Very true. This was one of Hitler’s big messages but the full story is little know here in the US. Leaders in Germany, like Hindenburg and Ludendorff could see that Germany was going to lose the WWI because they were running out of material and men and both the US and Russia were tipping the balance. At that time no foreign soldiers were on German soil and German soldiers were deep in France. (Why would the German people believe they were losing the war?) German leadership did not want to wait for French and British soldiers to be in Germany so Kaiser Wilhelm sent back channel diplomats to Washington. They wanted to surrender to President Wilson and his 14 points for peace because they knew France and England would tear Germany apart. (At this time the nation state of Germany was only 50 years old) Wilson said he would only negociate with a free democratic people. So, the Kaiser said, for the good of the country he would abdicate. He also insisted that all the lesser aristocracy step down and a democracy be formed. It was one of the fasted and most peaceful “regime changes” ever. The democrats were delighted and ran off to Weimar to set up the constitution and elect representatives. Then, the representatives of the new government went to Versailles to negociate peace. France and England soon sent Wilson home and trashed his 14 points. The only concession he got was the League of Nations and when he got home his own congress trashed that. The Treaty of Versailles concluded that Germany had started the war, lost the war and would have to pay for the war. (A wonderful example of how history is written by the victors,) There was a reason Britain and France insisted on the huge reparations from Germany. They both were deeply in debt to the US for the war and were just about bankrupt. The US Congress insisted on full payment. The bankrupt allies decided it had to come out of Germany. For being saddled with this treaty, Hitler branded the democrats the “November Criminals.” It was a wonderful term he could use to vilify any and all groups and blame them all for Germany’s troubles. It was easy to convice people who knew German Soldiers did not retreat, but marched home under orders, that the surrender was an act of treachery.
You also mentioned the hyperinflation. Here is the surprise. The hyperinflation only lasted 11 months, from Jan 1923 until Nov. 1923 and it didn’t arise from the Treaty. It happened after the war and after the treaty, in response to the Jan 1923 invasion by the French and Belgians when they seized the Ruhr Valley with it’s industries, transportation and coal production. Important things were triggered by this, but this comment is getting long, so I will save that for later.
You also said, “With the size of the USA military, I can understand why many Americans don't want to give up their firearms. I think there is less known about the relationship between the military/industrial complex and the government/economy than the actual workings among the three branches of the federal government.”
You are so right, however, I don’t think hanging on to the old family squirrel rifle will do a citizen much good.

Forgive me for bring in a cliche` but this whole conversation keeps me hearing my Grandfather's oft expressed contention that "Bad politicians are elected by good people who don't vote."

Personally, I think that anyone who does not vote, regardless of for whom they vote in a free country is a disgrace to their nation.

To quote another cliche`, "Politics begins with the local School Board."

I try not to paint all politicians, corporate CEO's, union leaders, or lawyers as the same. We had a lecture from a bank lobbyist in a health administration course a few years ago. He was specifically speaking of Canada but it could apply to many countries. There are three powerful groups in Canadian society. Big Business, government bureaucracy, and politicians. (Sorry big unions do not make the list) The "media" controls the message about these three groups which makes it very difficult for the individual to know what's going on unless he is diligent and uses as many sources as possible.

At the present time, I would think our present Canadian minority government weakens the politicians position and increases the power of the bureaucracy. (I do not believe we are going to have an election this fall. The the media wants to sell newspapers and have something to talk about on T.V. The new Unemployment Insurance legislation is too important) With limited financial resources big business is not doing as well either. In some ways I like a minority government as compromise is more necessary to govern. Unfortunately contentious issues are sometimes left until a majority government exists.

I still have faith in representative government. Theoretically they should be better informed. Direct democracy is more time consuming and costly. I have seen no evidence that California is any further ahead with their propositions. As I said before, the public is just as guilty of looking after number one first as politicians or CEO's. The later can just do a lot more damage if they have the wrong motives.

The only answer I can see is more people getting involved in the political process. There are lots of opportunities to be a volunteer in any political party or cause. If you don't get involved you can't complain about the outcome. I think it is just a little too easy to say we are only little guys and can't make a difference.

When it's personal, it gives you a different perspective. I was the best man for a friend who has been an active NDP (Democratic Socialist)his entire adult life. He has been elected in local politics for most of the time. Intelligent(PhD) , socially responsible and and idealist. I do not agree with his party most of the time (they're Liberals in a big hurry). I'm afraid of the far left in that party, but I'm more comfortable knowing that at least one reasonable man I personally know belongs to the party and has input. I've been active to a limited degree in a couple of parties (one provincial , one federal), and a mayor's race in a small town . I generally found it a worthwhile experience. We should worry less and get involved more.

“………….we would need an educated population willing to fight for their rights and republic and we would need representatives who did not owe their souls to corporations.”

Yes, I think this is very true Joan. There is only true democracy when the electorate is educated enough to make informed decisions. Without this we are at the mercy of the ad men and the spin-doctors. Those that are drawing from a shallow base of knowledge are more easily swayed by the unscrupulous. I am sure the spin-doctors stayed up until the wee small hours of the morning in order to whip George Bush into shape, and get him ready for the public. But it worked, and he was groomed, packaged, marketed, and sold.

I think that there is generally less interest these days in civic life and politics than there has been in the past, in both the US and in Canada. Here in Canada, we are looking at a federal election probably this fall, the fourth in about five years. Many here are whining and whimpering over this, as though their freedom and opportunity to express their political desires isn’t worth the time it will take to follow another campaign, and to register their vote. I think that this displays a lack of understanding of civic life. Many here assume, or at least hope, that politicians are merely managers that will take care of business, and it doesn’t make a huge amount of difference which party is in power. There are often no cut and dried answers to important social questions however. There are often no right or wrong, but certainly differing viewpoints, and so agreement must come from consensus derived from study, dialogue, and debate. People will have different views, and these must be thrashed out. There are many ways to organize society, and opting out might leave us with a system we really did not want.

Saying just get on with it, and don’t bore me with the details can set up a dangerous situation. Because there are many who will “get on with it”: those who hope for personal gain, such as the corporate CEOs that are prominent in society today, or those with a set of beliefs they are driven to implement, such as the Christian right. Who knows what we might get in the future if there are no hard questions asked, or if we have no serious, intelligent, informed debate during the political process?

"I think there is less known about the relationship between the military/industrial complex and the government/economy than the actual workings among the three branches of the federal government."

This is exactly what our President Dwight David Eisenhower warned against at the end of WWII. Unfortunately, nobody was listening.

To Joan:

No democracy is completely safe from the possibility of collapse or being taken over. No democracy is innocent of doing great wrongs. Some democracies use inappropriate methods to determine political outcomes in poorer countries to meet their own country's needs. The politicians are not the only ones that are accountable for these wrongs in the world. In my opinion, the public generally deserve the politicians it gets. We don't question too much as long as we have our standard of living.

In Canada we have a multiparty system which in many cases leads to a majority government with the governing party receiving less the 50% of the vote. It has happened in England as well. In B.C. we recently had a referendum to see if we would use a more complicated voting system to resolve or at least reduce the problem. The electorate decided it created more new problems than the ones it resolved. It voted for the old system.

We have a Charter of Rights that allows the proivnces (not withstanding clause) to ignore certian findings of the courts. It has only happened once, to my knowledge, as the political consequences to go against the courts is tremendous and generally would cause the defeat of any governement that would choose to ignore the supreme court. However, it checks the court from making rulings that cannot be enforced and/or not acceptable to the great majority of the people. The French Language Act of Quebec contained items that contravened the Charter of Rights. Among other things, immigrants to Quebec who could not speak English had to go to French schools rather than English schools.

This new act caused the the separatists in Quebec to lose their biggest reason for wanting an independent country. The French language is safe in Quebec. The federalist and separatist party in Quebec support the French Language bill. Legally wrong, but politically correct in Quebec. Positive for the country? I think so but others would disagree.

The October Crisis of 1970 is another issue. When the FLQ of Quebec kidnapped two governement officials (one killed) the federal governement imposed the "War Measures Act" as both the Premier of Quebec and the Mayor of Montreal requested federal assistance. Many people were detained with no charges against them etc. The great majority of the people in English and French speaking areas of the country approved of the move. Over reaction? Probably! The best of a list of poor options? Probably! This was actually done by Pierre Elliot Trudeau who gave us or Charter of Rights. Under different circumstances, do different rules apply?

Democracy is probably the best system devised but it is very inefficient and difficult to maintain. Put any nation in the circumsatnces of pre war Germany and it would seem susceptable to be taken over. At the end of WWI, there was little noticable war damage in Germany and poor understanding of why the German military surrendered. The treaty of Versailles didn't help and the hyperinflation, economically destroyed many families in the country. I'm not talking about Hitler, but how a weak democracy could easily be destroyed.

With the size of the USA military, I can understand why many Americans don't want to give up their firearms. I think there is less known about the relationship between the military/industrial complex and the government/economy than the actual workings among the three branches of the federal government.

This is what The Blackened Canteen is about and Of War and Weddings too. Jerry Yellin
I landed my P-51 on Iwo Jima on March 7,1945 after the Marines cleared the area around a dirt air strip. For the next month we strafed the Island for the Marines. Then on April 7, 1945 I was one of 16 pilots of the 78th Fighter Squadron to fly the first VLR, Very Long Range mission over Japan. We escorted B-29’s over Tokyo and watched as they dropped incendiary bombs on the city. Not once did it occur to me that there were people on the ground. They were Japs, my enemy, not really human beings.
I made 19 missions over Japan, lost 16 good friends whom I flew with and carried a hatred for Japan, her people, her culture until March 6, 1988 when I attended the wedding of my youngest son, Robert to the daughter of a member of the Japanese Imperial Air Force from WW2. Her father, Taro Yamakawa hated me and I hated him. Now we have 3 grandchildren age, 20, 18 and 13 who live in Japan.
Last year I attended a ceremony in Japan <<...>> conducted by Dr. Hiroya Sugano since 1972 honoring the lives of 23 American airmen who were killed over Japan in a mid-air collision of their B-29’s. A charred and scarred canteen with the hand print of the American who was holding it is embedded on the canteen. Dr. Sugano uses that canteen in the ceremony. This URL shows a tape of the 2008 ceremony photographed by American Air Force personnel from Yokota Air Base. http://www.youtube.com/user/jerryellin#p...
Dr. Sugano has invited me to go to Iwo Jima on March 18, 2010 to use the canteen in a memorial service for those who were killed on Iwo 65 years ago, 7,000 Americans and 21,000 Japanese. He, like me has an interest in preserving Peace on our Planet for the young people in our lives. His daughter is married to a West Pont graduate and he has American grandchildren just as I have Japanese grandchildren.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful for all of us to gather together in Harmony on March 18, 2010 on Iwo Jima and show the world through a documentary the folly of War. How can we make that happen?
Jerry

Thank you Cheryl. Hope you enjoy. Good or bad, please send a comment to my web site. Joan

To Joan:

Count on me reading 'Silent Coup'. If you tell a story as well as you make a solid argument, I'm definitely going to enjoy it.

To Peggy
My book is fiction, a political thriller titled Silent Coup. It has two stories: My Diana Hunter PI runs into the Patriot Act in a current time story and her great uncle Bennett Hunter runs into Hitler in 1932/33 as Hitler seizes power. The chapter are intowoven, include thrills and humour and disguise, etc. Check it out at my web site www.joanfrancis.net

To Geoff
The question is: What is it that guarantees our freedom and the stability of our republic? Then you can begin to analyze whether those guarantees have been eroded by recent actions.
For the 2000 years before the American Revolution there were NO democracies. All governments were some form of absolute rule. Our brilliant founders did an audacious and wonderful thing. They dared to say that there was no Devine right to rule and that power to govern resided in the governed. This had not been said since the early Greek and Roman democracies failed. Then our founders had to find some way to prevent a person or group from seizing that power away from the people. The brilliant solution was a constitution that created separation of powers, powers capable of balancing power so no individual or group grabbed too much power. Then they added written guarantees of legal and civil rights of the people. Any action that damages that separation of power or those guarantees of rights can destroy our republic.
I see many things that make me fear we my already have already have gone so far it may be impossible to pull it back. Especially since we no longer educate our people in civics classes. Those things would include the Patriot Act, (which, like Hitler’s Emergency Decree, damaged our legal and civil rights and privacy rights) Bush’s use of Presidential signing statements, (His use was different than predecessors. He set the legal precedent of allowing the President to sign a bill and then say he was above the law and didn’t have to follow it. He disregarded congressional laws. This is almost as damaging as Hitler’s dismissal of the parliament in his Enabling Act) the Bush administration’s use of the Unitary President, (like Hitler’s Leader Principal-"Fuhrer Prinsep") set the precedent of expanding the Presidential power. To undo this we would need an educated population willing to fight for their rights and republic and we would need representatives who did not owe their souls to corporations.

Joan- Are you saying that you think a loss of democracy is imminent, or at least a strong possibility in the US today?

Jim- Historian Gwynne Dyer produced an excellent documentary on the subject of war for the CBC, and also wrote a book:

http://www.gwynnedyer.com/index.html

I took Psychology of the Holocaust at my local community college in the spring semester of '01, the first few weeks of which were spent on the history of anti-Semitism and the social, economic, and political situation of Germany that led up to Hitler and the Nazis being in power. Thinking on it, I wondered about something like that happening in the States and came to the conclusion that if anything were to save us from that kind of situation, it would be the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
To say what unfolded following 9/11 during Bush's terms in office (gained through vote tampering, I have no doubts whatsoever) left me genuinely scared more than a few times would be an understatement. I honestly felt like I was living in a nightmare and was very ready to leave the country. There were days when I wondered when persecution of the Muslims would start. The Constitution did save us, though I didn't see it being through term limits.

Or if she hasn't/isn't she should. {}:-)

Sounds to me like Joan has written or is writing one.

so does any one know any books about why societies/countries go to war

Geoff said: “Certainly, the Nazis did not enjoy democratic support in Germany. But . . .” Let’s start there and see what happened:
As written above the first thing to realize is that Hitler’s power came not from the people but from his alliance with the institutions of power: The Church, the Military, Industrialists, the Financiers and bankers, the Right-wing Politicians, and Aristocracy. They brought him to power and supported him.
The second most important thing is how he used that power to destroy democracy after he became Chancellor. Hitler’s propaganda minister, Paul Joseph Goebbels explains:
“We come to the Reichstag (parliament) not as friends, not as neutrals, but as enemies. The National Socialists plan to use this arsenal of democracy to bring it down . . . we are committed to the legality of means, not of ends.”
HITLER USED DEMOCRACY TO BRING DEMOCRACY DOWN. Here is how: He had only been chancellor five hours when he held his first cabinet meeting and demanded new elections. The Reason? Even with the alliance with the right wing, the Nazis did not have a 2/3s majority in Parliament. Now if he lost the last election why would he think he could win a new one? Because as Chancellor he had all the apparatus of the government, plus control over radio and newspapers, more money from big business than he could count, and—he planned to use force.
Between Jan 31 and the election, March 5 the Nazis conducted the loudest, most expensive campaign of ten years—and also the most brutal and deadly. Hermann Goering was Minister of the Interior to Prussia (2/3 of Germany) and controlled the Prussian police. He ordered them to ban meetings, rallies, and newspapers of all opposing political parties. When the police didn’t act with sufficient force, Goering sent in 50,000 Nazi thugs from the SA the SS and the Stahlhelm and gave them cart blanch to murder and pillage. Hundreds of Germans were beaten, jailed and murdered. The courts were not allowed to touch the Nazis for any crime.
Goebbels believed this would cause a rebellion by the communists so the Nazis would have an excuse for martial law. However, the communist simply refused to rise to the bate. Most of them had left the country or gone underground.
The Nazi’s needed something to stampede the public before the election, so if the communist wouldn’t commit an act that would frighten the people, the Nazi’s would do it for them. On Feb 27 the Reichstag (Parliament building) caught fire. This was immediately blamed on the communist and was said to be the start of the revolution. Actually the fire was started by the Nazis.
On February 28, the day after the fire, Hitler announced an Emergency Decree, “for the Protection of the People and the State.” The decree suspended all parts of the constitution that guaranteed legal and civil rights: free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, all rights of assembly and association, all privacy rights of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, suspended the need for warrants for house searches and confiscations. Does any of this sound familiar? It should. If not, take a look at the Patriot Act.
It also authorized the Reich to take over state governments, allowed the at-will arrest of anyone, including elected members of the Reichstag and suspension of all electoral parties except NSDAP.(NAZI) Then he turned his Nazi thugs loose to terrorize the entire country. But you know what? Despite all the force and terror, Hitler still did not get the 2/3 majority. The Nazis only got 44% of the vote. Even with their right wing partners, they still didn’t have a 2/3s majority.
But Hitler was far from through with using democracy to bring democracy down. He forbid all elected communists from taking their seats in the Reichstag and arrested enough elected SPD (Social Democratic Party) members to get his 2/3s majority. Once he had it, he ask the Reichstag to pass an Enabling Act that would give Hitler and his cabinet exclusive legislative powers for four years. As William Shirer put it, the parliament was to “turn over its constitutional functions to Hitler and take a long vacation.”
On March 31the Enabling act was used to dissolve the state governments and reconstitute as Nazi. On April 7 Hitler passed a law appointing Reich Governors in all states and empowering them to appoint and remove all local governments, all state officials, and all judges. AFTER THAT THERE WAS NO POWER BUT HITLER. NO CONSTITUTION, NO LEGAL OR CIVIL RIGHTS, NO DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, NO POLICE OR COURTS OR JUDGES OR ARMY NOT SUBJECT TO HITLER’S WILL. In addition, to fight Hitler, the people would also have to have fought his allies: The Church, the Military, Industrialists, the Financiers and bankers, the Right-wing Politicians, and Aristocracy.
If you had been a German democrat, where would you turn? What would you do? Can we as Americans reverse our own loss of rights and constitutional law before we find ourselves in a similar situation?

To Peggy:
As to Hitler’s “expendables” could we please leave that part of the discussion to after he seizes power. That belongs to what he did with the power, not how he got it.
As to your comments about how easy it was to destroy freedoms after 9/11—you are right on point. The comparisons between Hitler’s Emergency Decree and Bush’s Patriot Act are obvious. The question is: What could Germans who loved their democracy do in 1933? and What could American’s who loved their democracy do in 2001?

Hitler started with society's "expendables." First were the street people, then the mentally ill. With runaway inflation making it cheaper to heat with marks than wood or coal, citing cost effectiveness it was relatively easy to simply do away with Asylums and their inmates. Then came the indigent elderly by the same criteria. Then the Gypsies [nobody trusted them:], homosexuals [nobody liked them:], then the Jews [ they were controlling wealth and keeping it from the regular populous:]

The ease with which the German people were inured to murder is both heartbreaking and frightening. The aftermath of 9/11 is a good example of how simple it is for ruthless and/or merciless leaders to make the loss of basic freedoms seem ordinary. As with the past few years in America, not all of the people are fooled by the propaganda but most are powerless to openly combat it.

I think that Jim and Peggy’s posts tie in with the question quite nicely.

Certainly, the Nazis did not enjoy democratic support in Germany. But winning or losing an election is, to my mind, insufficient in explaining a given population’s behaviour; especially it’s behaviour in extreme circumstances. Ultimately, society depends on people honouring a social contract. If they stop doing what they are supposed to, things can unravel fast. You only deposit your money in a bank because you are pretty well certain it’s not just going into the pocket of the teller. In some countries, this is not so certain, and consequently much investment doesn’t happen.

In Germany the social contract was honoured, despite many, many individuals being directed to commit serious crimes. If you accept the idea that the vast majority of any given population are not particularly violent, then it must take some convincing motivation to get them to behave so. If things get bad enough, people will balk. After four years of carnage in WW1, for example, there were significant rebellions in Russia, Germany, and France.

When under attack, it is human nature to circle the wagons, and fall in behind a strong leader. The seriousness of this attack depends more on perception than actuality. After 9/11, support for some sort of counterattack was very strong in the US, and indeed in much of the world. Many felt very threatened by a nebulous enemy, and strong countermeasures were easier to present. How many felt any qualms about the cruise missiles slamming into Afghanistan after the events in New York? My point here is not to judge these individual events right or wrong, but to try and understand the psychology behind them. Hitler capitalized on Germans fears, insecurities, and prejudices.

A cycle of violence can get started that is then difficult to stop. Many groups have fallen victim to this, and continue to today, Israel/Palestine for example. Germany fell into a cycle of violence, starting in WW1, and not ending until 1945. The longer these go on, the more entrenched they can become.

.Once in power, it can be difficult to remove autocrats. For one thing, they control spin, and propaganda can be a powerful influence. For example, many in the US today still believe there was a connection between 9/11 and Sadam Hussein’s Iraq. Not true, but it was put out there in a skilful fashion by the Bush administration, and they were quite successful with it. Get a population fearful about their basic security needs, Jim, and then pump them full of the kind of information that will psych them up for conflict, and you are a long way to understanding how a few individuals can hijack a whole country for their own purposes.

And Peggy, I think you alluded to other major factors that allow dictators to hold sway. There is a feeling of helplessness among individuals in these circumstances, and with a certain amount of justification. One person can do little in the face of violent repression. Your quote represents the fear, sense of ineffectiveness, and the diminished sense of responsibility that comes from being just one of millions. Strength comes in numbers: one individual may just take a bullet, but 100,000 in the streets will have some impact. The difficulty is in bottom up organizing. Very tough getting thousands one the same wavelength when you are just one in a crowd; much easier to send an order down the chain of command from the top.

So yes, Hitler and his circle of nutters muscled their way into power. Many who may have had some tentive support for him probably soon wavered when they saw his full agenda. Those that did support him at least initially, I would argue, were driven to some extent by the fear, insecurity, and xenophobia of the times. He identified scapegoats (Jews), and maintained a siege mentality by being in constant conflict with other countries. He skilfully controlled information. Eventually, all were caught up in cycles of violence.

To Peggy: Yours is not quite the correct quote. but close. You will find the full poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller in my book, Silent Coup on page 186.
To Jim: No I did not answer your question re war because it is out of context to this discussion. This is on one question: How did Hitler seize power? And Jim: No, Hitler did not become a dictator by his actions alone. Who helped him and why is the key point of this discussion. There are three important things you need to know about his campaign for power. Here is the first one: After he tried seizing power by military coup in the “Beer Hall Putsch” in Munich in 1923 he had a year in prison to contemplate his mistakes. He realized two important things: 1) No revolutionary movement can hope to succeed unless it first makes alliance with the institutions of power. Those institutions included the Church, the Military, Industrialists, the Financiers and bankers, the Right-wing Politicians, and Aristocracy. 2) These institutions would never make an alliance with a socialist party. It would be against their own interests. That is why his first act out of prison was to quietly change the philosophy of the National Socialist from Socialism to Fascism. Hitler spent the years from 1924-1932 speaking anywhere and everywhere, working on those alliances. It was those alliances with power that eventually put him in power, not his influence on the people. For details see my blurb on my website www.joanfrancis.net.

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak." -On the Wall at the Holocaust Museum in Washington

Joan wrote: "I must tell you that the people of Germany DID NOT put Hitler in power. That is a misconception you must get past if you are to understand the truth. During the 1920s the Nazis (real name National ..."

still doesn't answer my question of why a country/group/society go to war

Hitler couldn't become a dictator by his actions alone

also the German people had to do something for its war effort to be such a threat plus for such atrocities to be committed without their knowledge/apathy/cooperation

I must tell you that the people of Germany DID NOT put Hitler in power. That is a misconception you must get past if you are to understand the truth. During the 1920s the Nazis (real name National Socialist German Workers Party NSDAP) were a fringe party. They were lucky to get between 2 and 5 percent of the vote. The highest percentage they every received in a free election was in 1931, in the depth of the depression, when Hitler’s anti-communist rhetoric resonated with their fear. By November of 1932 the Nazi vote had dropped to 33 percent and the Nazis were believed to be on the way out. THE GERMAN PEOPLE REJECTED HITLER BY 66 PERCENT. Unfortunately that was the last free election in pre-war Germany. What happened between November 1932 and April 1933 that made Hitler an absolute dictator is most definitely a cautionary tale for all free republics. See my web site for answer to this question. www.joanfrancis.net