Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lies About the U.S. Civil War 150 Years Later

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:53 AM
Original message
Lies About the U.S. Civil War 150 Years Later
Tuesday marks 150 years since the start of the U.S. Civil War. Newspapers everywhere are proclaiming it the deadliest war in U.S. history, the costliest U.S. war in terms of the loss of human life. That claim, like most things we say about the Civil War, is false.

Most humans, it will surprise our newspapers to learn, are not U.S. citizens. World War II killed 100 times as many people as the U.S. Civil War, with World War I not far behind. U.S. wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq are among those that have killed far more human beings than the Civil War killed.

The South, we're told, merely wanted to be independent; slavery had nothing to do with it. Of course, this is nonsense. The South wanted to be independent in order to maintain slavery.

The North, we're told, merely wanted to free the slaves; power, empire, profit, and politics had nothing to do with it. Of course, this too is nonsense. The war was well underway before Lincoln "freed the slaves." Actually he did not free those slaves whom he actually could free in the border states, but only those he could not free unless the North won the war. Freeing the slaves, like bringing democracy to Iraq or saving the Jews from Hitler, was a belated justification for a war that had other motivations. Adding that moral mission to the war helped keep European nations from backing the South and helped keep Northerners killing and dying in sufficient numbers.

Regardless of who said what when, the war did end slavery and was therefore justifiable. Or so we're told. Yet, every other nation that ended slavery did so without a civil war. Similarly, we justify the American war for independence because it brought independence, even though Canada and countless other countries achieved independence without war. If we had used a war to create public schools, we would denounce critics of that war as opponents of education. To seriously justify a war, however, would require showing that anything it accomplished could not have been accomplished without all the killing, wounding, traumatizing, and destroying. What if the North had allowed the South to secede and repealed the fugitive slave law? What if an independent North had used trade, diplomacy, and morality to pressure the South to end slavery? Would slavery have lasted longer than the Civil War raged? If so, we are still talking, at best, about a war to hasten the end of slavery.

Even if the war was really launched for national power, to keep states together in a nation for the nation's sake, we are all better off as a result. Or so we're taught. But is it true? Most Americans believe that our system of representative government is badly broken, as of course it is. Our politicians are bought and sold, directed by corporate media outlets, and controlled by two political parties rather than the citizenry. One reason it's difficult to bring public pressure to bear on elected officials is that our nation is too darn big. Most U.S. citizens can't join a protest in their nation's capital if they want to. A resistance movement in Wisconsin can't very well spread to other key cities; they're all hundreds or thousands of miles away. In the years that followed the "preservation of the union," the United States completed its conquest of the continent and began building an overseas empire, driven in large part by pressure from the same interests that had profited from the Civil War.

Secession has as bad a name as socialism, but Wisconsin could secede, ban foreign (U.S.) money from its elections and create a government of, by, and for the people by next year. A seceded California could be one of the most pleasant nations to live in on earth. Vermont would have a civilized healthcare system already if not for Washington, D.C. Yes, the North helped end Jim Crow in the South, but the South did most of that on its own, and we all helped end Apartheid in South Africa without being South Africa. In the absence of viable representative government, we won't do much else on a national scale that we can be proud of. We now, in the United States, imprison more people of African descent than were enslaved here at the time of the Civil War, and it is national policies, completely out of the control of the American people, that produce that mass incarceration.

Those who fought in the Civil War, regardless of the politics or results, were heroes. Or so we are told. But most of the men who killed and died were not the generals whose names we are taught. They were soldiers, lined up like cogs in a machine, killing and dying on command. The vast majority of them, as with soldiers on both sides of all wars prior to late-20th century conditioning, avoided killing if at all possible. Many simply reloaded their guns over and over again, fetched supplies for others, or lay in the dirt. Killing human beings does not come easily to most human beings, and many will avoid it -- unless properly conditioned to brainlessly kill -- even at risk to their own lives. To be sure, many killed and many who did not kill died or lost their limbs. There was much bravery and sacrifice and even noble intention. But it was all for a tragically pointless exercise in collective stupidity, lunacy, and horror. Reassuring as it is to put a pretty gloss on a tragedy like this, we would be better served by facing the facts and avoiding the next one.

A century and a half after this madness burst forth, the United States has established a permanent military and permanent war time, with military bases in over 100 other countries, multiple major wars, and numerous small-scale secretive wars underway. Our weapons industry, born out of the Civil War, is our biggest industry, the world's biggest arms supplier, and the source for the armaments used by many of the nations we fight our modern wars against. The civil liberties, the right to habeas corpus, everything that Lincoln temporarily stripped away for the War Between the States, also known -- quite accurately -- as the War of Northern Aggression, has now been stripped away for good by Justice Department lawyers and prostituted pundits pointing to Lincoln's example. The legacy of the Civil War has been death, destruction, the erosion of democracy, and the propaganda that produces more of the same. Enough is enough. Let's get our history right. Let's glorify those years in our past during which we did not all try to kill each other.

David Swanson is the author of "War Is A Lie" http://warisalie.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AgainsttheCrown Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Um...yeah the civil war did have the highest US military casualties...
Just a minor quibble...Yes it is a very Ameri-centric viewpoint. We should reflect on all casualties of war, but I don't think anyone was claiming that it was the bloodiest war ever. Just the bloodiest war for us. (And we like to make things about us)

From: http://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp

CONFLICT NAME     CASUALTIES
War of Independence     25,000
Civil War               623,026
World War 1             116,708
World War 2             407,316


Nice post. Interesting read.

Barring dissolution of the Union, war may have been the only way to end slavery. Because conservatives were so intransigent (then as they are now) and the economic interests of North and South bifurcated and slavery became ingrained in the Southern economy.

But I'm coming around to the idea of secession for those that want it. As one nation we may be a sinking ship. Despite what State Senator Obama may have said, there are many Americas and we have differing views of reality and thus differing views on the best path to take.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyRingo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Interesting, because the Soviets had a scenario...
where failed capitalism would cause the break up of the US into smaller economic regions.
As I recall, they had the central midwest become close trade partners with Canada and the South merging into a sort of North Mexico to survive (Take that Arizona). That leaves the Northeast and West coasts to exist with help from Europe and Asia respectively. Southern East coast states would merge into a more open area that shares support from Europe and South America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Agreed
I have never found statements that said this was the bloodiest war in history, just for the US. As to the other points, The Civil War was very much all about us, that's kinda the way it was fought, civil wars even today tend to be very much about the particular nation involved.

I believe that it is good that we take this opportunity to review our history and hopefully understand more about it both for us and the next generation. 150th anniversaries don't come around that often and we should take advantage of them as an opportunity to learn our history.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Wrong, use an almanac.
WWII had over 1,076,182 casualties
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgainsttheCrown Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. And where did you get that number?
The American Battle Monuments commission has a similar number: 405,399

http://www.abmc.gov/search/wwii.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Out of a book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AgainsttheCrown Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I'm sure they were a million...
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 04:46 AM by AgainsttheCrown
If by casualties you're also referring to injured. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war">Wikipedia: 670,846 (Wounded) + 405,399 (Killed) = 1,076,245

A number very similar to yours. If your going to argue further, then your username isn't the only thing that's Major...eh I'm sure it's been done before... :yoiks:

The point is that I could cite 10 sources that would have similar numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brendan120678 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
24. You are correct..."casualties" isn't just the dead...
it's also the wounded.

Most people don't realize that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
58. You are indeed correct. Just checked three different sources, other than
wiki, and your numbers are consistently close or equal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
29. Not American dead
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 09:39 AM by WatsonT
that number is wrong.

And if you're counting everyone it is far too low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. No, it was just casualties.
I used an almanac, so the number was correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. We're talking about dead
as sick/injured is not a uniform statement comparing those numbers are silly. A man who loses his toe and one who loses the use of all his limbs are both injured in battle. But the two are quite different. Likewise we may add PTSD to modern casualty rates, but not past ones.

However dead is dead. That is an objective status. Hence why wars are usually considered by death toll.

And in either event the Civil War was our deadliest war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. You don't know what you're talking about -- that's fer damned sure.
The number I gave is for casualties, not the number for those killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. And yet if you were to apply a technique I refer to as "reading"
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 11:16 AM by WatsonT
You'd see that the first paragraph in the OP references "deadliest".

Hence you are getting off topic.

And the Civil war is still our deadliest war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #42
85. true, but the post he was responding to said casualties
(multiple times)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyRingo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. What a well written essay. So much in so few words.
I'm glad the missive went into what a war machine our government has perfected since those early days of our union. I was careful not to say society, because it's not our nature that developed the business of war into the patented killing machine it is today, but corporate profit.

It is true that in all the wars before the '80s ten percent of the soldiers did all the killing while the rest did what was needed to survive and get back home. Since the end of the draft, the economy and educational incentives have drawn a more dedicated individual into the service that is easier to condition. These troops today all equal that 10% of past wars because they showed a certain receptive trait when they walked into the recruiting office voluntarily.

The Navy calls it "reliability'. They have to know that if a sailor on a nuclear submarine is given the order to launch the world into irreversible armageddon, he'll do so without a single question's worth of hesitation.

Sadly, I for one am certain he will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:40 AM
Response to Original message
5. oh my word. you've outdone yourself.
that you have no compunction about twisting history to your own ends- just as you complain that others do- is hardly new, that your conclusions are often without basis is everyday stuff for you, and in this article you've indulged those proclivities. Not to mention your god awful turgid prose.

No one, but no one claims that the Civil War was the costliest war the U.S. has been involved in in terms of life lost and you quote no one to back up that claim.

Nor our children taught what you claim they are. Even the lousy history books used in high schools present a more complex picture than the one you claim is presented.

As for your every other country ended slavery without war, so what? That really doesn't prove anything. And the what ifs of history although entertaining are hardly evidence of anything.

This essay isn't about the civil war. It's about using the civil war as propaganda to make a point. And it's a total failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. "deadliest war in US history" "most humans are not US citizens"
Straw man?

As far as I understand the Civil War does beat out US casualties in WWII. That should not detract from the horrors that war meets out in any event. There is a view that industrialism would've ended slavery anyway. And that, sure, ultimately we would've just wound up with nation states that would've joined back up. But I think it's silly to think that had the Civil War not happened things would've been much different. Say a state "seceded" for whatever baseless reason, it'd still operate democratically, commerce would still be the same, the differences would be mundane at best, the elite would still rule.

At the time the ruling elites had a reason to fighting that war, and they did it, and it's long over with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. well, propaganda- and that's virtually all Swanson cranks out-
is inevitably chock-a-block full of straw men. Anyway, this isn't about the civil war. it's using the civil war as a tool to bolster an argument. And there would be nothing wrong with that if it were done well and honestly and asked some germane questions. It doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
12. UPDATE FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T USE GOOGLE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. OK, I read the first two, I'm not going to bother with the rest-
Unsurprisingly, you've changed the goalposts and you aren't being entirely honest. The articles I read do not support your original claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Deadliest war in human history and deadliest U.S. war is apples and oranges.
Yes, there have been wars with far more casualties. But you started with one thing and then jumped to something entirely different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. someone is missing the point - the Civil War had the highest *American* casualties
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 08:57 AM by Taverner
But not the most dead people.

What the OP is pointing out is our ethnocentrism, and when talking about a war, you have to count the *total amount of people killed* whether they're French, German, Allied, Axies, Vietamese, Cambodian or American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. no, I'm not missing the point.
the author is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. and I'm seriously tired of his habit of bending facts and any situation is history to support his pov. Not to mention that he's crudely sloppy. I'm damned sick of it and I think it's pathetic to see DUers fall for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #19
38. are you saying... you're not going to buy his book?
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. maybe I'll get for a gift and I can burn it
along with a Koran and a bible and Little Women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. !
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
33. thanks
can't hurt to keep trying :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. oh for pity's sake. you refuse to address anyone who substantively challenges
truly pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
32. It was the deadliest war for Americans in history
so far and hopefully forever.

That is a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyRingo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
65. My, that certainly cuts the strings of puppet deniers who choose an alternate history
The flames applied to your post is proof that the Civil War ended not in a Union victory, but a 146 year long truce that still sees sporadic action in the halls of congress, the Supreme Court, and letters to the editor.

Reading some of the replies here, I'm reminded how family members would find it necessary to insulate Granny Clampett, the famed TV hillbilly matriarch of Beverly Hills, from comments describing a General Grant victory. On cue when confronted with the historic facts, her eyebrows would raise, her lip set quivering, and she would predictably launch into an uncontrollable rage checked only when her nephew Jed would lift her bodily from the floor and carry her away screaming and kicking.

Good luck getting out of this one Mr Drysdale. hahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #65
80. wars tend not to end in peace
which is why they are the worst tool for any task, including ending slavery

they kill and destroy and leave behind lasting legacies of hatred
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyRingo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. Well put.
And probably even more so when that hatred remains in the hearts of our friends and neighbors unlike a foreign war where the resentment is separated by vast seas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #65
82. The Thing Is
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 05:02 PM by Demeter
Since my family didn't arrive until well after the Civil War (1910's, to be precise) we have no idea what it was all about and why people can't find something else to fight about.

In fact, I'd bet some 80% of the population is in the same fix as my family...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
13. "Those who fought in the Civil War, regardless of the politics or results, were heroes."
BULLSHIT!

Fuck those treasonous pieces of shit who tried to destroy the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. That I agree with - there was nothing heroic in joining the CSA Army
Then again, I don't think of soldiers as "heroes" It's not very heroic to wear kevlar body suits, work in teams with fully auto weapons and other bombs and assorted killing devices
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
16. I wish you were more honest. I wish you didn't distort facts to your own ends
You really aren't much better than those you rail against. It's discouraging.'

Unrec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
17. Excellent summary. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. uh, summary of what?
it's not a summary of anything. It's disparate facts, suppositions and myths woven together in turgid prose to form a very poor argument indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. You're missing the forest for the trees
"Regardless of who said what when, the war did end slavery and was therefore justifiable. Or so we're told. Yet, every other nation that ended slavery did so without a civil war. Similarly, we justify the American war for independence because it brought independence, even though Canada and countless other countries achieved independence without war. If we had used a war to create public schools, we would denounce critics of that war as opponents of education. To seriously justify a war, however, would require showing that anything it accomplished could not have been accomplished without all the killing, wounding, traumatizing, and destroying. What if the North had allowed the South to secede and repealed the fugitive slave law? What if an independent North had used trade, diplomacy, and morality to pressure the South to end slavery? Would slavery have lasted longer than the Civil War raged? If so, we are still talking, at best, about a war to hasten the end of slavery."

Point is: war is not always the answer, although the US knows nothing bug war as a solution
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. of course war isn't always the answer.
using the civil war as an example or WWII as Swanson has done in the past, isn't the soundest argument. In any case, Swanson's argument is that war is always wrong no matter what and there have been no defensible wars in history. I think things are a little more complex than that. And as I've said, I'm no fan of propaganda- whatever the cause for which it's employed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Honestly both WWII and WWI could have been avoided
But we didn't, and the wars became unavoidable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. there is nothing like 20/20 hindsight.
Perhaps they could have been avoided, but it would have taken an alternate human history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #27
47. Sometimes its pretty clear however
Europe pre-WWI was very shaky, and every last country was trying to get their share of the Imperial Pie

The only folks who got it right were the Bolsheviks, who KNEW this was all about feeding the corporations. Only it wasn't WALMART back then but the various legacies from the East India companies...

Colonialism is a dead end road...and had we had a successful labor movement in the US, WWI would have been avoided
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. The US couldn't have done much to prevent either
we could have stayed out of it, but that wouldn't have prevented their occurrence.

And the peace treaty we tried to get passed after wwI would have likely prevented wwII, but the French and British (mostly the French) were a bit more vengeful and their view prevailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #31
44. Had we helped rebuild Germany rather than tossing them in the trash
There would have been no hyperinflation, and no Hitler

WWI was the result of too many treaties - they should have stopped them all right after the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. And there was little need for us to get involved in WW1
just jingoism and economic imperialism.

WW1 was probably the *most* avoidable war, at least as far as our involvement, ever. At least up to that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. Yes - WWI was all about empires and corporations, and nothing but empires and corporations nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #44
49. Not our fight, not our problem
we fought against the indemnities that largely destroyed Germany's economy. And the destruction of their military that left the weimar republic unable to enforce order.

We just failed at both.

France bears most of that burden. They were the strongest supporters of penalizing Germany for the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Well that kind of thinking is what led to Hitler, and "our problem"
That has always been America's biggest problem, however. That is, seeing the big picture instead of short term gains.

We are as much to blame as France
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Ah so we are the worlds policeman?
And how are we as much to blame?

Fighting against something but failing makes you equally to blame as the person rabidly pushing it?

So I guess everyone in germany was equally to blame for the atrocities then right? Some supported it, others fought but failed, so by your logic they're all the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. No - but we do have a role in diplomacy
And again, it keeps going back to war. If war solved anything, I might be for it - but it doesn't. It just causes people to become that much more entrenched in its beliefs.

When we entered WWII, it was a matter of self-defense. But that doesn't mean it couldn't have been avoided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #53
66. You're long on supposition
short on actual details.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #66
71. Ok...
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 01:08 PM by Taverner
FACT: The Treaty of Versailles left Germany with no money, no land, and reduced borders

FACT: The Weimar Republic was fairly sucessful at staving off a depression. But when Wall Street fell, the republic pretty much fell with it.

FACT: As a result of all of this, Germany really had an axe to grind against France.

FACT: Germany has had a long history of Antisemitism. It goes back at least as far as Martin Luther, and was espoused by many of Germany's "Great" thinkers. The one exception was Beethoven - he was a Democratic Socialist who believed in the equality of all men. Hardly the "mad king Ludwig" that sometimes gets assigned to him. (ON EDIT: Yes I know the real Mad King Ludwig was another person entirely.)

Knowing all this, it's pretty easy to see why a Hitler came to power. Despite Beethoven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. Fact:
We opposed the treaty of Versailles but weren't prepared to go to blows over with France, a nation that is notably not the US, who desperately wanted to see it implemented.

"FACT: The Weimar Republic was fairly sucessful at staving off a depression. But when Wall Street fell, the republic pretty much fell with it."

So even with the Treaty germany was doing pretty well, then things out of their and our control caused it to collapse? Obviously we didn't plan the collapse of our own market just to screw with the germans. So what, we should have been wealthier and more prosperous? Ok, find the secret for that then run for president.


"FACT: As a result of all of this, Germany really had an axe to grind against France."

A nation that is still, notably, not the US.

"FACT: Germany has had a long history of Antisemitism. It goes back at least as far as Martin Luther, and was espoused by many of Germany's "Great" thinkers. The one exception was Beethoven - he was a Democratic Socialist who believed in the equality of all men. Hardly the "mad king Ludwig" that sometimes gets assigned to him. (ON EDIT: Yes I know the real Mad King Ludwig was another person entirely.)"

Fact: antisemitism is a european thing, not just german, and it predates the US. We could have neither caused nor stopped it.


So I'll ask again: what could the US have done to prevent any of this, other than fight france to the death over the treaty of versaille, which again, we opposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. It's not just America, its all parties
America had diplomacy - and Woodrow Wilson, despite being an absolute racist and horrible guy, was looking in both the US' and Europe's best interests, in the long term.

Per the Weimar Republic - it was staving off a depression via Keynesian Economic Theory (although it wasn't known that at the time - Keynes didn't do his work until the 1930s.) They spent what little they had to keep the house of cards up. If they had more cash on hand, or hadn't been shorted so badly in the Treaty of Versailles, they might have kept the thing afloat. But the German people saw the republic's failure as statement on democracy itself - and they wanted what Italy had - a big dumb oaf dictator to tell them which side to butter their toast every morning.

Being as I am a Socialist at heart, the Great Depression could have been a golden opportunity for all of the workers of the world to unite. The connections were in place, the right people were doing the right things - but European Fascism, Soviet Influence and the war prevented it from happening.

Granted, you are right that we didn't have a lot of cards to play - but we let the Weimar Republic fall with nary a peep. Democracies should help other democracies (and not with guns, but cold hard cash) Now this doesn't mean we need to be the world's policemen.

Thanks for reading - it was long and rambled. Sorry about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Post 31
I said the US didn't have much to do with it. Now you're saying everyone is at fault.

Those are two different statements.

And diplomacy only works when both sides are willing to negotiate. In the case of the Versailles treaty France was unwilling to bend.

We didn't do anything wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Don't play games, you know what I meant
I am addressing the problem that led to Hitler

It doesn't matter if America would have done the right thing, France would have done the right thing, or the Illuminati.

My point was that the devastation post WWI of Germany pretty much laid a yellow brick road for Hitler and the Nazis to march in

And that same Yellow Brick Road is forming here in the US...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amchop Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #78
88. Well...
In their defense, France lost 16% of their male population in WWI. Those kinds of numbers can make you a touch unreasonable when doling out punishment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #44
70. Germany wasn't devastated by the war. All the action happened in Belgium and France
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 01:06 PM by JVS
The whole reason that there was a reparation bill was that these countries needed to be rebuilt. Nothing in Germany needed to be rebuilt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. Economically they were devastated
I guess I need to clarify
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #25
56. Since WWII grew out of WWI and the conditions that ended it, what
you are really saying is that WWI could have been avoided, I think.

I'm not sure how we could have avoided WWII with history as it is, since Hitler declared war on us following Japan's Pearl Harbor attack and our declaration of war upon Japan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. If we, or somebody else rebuilt Germany post WWI
There would have been no hyperinflation, and no Hitler to come along to "save" everyone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. Yeah, that's an interesting point. The punitive conditions
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 01:02 PM by coalition_unwilling
imposed on Germany at Versailles in 1918 by the Allies may have created conditions that allowed for the success of a Hitler. One of those interesting what-if's of history.

Although, technical point, the hyperinflation of the early and mid-Weimar years had largely disappeared by 1932. By then, the problem was the opposite: high unemployment and crushing economic despair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Yep - kinda like what if Fidel Castro played for the Washington Nationals
What if Charlie Manson's music career took off?

What if a Jewish benefactor supported a young artist named Adolf Hitler?

What if Benedict Arnold was successful in negotiating an autonomy agreement with the thirteen colonies?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #22
34. thanks
again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
55. I am generally anti-war and non-violent. But when the South
fired on Fort Sumter and compelled Anderson's surrender, exactly what would you have had Lincoln do? Should he have let the southern states secede?

Just curious what course of action you would have taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Yes, at that time the Civil War was a necessity
Because by then it was too late

But in all honesty, if the US had been, from the get-go, a real Democracy, the slaves should have been freed in 1776. We were one of the last holdouts on slavery - and the founding fathers shouldn't have been hypocrites in only letting white, male, landowners vote.

Again - we probably agree more than you think - but my point is that if we started reasoning for both long and short term gains, then many of the wars would never have happened.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Most of them would never have happened. Interesting side note
on Abraham Lincoln. As a representative to the U.S. House, he spoke out against the Mexican American War of 1848. I've always seen that as a major counter-argument to those who would characterize Lincoln as some sort of mindless butcher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. I don't think of Lincoln as a mindless butcher
But he was a product of his times. So were a lot of people who were considered "great" but we would want nothing to do with today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #62
67. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you thought Lincoln a butcher. I've
seen words to that effect here on DU on a few occasions from pro-Southern apologists.

Lincoln is about the only Republican I could ever consider voting for. (OK, maybe Teddy Roosevelt in a pinch :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. Teddy R wasn't so bad, even if he was psychotic towards animals
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #67
74. Its cool. And I do think the Union was justified in the civil war except...
That it could have been prevented, and it wasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #57
83. 12 American Presidents Owned Slaves
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 05:06 PM by Demeter
It was the way to wealth and power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
26. I really want to burn a Confederate flag today
really
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #26
45. I do too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
28. An excellent piece of work, OP.
While we don't always agree, your writing is always fascinating to read and worthy of discussion!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
30. So why is the author offended when we say it is the costliest war in our history?
It was. And since that is taught to American students it makes sense to mention it.

If we were to say it's the costliest war in history that would be overly American-centric, and inaccurate.

It seems like he just wanted to be offended.

And for a species that hates to kill we sure do a lot of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
37. K&R
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bikebloke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
43. 150 already?
It seems like they were talking about the 100th just back in grade school. There were even Civil War bubble gum cards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
54. Most of those who died in the war were killed by disease.
The Emancipation Proclamation, as you point out, freed no one. What it did was allow slaves, former slaves and quasi-free Blacks to free themselves or to die trying. One effect was enlistment of Black recruits in the North en masse. The Black population constituted 1% of the Northern states. Yet Black soldiers made up 10% of the Union army. And having personal stakes in the outcome were more motivated than most to conquor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
59. Canada.. Independent???
Pretty sure Canada still has a British Queen.

Also the talk of secession. If California seceded from the nation where would we get our power from? Not Arizona, where would some of our drinking water come from? Not Colorado.

Vermont secede from the Nation? Do you even know how their single payer system is being funded?? FEDERAL Money!!!

Also the war was not just fought to free the slaves. It was fought to preserve the Union, I don't think I've ever head people say the only reason the Civil War was fought was over slavery, that may have been the tipping point for the south but.


Unrec and etc. This is some bullshit

He lost me on the third paragraph, but really pissed me off when he wrote "The war of Northern Aggression"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
61. Jeff Sessions (R-douchebag) referred to it as "the war of northern aggression" on the Senate floor.
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
76. More sophistry from DU's leading historical revisionist
I didn't notice the author of this thread when I clicked on it, but I got no farther than the laughable claim that the Civil War was not the bloodiest *US* war in history. Then I realized I'd been had by this hack "historian" yet again. Unrec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. Yes, another Unrec from me, too.
Swanson is getting tiresome. His "War is a Lie" was done a lot more cogently, and coherently by Zinn in his "Three Holy Wars."

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/1/8/howard_zinn_three_holy_wars

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
86. slavery also involved "killing, wounding, traumatizing, and destroying"
To seriously justify a war, however, would require showing that anything it accomplished could not have been accomplished without all the killing, wounding, traumatizing, and destroying. What if the North had allowed the South to secede and repealed the fugitive slave law? What if an independent North had used trade, diplomacy, and morality to pressure the South to end slavery? Would slavery have lasted longer than the Civil War raged? If so, we are still talking, at best, about a war to hasten the end of slavery.


I don't think it's accurate to say that seriously justifying the war requires showing that slavery couldn't have been ended any other way. Your final sentence assumes that slavery would, eventually, have come to an end. And perhaps it would have. (Given that slavery still exists in the world today, though, there's no real guarantee.) But even if we accept your premise that, at best, the Civil War hastened the end of slavery, that still leaves open the possibility that slavery could have continued for years or decades longer than it did (to say nothing of its potential expansion), which could have involved a human cost even greater than that of the war. As violent, bloody, and deadly as the Civil War was, the casualties of slavery were higher still.

Another bit that misses the big picture:
Similarly, we justify the American war for independence because it brought independence, even though Canada and countless other countries achieved independence without war.


There's no guarantee that Canada would have earned its measure of independence without the American Revolution or, for that matter, without the U.S. Civil War. The Civil War provided a great push towards Canadian independence. Despite an official stance of neutrality, the British supported the confederacy in the Civil War, in particular by building warships and blockade runners. But they never officially recognized the confederacy because doing so (let alone allying themselves with the CSA) would have meant war with the United States, which would have meant the U.S. would have invaded Canada. And the Canadian public (which generally supported the union cause) would have opposed the British involvement, and Britain would have lost Canada. (There were thousands of Canadians serving in the union army, in fact.) That helped the push towards Canadian Federation, which was made official just a couple of years after the Civil War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
87. Raised in Alabama - I heard all kinds of neo-Confederate BS
Most of it very easily debunked. I can give you a couple of examples:

"The war wasn't about slavery because":

- "There were thousands of black soldiers fighting for the Confederacy!"

Some outrageous claims of 100,000 have been made. Sure, if you count a slave loading supplies as "Fighting". There were a tiny handful recruited in the final weeks of the war, but that's about it - probably not more than a few platoons.

- "My ancestor volunteered and fought for the Confederacy, but was too poor to own slaves. If it was about slavery, why did he fight?"

Yeah, and the Gulf Wars were not about oil because most of us don't own oil companies.

A remarkable phenomena - you will probably never meet a son or daughter of the Confederacy who will tell you that their ancestor owned a slave. Despite the fact that one out three southern families owned slaves at the start of the war, and the percentage of soldiers who came from slave owning families was about 50%. It's one of those things that doesn't get much mention in the family history. (Also, I have never met the descendant of a Confederate soldier who has stories of how great-great granddad deserted the army, despite the huge percentage who did.)

And non-slave holders had been bombarded with generations of propaganda about what would happen if the slaves were freed. It was widely, if not universally believed that if freed, black slaves would take the white man's jobs, murder their families, rape and pillage. Long after the war, the fear remained and many southerners believed that "Birth of a Nation" is accurate history (today it's confined to the Tea Party).

- One odd thing, in my school years in the 60's and 70's, I never once heard the term "War of Northern Aggression". It was always referred to as "The War Between the States" and NEVER "The Civil War".


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC