Was the 'Greatest Generation' more likely out of step?
Was the 'Greatest Generation' more likely out of step?
By: Bill Mead
Topics:
Posted by editor Thu Aug 10, 2006 16:07:57 PDT
Viewed 559 times
1 response 0 comments Retired news anchor Tom Brokaw wrote a book entitled “The Greatest Generation,” which had to do with Americans who survived the Great Depression and fought in World War II.
I'm part of the group Tom referred to and I don't think of myself as being great. The most that my wife and I did was grow up during the one period in American history when hardly anybody thought we were doing the wrong thing by going to war. The Japanese saw to that when they attacked Pearl Harbor without declaring war. Their temporary tactical victory turned out to be the worst strategic error in world history because it turned a population of appeasers into a mighty weapon of retribution literally overnight.
On Dec. 6, 1941, isolationists were setting the political agenda for the whole country. Even President Roosevelt had just been re-elected partly because he promised American mothers that he wouldn't send their sons to fight in foreign wars. But as soon as Japanese planes departed the smoke and death in Honolulu, recruiting stations from coast to coast had long lines of young men jostling to put their lives on the line.
No other war in our nation's history has been supported as strongly as World War II. It shaped my views about patriotism and world affairs. This background seems to put me at odds with many Americans today who weren't around to see the mistakes that led to World War II and who continue to believe that if you keep being nice to evil people, they will quit being evil.
In keeping with the principle that people who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, an alarming proportion of contemporary Americans seem to know nothing about the tragic results of trying to get along with Nazi Germany almost 70 years ago. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain took Adolph Hitler's false promises hook, line and sinker and called it “peace in our time.” In fact, his soft diplomatic approach simply convinced Hitler it was okay to condemn as many as 40 million innocent people to death in the war he was planning while he was talking peace.
I don't know if George Bush is on the right track in directing the war against terrorism but I know, from having been around in 1939, that friendly chats have no good effect on bad people. I applaud the humane instincts of those who hate war but I deplore their ignorance of the past. I think that calls for diplomatic solutions without the reinforcing prospect of military action merely embolden liars and murderers. Am I wrong or is the editorial staff of the New York Times wrong? Are people my age simply war-mongers or is the “Greatest Generation” coming to grips with the dumbest generation?
I wish there were tidier solutions to international problems than having to be ready to fight. But I'm pretty sure that refusing to fight when it's called for isn't one of them.
| Send to a Friend | Report a Violation |
