The Truth and Nothing But the Truth... Part2

Trying to compare current events against similiar events in the past can lead to some serious misunderstandings and any actions based on these understandings can lead to even more trouble. There are some popular comparisons that people like to use when debating the current state of international relations. The problem with some of these comparisons is that the events in the past have been painted with broad brush strokes and erroneous assumptions not based on fact have become "common knowledge". The problem with comparing current events against those in the past is that the severe lack of context often results in false or misleading comparsions. Here is an example that I think shows the problem of evaluating history without putting the events into there proper context:

1.  I believe there is a popular misconception that prior to WW2 the US was an isolationist country. The facts at the time really do not support that assessment, at least not using today's definition. The US was very much engaged with most of the international community in the pursuit of better trade relations and more influence.  Looking back at that time period requires you to first understand and accept the fact that at the time the US was NOT a world leader in anything and you need to use that context when evaluating the facts. Our military was anemic at best, the nation was suffering through the Great Depression, the gap between rich and poor was more pronounced than today, and the nation as a whole was not that mature when compared against the European countries at that time. The US international footprint was relatively small at the time but not because of choice but because the US was really just getting started as a nation. 
2. The US resistance to entering WW2 was mostly the result of it's prior involvement in WW1. The average US citizens had seen no benefits from it's WW1 involvement. According to the average citizens the only people who gained anything from WW1 was the US munition companies. (some things never change).  The only thing the average folks did see was the dead and injured who returned from the war without anything to show for the effort. Also in the late 1800's and early 1900's the US was still a country of immigrants. The majority of immigrants came to the US with nothing but the clothes on their backs to escape the European madhouse and really saw no real reason they should care about what was happening in the countries they left behind.
3. Today FDR is remembered as one the greatest US Presidents ever. However, at the time of his first and second terms he performed actions that skirted legality by a wide margin and displayed a gigantic helping of chutzpa when taking those actions he deemed necessary. He was also a member of the wealthy"elitist" class and made a fortune working on Wall Street before becoming president. Very similiar to the backgrounds of more recent presidents.  He worked behind the scenes and against the very clear wishes of Congress (both parties) and the countries citizens to aid Churchill in their war with Germany. His lend lease program combined with his decision to expand the shipping security zone to protect convoys to England clearly violated the Neutrality Act Congress had passed but he did it anyway. Anyone with half a brain at the time could see he was counting on using a German attack on an American ship to give him an excuse to join the war. He was very nearly was brought up on impeachment charges because of these actions and he was accused of getting the US involved in an "illegal war".  He also "broke the law" when he ordered wire taps on suspected spies after Congress had specifically passed a law preventing this very action but FDR argued the law didn't apply to issues related to national security and ordered it anyway. Actually he didn't really even argue he just wrote a directive and gave it to the Secretary of State to enforce. Is any of this starting to sound familiar? FDR barely won a second term. His opponent at the time was a guy named Wilkey who ran on a strict and very popular no war platform. The acrimony and hostility between the political parties were just as bad if not worse than they are today and the campaign was brutal. The vote was close but FDR won and afterwards he appointed Wilkey, one of his greatest critics, to the position of VP and sent him to Europe to meet with Churchill and to look at the war situation first hand. When Wilkey returned to the US he changed his opposition to the war and started supporting FDR policies. Only a blind and deaf person could have witnessed the carnage in Europe at the time and still argue against getting involved.
4. I just recently saw an interesting show that included some of our recent presidents offering their assessment's on FDR's presidency. They all agreed that he was an exceptional President. Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Bush 1 all agreed that sometimes the President needs to go beyond what is technically legal when it comes to protecting the countries security interests. All pretty much agreed that strict adherence to the Constitution and rule of law should not be a national death pact. I was surprised at Carter's stance on this issue.
5. At the time there were many picketing anti-war activists. They would have made today's anti-war crowd look pathetic and un-organized in comparison. Of course these anti-war activist looked like a bunch of idiots after the US citizens learned of the atrocities taking place in Europe. It took a while for word of the atrocities to become disseminated to the public at large because of the primitive communication systems of the day. They didn't have Facebook or Twitter at the time.
6. The people during this time period faced war and atrocity up close once the war was joined. The US was spared any damage to the countries infrastructure and cities but everyone did experience having to send loved ones off to war and never see them alive again. There was rationing, long work hours, and a great deal of uncertainty about how things were really progressing in the war. Today we know 5 seconds after a soilder stubs his toe on the other side of the world but back then it could take months to get any reliable information on the on-going battles. The citizens of this time knew the meaning of sacrifice and I sometimes think our current generation would be a big dissappointment to the people from that era. It won't be long to the last of this generation is gone and I sincerly hope that their sacrifices will not be forgotten because they really did change the world. The current generations contributions so far have been the iPod,SmartPhones, deadlier weapon systems, political correctness, and the Internet so we can complain about everything in real time.
7. After the war the US military and political establishment policies were a direct result of the experiences people faced in the war. The people making the policies at the time had been actual witnesses to undescribable horror and were determined to avoid that again at all cost. This raised the level of paranoia directed at the Soviet Union and served as the basis of US foreign and military policy from back then up to today. When evaluating US policies today you need to understand how it evolved. Policy for any large country is complex and once it gets going it's hard to change course. I think things have been changing but it won't happen overnight. It will take years before we see any results of changes being pushed and implemented today.
8. The US did not save the world single handed in WW2 but it helped. If FDR had not made the choices he did the US would have still entered the war at a later date but the cost in materials and lives would have been much greater. Germany, Japan, and Russia were the epitome of evil at the time and FDR was one of the first to recognize that fact and did everything he could to counter it. 50 years from now I wonder how people will look back at our current leaders and judge their actions. I would not be surprised that history ends up being kind to George Bush for his contributions in challeging the status quo of the middle eastern countries. WIthout the US's stirring up trouble in the Middle East would the citizens of the middle east be revolting against their governments today? US involvement in the region has shown the spotlight on the lives of the people in the region. Sure it's created a lot of animosity towards the US but if any country can absorb that animosity it is the US. The US is both stable and militarily secure so why not provide the focal point of peoples fear and anger if they us that fear and anger to change their lives for the better.