Dwight D. warned us, did any pay attention?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter amp
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, particularly his warnings about the influence of the military-industrial complex and the potential dangers of corporate control over government policy. Participants explore historical contexts, implications for current governance, and differing interpretations of World War II's motivations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight Eisenhower's warning about the dangers of corporations influencing government policy, citing examples from recent administrations.
  • Others emphasize his concerns regarding the military-industrial complex and the impact of contractual research on intellectual curiosity in academia.
  • One participant expresses admiration for Eisenhower's character and the moral weight he carried due to the realities of war.
  • There is contention regarding the motivations behind World War II, with some asserting it was primarily about oil, while others argue it was about liberating nations from fascism.
  • Some participants acknowledge that while oil was a significant factor in the war, it was not the sole cause or objective.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of military-contractual research on societal values and intellectual pursuits.
  • Discussions also touch on contemporary political issues and the challenges of achieving disarmament in light of historical failures.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on Eisenhower's warnings and the motivations behind World War II, with no clear consensus reached. Disagreements persist regarding the interpretation of historical events and their implications for current governance.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific historical events and figures, but the discussion lacks agreement on the interpretations of these events. The complexity of motivations behind World War II remains unresolved, with various perspectives presented without consensus.

  • #31
HallsofIvy said:
1. Yes, oil started the war with the Japanese- the Japanese desire to get more oil, not the United States.

2. Saying that it was lack of oil that doomed the Germans is not the same as saying "the war was all about oil". It may well be true that Hitler attacked Poland (starting the war) and then Russia to get at the oil fields in the Caucasus but, once again, "oil" was not the reason the Allies fought.


This post? It addresses my point in no way. You are wrong Hughes. You are just too small to admit it.

Njorl
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I believe just prior to World War II, Japan was the only Asia nation that had not been colonized by a Western Power. Japan saw the writing on the wall. Japan felt that the only way it could survive as a nation and compete on an equal footing with the West was to carve out an empire for theirselves in Asia. Japan believe it was their devine right to do so, since they believed they were the superior Asia race. The oil fields and rubber plantations of Southeast Asia were required by the Japanese to fight a sustained war against the Allied powers and deny the Allies of these resources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
hughes johnson said:
Good job again, selfAdjoint. The democrats change their history books as they go. :rolleyes:

Don't just single out democrats, you think they're the only politcians who distort facts?

Either way, as I understand it, the history books are generally written by those who win wars, not lose them.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
schwarzchildradius said:
News to me I thought it was fought to liberate the people of Europe and Japan from the fascism that Prescott Bush helped to finance.
It was not about oil for the US, but for Japan, as a country low on natural resources, it was a major factor. He is correct that oil made the Germans lose (or lose a lot faster).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
14K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
9K
Replies
13
Views
4K