Banana Republic of Spring Lake Park

Today's Strib has an opinion piece by Dick Bernard. In it he attempts to link the rejoicing of the end of WWII with the Iraq war today. He begins with the observation of a mother writing a letter and deck officer on the USS Woodworth writing essentially the same words. The former in a letter to her son and the latter in the ships deck log.

"Hurrah, the old war is over!"

With these exultant words in August 1945, Grandma Rosa Busch, writing at the farm near Berlin, N.D., began her letter to her son, and my uncle, Navy Lt. George W. Busch.

As she wrote her "Hurrah," the deck officer of the USS Woodworth, George Busch's home for the preceding three years, recorded that the ship was "underway with Task Unit 38.3.9 consisting of 4 heavy units and 6 escorts."

And indeed I'm sure tens of millions of people felt the same way. This hell on Earth was completed and we could all go back to out lives now. (Point 1)

Later Bernard recounts how the Woodworth docked in Portland and that his uncle returned to his family life. However one who didn't return was another uncle who persihed on the Arizona during the fateful attack on Pearl Harbor. Bernard notes that his uncle was one of the first of hundreds of thoursands of casualties and upwards of 50 million worldwide. (Point 2)

One Navy man who didn't return was my Uncle Frank Bernard, brother-in-law of Rosa's daughter, Esther. Frank went down with the USS Arizona Dec. 7, 1941, one of the first of hundreds of thousands of U.S. casualties in World War II and one of perhaps 50 million total casualties.

Bernard then goes on to describe his Aunt's letter writing, taking care to specifically point out her letter of August 9th which included an article on the first test of the
A-Bomb.

With Jean's Aug. 9 letter came an unidentified newspaper clipping,
probably from the previous day's Grand Forks Herald. "1st Test Made in Desert" read the headline, and the story told of the July 1945 test of a new extremely powerful bomb "in New Mexico's desert" near Alamogordo.

Bernard now proceeds to note the failing of the letter writers to point out the incredible destructive force the new weapon held on innocent people (point 3):

In none of the many letters from George's family or from George himself is there evidence that anyone really knew the incredible destructive power, or even the human consequences for innocent "Japs," of the bomb they were cheering. Neither could they know how history would assess the War Department's optimistic prediction that the atom bomb would bring freedom from future war.

Bernard then makes a startling observation - first paragraph below. The remaining article is included so the reader can attempt to follow Bernard's logic - emphasis is mine:

In all of their letters was evidence of the polarities of war: To them,
the war was very personal, in the person of their brother, their son, their
nephew, their neighbor; those on the other side were simply "the Japs."

In her Aug. 26 letter, right after she wrote "Hurrah, the old war is over," Grandma Rosa, as saintly a person as I'll likely ever know, told her son then steaming toward Japan, "I went rite to my statue and lit a candle and prayed."

History doesn't record the subject of her prayer.

Neither does history record what happened at the grotto in the farmyard of the ancestral home in Germany -- a grotto built by our German relatives in gratitude that four sons returned safely from the war that had all but destroyed their country. (Point 4)

Those four sons, I'm told, never talked about what they did in the war. They give silent witness to Reichmarshall Hermann Goering's oft-quoted statement, as he talked with psychiatrist Gustave Gilbert in his cell at Nuremberg in 1946:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along." (Point 5)

When will we ever learn? (Point 6)

I almost got whiplash when I read his closing line. I looked to the bottom of the article to see who Dick Bernard was. Nothing. I have the page cached here. (If the Strib doesn't like it, pffffffft. This isn't about capitalizing on Bernard's efforts, though I disagree with his conclusions for reasons I will outline below). It's about showing the duplicity of the Star Tribune editorial pages.

To summarize:

Point 1 - "Everyone agreed war is Hell and it will be good to go back to our lives."

Point 2 - "Millions of people of died in WWII"

Point 3 - "Innocent people were killed by the new weapon."

Point 4 - "There are two sides in wars."

Point 5 - Goering states: "The foot soldiers aren't responsible, it's the leaders."

Point 6 - Bernard then asks if we will ever learn?

Bernard deftly attempts to compare Bush to Hitler by highlighting certain facts and hopes the reader will substitute his carefully laid out bits of information into the formula of the Iraq War in order to come up with the same answer, which he generously supplies.

Mr. Bernard, let me help you get your facts straight, using the points you supplied. But I'll put them in order and historical context for you.

1. "Everyone agreed war is Hell and it will be good to go back to our lives." There's no disagreeing with this statement. The dissolution of the enemy's purpose, means, and will is the goal of war. Only then can some sense of normalcy can be restored.

2. "Millions of people of died in WWII." Unfathomably tragic. And it would have been a lot worse if the Allies had not grouped together to fight the war that needed to be fought.

3. "Innocent people were killed by the new weapon." This one needs to be reworded slightly to put things in context for Mr. Bernard. "Innocent people were killed by the new, brutal regime of Nazi Germany." Do you recall 6 million Jews exterminated by the Nazis, Mr. Bernard? Or are you more concerned that we called our Pacific enemy "Japs".

4. "There are two sides in wars." Well, that's usually how it works, Mr. Bernard. Wars are fought for a lot of reasons. A just nation will only undertake a war to protect it's citizens or it's allies. Such was the case during WWII and as it is following 9/11.

5. Goering states: "The foot soldiers aren't responsible, it's the leaders." It is best to include the whole quote from Goering in order to maintain it's historical context (from Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to Nazi prisoners being tried at Nuremburg):

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his
attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

So Goering was, in fact, not sympathetic with the common man but pointing out that it is necessary to bring people to do the bidding of their leaders. Such an attitude would be expected from someone who "was an early member of the Nazi party, founder of the Gestapo, and one of the main perpetrators of Nazi Germany." (Source: Wikipedia)

6. Bernard then asks if we will ever learn? I would suggest, Mr. Bernard, that we have learned. We protected our own and our friends during WWII. America stood up to protect her own after 9/11. In the years in between we learned how to target the enemy more effectively. We now wage war with a precision that is unheard of in history. The US is committed to waging war that minimzes the impact on civilian life and property. This is in stark contrast to terrorists who's campaign specifically target civilians.

Mr. Bernard will not be convinced by this argument. I don't even expect him to read it. But I will put it out there for anyone who wishes to read it. And let them judge him by his words and actions. After all, there are two sides in war. And, in my humble opinion, he is on the other side.

Prologue -

So who is Dick Bernard? Well, he is the President of Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers. For some reason the Strib fails to point out that little nugget of information. Bernard isn't just some Joe Citizen who is recounting his family's involvement with WWII. He is promoting a viewpoint for his organization. Viewpoints that can be found here, here, here, here (a Muslim news website with a forum); same article here, here (his take on union organizing is a great contrast with his observation above about the polarities of war.) More self-promotion here. Here we find out Bernard was drafted during the Vietnam War but served in Colorado (search for Bernard - there are a couple of posts that mention him.) Bernard wasn't under the radar screen though. The Freepers were all over him here. So Dick Bernard is a retired union representaive who is active in the anti-war movement, and is President of an organization that supports the UN Millenium Development Goals (MDG).

Bernard acknowledges using union tactics in organizing the teacher's union.

At the NEA workshop, the methods of a crusty organizer of low-end laborers in Chicago were conveyed to us. We were taught the methods of Saul Alinsky. He organized the truly powerless, and his tactics were marvelously effective.

One of the lessons I vividly remember was this: "personalize, polarize and publicize". In organizing, we were told, you had to have a person to organize against - an object didn't do. You then had to spotlight your victim as evil (or at minimum, incompetent) and you as good; and then you had to publicize the daylights out of this good versus evil comparison.

As a sidenote, this confirms what we've known for years: The teacher's union isn't a professional organization. It's a bunch of thugs whose goal is to shake down taxpayers for as much money as possible. For the children of course.