Interesting Gallup Poll Results

[Rearden]

There was a poll taken by Gallup from Dec. 31, 1944, to Jan. 4, 1945 -- three years into that war and right in the middle of the bloody Battle of the Bulge, where U.S. casualties were estimated between 70,000 and 80,000. It found that 73 percent of Americans would refuse to make peace with Adolf Hitler if he offered it and that 86 percent of Americans thought there was no chance that we would lose the war in Europe.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/education/assignments/hitler_surrender.pdf

The greatest generation, indeed.

[HardDrive]

Do you have dirty dreams about Anita Bryant?

[red-beard]

Hey, she could play with my florida oranges, any day.

[cairns]

mmmmm....Anita.

More interesting are the ones concerning Korea during Truman's tenure. He had ratings as low as Bush and I think more than half the public felt we should withdraw shouldn't be there etc.

Good thing he didn't listen to polls. History proved him right.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Rearden

There was a poll taken by Gallup from Dec. 31, 1944, to Jan. 4, 1945 -- three years into that war and right in the middle of the bloody Battle of the Bulge, where U.S. casualties were estimated between 70,000 and 80,000. It found that 73 percent of Americans would refuse to make peace with Adolf Hitler if he offered it and that 86 percent of Americans thought there was no chance that we would lose the war in Europe.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/education/assignments/hitler_surrender.pdf

The greatest generation, indeed.

here's something. Stop living in WWII and the Reagan Era. things have changed. let's move on. instead of reminiscing about the good ol' days, let's put some energy into fixing our future.

[M.D. Holloway]

nothing a few good bombs can't solve

[Tobra]

Shaun, I think it speaks to the mentality and cohesiveness of America at this time versus the '40's or '50's, interesting to see poll numbers like that. To me anyway

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Shaun, I think it speaks to the mentality and cohesiveness of America at this time versus the '40's or '50's, interesting to see poll numbers like that. To me anyway

I thought so too. It's a function of a lot of different things, of course. The media back then to some degree, and especially Hollywood, was a propaganda machine for the war effort. Quite different from today.

I'm not saying it was better back then, just different.

PS - I prefer Vanessa Williams to Anita Bryant.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Shaun, I think it speaks to the mentality and cohesiveness of America at this time versus the '40's or '50's, interesting to see poll numbers like that. To me anyway

Agreed to some degree. I also think it speaks to the quality and strategy of the mission. the U.S. had peaks and valleys in WWII like any war, but it was steadily dominating in every theater it entered. It speaks to the FOUNDATION of previous military successes and therefore inspired CONFIDENCE in the people. Put succinctly, the U.S. had 3 years of success that said "we can do it." of course the poll reflected that.

Tony Snow clearly demonstrates partisan political hackery with his quote on the first page. they wouldn't have said that given the history.

Stop trying to compare WWII with the Iraq War. It's embarrassing by now and demeans my grandfather's and his friends service to the country. He is still friends with his army buddies and Republican and Democrat alike, they all denounce the Iraq War.


EDIT: more to the point, EVERY American had a stake in WWII. Everyone was building fighters, tanks, guns, uniforms. they were paying higher taxes to pay for it. "With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945."

in short, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OWNED WWII, FAILURE WASN'T AN OPTION.

[cairns]

Hey Shaun here's something you might consider stopping- the strident partisan insults. You're not converting anyone to your point of view with that BS.

While I would agree there aren't many parallels between Iraq and WWII I'm not so sure that was the poster's point. Even if it were, I don't know how you could deduce that someone is living in World War II, much less the Reagan era (??), by that post.

IMO the best recent parallel to Iraq is Korea. And I think we can all learn something by looking at history. Just imagine- there was once a Democratic president who didn't govern by the polls followed by a Republican one who warned of the rise of the military industrial complex.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by cairns

Hey Shaun here's something you might consider stopping- the strident partisan insults. You're not converting anyone to your point of view with that BS.

While I would agree there aren't many parallels between Iraq and WWII I'm not so sure that was the poster's point. Even if it were, I don't know how you could deduce that someone is living in World War II, much less the Reagan era (??), by that post.

IMO the best recent parallel to Iraq is Korea. And I think we can all learn something by looking at history. Just imagine- there was once a Democratic president who didn't govern by the polls followed by a Republican one who warned of the rise of the military industrial complex.

First, point out the insults in this thread.

Second, the post/PDF is all about the Admin mapping WWII to Iraq. What do you think it's about?

[cairns]

1. "here's something. Stop living in WWII and the Reagan Era. things have changed. let's move on. instead of reminiscing about the good ol' days, let's put some energy into fixing our future."

That's an insult. If you can't see that there's no point in prolonging the argument.

2. Did the original post, in any way, shape or form, mention Iraq?

3. If the post is all about WWII and Iraq perhaps you can tell us what Reagan has to do with it and why the poster is also "living ... in the Reagan era."

[Shaun @ Tru6]

OK, I'll give you point 1. It was an insult.

Point 2, the PDF is all about mapping Iraq to WWII. Posting this type of propaganda is getting tiresome, as I am sure you are of the insults.

Point 3 is pulling from another thread, so it was relevant to Rearden, but I concede your point.

Thank you for taking the time to point those out.

[Rearden]

Shaun doesn't like my Reagan avatar. It's not really meant to honor Reagan, it's intended to be an anti-Che Che symbol. And also get people like Shaun fired up ;-)

Although the link does happen to compare and contrast WW2 to Iraq War, that wasn't really my intention. I just found the poll results interesting. I've often wondered what public opinion was back then, but never realized public opinion polls were conducted in that era.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Rearden

Shaun doesn't like my Reagan avatar. It's not really meant to honor Reagan, it's intended to be an anti-Che Che symbol. And also get people like Shaun fired up ;-)

Although the link does happen to compare and contrast WW2 to Iraq War, that wasn't really my intention. I just found the poll results interesting. I've often wondered what public opinion was back then, but never realized public opinion polls were conducted in that era.

that is too funny!!! I never even connected your Reagan avatar to my position on the other thread. there I was pointing out the STRENGTH of America AND Reagan, a strength that allowed us to act unilaterally. Something we can't do anymore largely due to Bush.

While I disagree with a lot of Reagan's policy's, like Illegal Amnesty, etc., I have great respect for him as a President.

Who is Che Che?

[cairns]

Che Che was Anita Bryant's Latin lover. An orphan, he was plucked from obscurity to serve in the kitchen at the Rosarito d' Havana, a legendary Cuban restaurant. Che Che's dancing ability, physical attractiveness and legendary endowment soon brought him to the attention of wealthy female patrons.

At the age of twelve, he was taken to Miami by a very wealthy suitor (rumored to be Doris Duke) during the Cuban revolution. He reportedly met Anita at a South Beach restaurant and their affair was a torrid one- lasting for years- off and on- but kept relatively quiet by the press of the day. After the breakup, Che Che faded from view; he is rumored to be living quietly in a Miami condominium living off the savings from his earlier years. Some dispute this, insisting that he was killed, ironically, by a truck carrying oranges for processing- driven by Anita's jealous husband.

[Rearden]

Che Che's statue in Havana