Allied Commanders of World War Two/Montgomery

"Sir Bernard Law Montgomery"

By far the most famous British commander of World War Two, Montgomery was born in London, the son of an Anglican clergyman. He later studied at Sandhurst Military Academy. After graduation his unit was sent to India, then a British colony, but the unit was then sent to France when World War One started, and Montgomery was severely wounded and almost killed there in the fall of 1914. After recuperating, he was again sent to France as a staff officer. After the war he received various promotions and assignments, including service in Ireland prior to its independence from Britain, but he also returned to India and served in the Middle East. By 1938 Montgomery was in command of a division in Palestine, then under British rule (termed a "mandate"), and his division was involved in suppressing revolts by the local non-Jewish, mainly Arab, population.

Montgomery returned to Britain not long before the outbreak of World War Two. He and his new division were sent to France right after Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939. Montgomery and his division were returned to Britain as part of the massive (and highly successful) evacuation from Dunkirk, a northern coastal French city, which had been surrounded by the Germans in 1940. He was given command of an area of southern England, as the country prepared for what seemed a likely German invasion. The seesaw British fortunes in North Africa against German and Italian troops, primarily under the command of General (Field Marshal from summer 1942) Erwin Rommel, "The Desert Fox," brought a decision by Prime Minister Winston Churchill to make major command changes in North Africa and the Middle East. When the newly appointed commander of the British Eighth Army* was killed when the Germans shot down his plane, Montgomery, then a Lieutenant-General, was given command of the army in mid August 1942.

Within a short time, Montgomery's energy had lifted the spirits of troops, as he made many a personal visit to the troops in the field. He also received reinforcements and strengthened defensive positions to keep Rommel's forces from further advances, while he plotted offensive operations to inflict a decisive defeat on the Desert Fox. Military historians have debated Montgomery's slow, but steady going as he built up toward the launching of his offensive.** Just a couple of weeks after assuming command, Montgomery's forces halted a major German-Italian attack, inflicting stinging casualties on the enemy, and forcing Rommel to order a withdrawal to his own defensive positions, thus ending Rommel's drive to capture Cairo and the Suez. British air attacks on Rommel's forces were more than a little helpful in the Allied victory.***

Montgomery finally unleashed his offensive against Rommel on October 23, 1942. After heavy fighting, Allied forces broke through the fortified Axis lines (Rommel loved minefields and barbed wire!), and Rommel, contrary to orders from nutcase-in-chief, Hitler, for Rommel's men to fight to the death, ordered a general retreat. As the remnants of the German and Italian forces retreated from Egypt and into Libya, Allied forces invaded French North Africa, far to the rear of Rommel's retreating army. By May 1943, the Axis forces in North Africa surrendered.

The Allies decided to invade the major Italian island of Sicily in July 1943, based largely upon plans put forth by Montgomery. The role given American forces of supporting Montgomery's main effort brought controversy to the Allied commanders, as Americans saw Montgomery as egotistical and condescending. The successful landing was followed by a grueling effort to clear the island of stubborn and effective German resistance.**** Mainland Italy was then invaded in September 1943, including by Montgomery's Eighth Army in the extreme southern part ("heel") of Italy. The Allied advance was halted by stiff German opposition south of Rome, and Montgomery was recalled to Britain to help prepare for the invasion of France.

Montgomery's plan called for the capture of the French city of Caen (in Normandy) by British forces and then a thrust northward, with American forces coming around the outside of advance. Caen was only taken much later than Montgomery anticipated, and after very heavy casualties, and the Allies didn't breakout of Normandy until August (they had landed on June 6, 1944). This was followed by a Montgomery plan to land airborne forces behind the German lines in the Netherlands in mid September 1944, combined with a ground offensive to link up with those forces. A follow up offensive would carry the Allies into Germany to capture the German industrial region (the Ruhr) and end the war quickly. Montgomery's reputation took a tumble, as part of the airborne landing force was cut to pieces by the Germans. The Germans launched a major offensive in mid December 1944 (known to the Allies as the "Battle of the Bulge," due to the 'bulge' created in the American line by the advancing Germans). Montgomery was temporarily given overall command of American forces in the area, and British troops were positioned to prevent a German breakthrough toward their ultimate (and overly optimistic) objective of Antwerp, which would have cut the Allied forces in two. In the later stages of the battle, Montgomery was criticized for not acting to cut off German forces retreating from the "bulge." Eventually British forces crossed the Rhine River into northern Germany and the war ended in May 1945. Montgomery was then commander of the British occupation forces in Germany, and later was named Chief of the Imperial General Staff. He remained controversial for the rest of his life, offering opinions on segregation in South Africa (he supported it) and even on gay rights (he opposed them), and his memoirs caustically criticized many of his associates from the war, including (by then) American President, Dwight Eisenhower, who had been the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Outraged Americans wanted the head of "Monty" (as he was more often known), and Eisenhower never contacted him again. Montgomery died in 1976 in England, age 88.

* The Eighth Army was the army headquarters in charge of British and Commonwealth troops in Egypt. At that time, August 1942, Rommel's advance had been halted near the railway station of El Alamein.

** Montgomery's experiences of the terrible casualties of World War One, when waves of men were sacrificed for little or no gain, made him cautious in his operations. He chose to build up his forces to a point where they were pretty much guaranteed victory, due to overwhelming numbers. Some military people criticize his caution; others admire his deliberate pace and attempts to avoid heavy casualties. To be quite honest, there isn't any one correct answer. If you have seen the superb movie, "Patton," this same debate is depicted between Patton and General Omar Bradley during operations on Sicily. Patton, ever the "keep advancing, regardless of casualties" kind of commander, is confronted by the more deliberate Bradley. Patton, Bradley's superior, prevails, and so do the American forces, but at high cost. Patton tells Bradley the casualties would have been even higher had they waited, but these arguments are really never ending.

*** The decisive use of air power by the Allies in ground operations was something of a rarity at that time, as the German use of air power to support their ground forces had been a key component in their victories since the beginning of the war. Montgomery and other Allied commanders took note of the German tactics and turned them to their own advantage, something that lasted until the end of the war. Allied air power was often cited by Rommel for his pessimistic view of the eventual outcome of the war, although he believed a defeat of an Allied landing in France could still save Germany from total defeat. When that landing came (D-Day), Allied air power was so overwhelming, it prevented the timely arrival of German reinforcements to the invasion area, as German armored units (Panzer units), especially, had to do most of their travel at night to avoid being sitting ducks for Allied fighter-bombers. Even when the units arrived at their destinations, they had often already suffered losses to their tank strength from air attacks.

**** While Italian troops far outnumbered German troops on Sicily, many, but certainly not all, Italians chose to give up the fight and surrendered at first chance. Most Italian units involved were composed of reservists. On the other hand, many of the Germans were first class troops, including reinforcements by the highly regarded German paratroopers.

WORD HISTORY:
Small-This word traces back to Indo European "smalo," which had the general meaning "small," a meaning apparently often used of animals. This gave its Old Germanic offspring "smalaz," also with the meaning "small, narrow." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "smael," with the same basic meaning. This then later became "smal," before the modern version. Its other Germanic relatives are: German "schmal," Low German Saxon "small," other Low German "schmaul," Dutch "smal," Frisian "smel," all tending more toward the meaning "narrow," but also in "small," in some cases. Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have two forms, "små" (“small”) and also "smal" ("narrow"). I could not find a form in Icelandic, so I assume it has died out.

Success, Not Excess

If polls are correct, many Americans want wealthy Americans to pay more taxes. Why? First and foremost, self interest; we don't want to pay more taxes ourselves, something I'm not sure is completely realistic.* It's like with government budget cuts at any level, "don't cut things that benefit me, cut my neighbor's stuff." Secondly, many Americans, in my opinion, feel the system is now so controlled by wealthy interests, there has to be something done to try to smooth out the tremendous income disparity that has developed over the last thirty plus years. Does this mean Americans want to tear down the system and start over? No, not in my opinion. Does this mean Americans want to penalize success? Not most Americans, in my opinion, BUT all taxes are NOT created equally. Many of us think of income taxes deducted from our pay (federal, state and local), or paid in estimated amounts during the year, when we hear the word "taxes." The thing is, almost half of Americans don't pay ANY federal income taxes now (Social Security and Medicare are different). There are many reasons for that, including tax cuts and various deductions, but that's what statistics show. As I noted, not all taxes are created equally. This is not to pick on Mitt Romney, but he's in the news, and I have a sneaking suspicion his tax returns represent a pretty good segment of the tax returns for many very wealthy Americans. Romney has made millions in the last couple of years, but almost all of it was through investments, not through actual work. It is not without reason I have dubbed such over the years here, "the sit on their ass class." Most statistics show the majority of Americans are working harder than ever just to tread water, or to keep from going over the cliff. Now, does this mean I'm against investors? No, but this stuff has gotten ridiculous. Tax rates on this "unearned" income have also been cut substantially. As I've noted here many times, they make this money off of money; demanding higher profits (thus higher dividends) from companies who then slash labor costs through lower wages and benefits, jobs shipped overseas to low wage countries, job cuts or through all of the above, to provide greater income to the "sit on their ass class." AND they have gotten away with it! Why?

Unions are, and have been, in decline. Like magicians who get the audience to focus on one thing to distract attention from the "magic" they intend to perform, wealthy interests have gotten many Americans to believe they will be better off if unions are busted, and goods and services are provided by cheaper labor, thus cheaper prices. The thing is, this has created a race to the bottom. Folks, if this continues, YOU likely will be affected, if you haven't been already, even if you are not a union member, or if you are a small business owner (customers with less money!). As I've noted here before, you don't always have to agree with a particular union stance on an issue, but you had better think about where we would be if we didn't have unions to provide a floor under wages, benefits, and working conditions. Just recently, Newt Gingrich proposed dismantling child labor laws by saying children should be employed as janitors. Where does most of the income go from all of the job cutting, wage cutting? To the wealthiest Americans.

Just as an example of how misguided some Americans are, in 2008, then candidate Barack Obama was campaigning in a neighborhood in northern Ohio. He talked with one Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (with a name like that, he could have been part of my series, "The German Question"), who questioned the Democratic candidate about his tax policies, noting that he was going to buy a plumbing business that made about $275,000 a year. Obama noted that he wanted to "spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody," and the future president truthfully noted that anyone making over $250,000 a year would have their taxes go from 36% to 39%. Wurzelbacher became famous as a McCain supporter dubbed, "Joe the Plumber.** Media found court records indicating "Joe" made about 40 grand a year. So, 3% (the increase in taxes from 36% to 39%) of the approximate business income of $275,000 is $8250. If you made 40 grand a year and someone offered you a chance to make $275 grand, would you say, "No way! I'm not going to pay that extra $8,250! My mother didn't raise any fools!" This is how distorted the thinking is among many Americans, and the wealthy interests love it. Here was an average American standing up for them, but not for himself!

* Taxes have been cut so much, by both parties, it's no wonder the country is almost literally coming apart at the seams. Now, am I saying government is efficient? No, I'm not saying that. The argument over how to make government more efficient is a valid one, but this almost religious zeal of tax cuts for anything and everything may lead us to hear the claim how tax cuts might well cure the common cold. It's human nature to want to get things for the cheapest amount, including taxes, but we have to pay for things, including quality. Just a question: Is there a connection between the tax cut mania started by President Reagan and the overall decline of the country? I'm not saying there is, I'm just asking.

** Not to belittle "Joe," but to add some clarity here, Wurzelbacher was not entirely honest with Obama about buying the plumbing business, as discussion about such had taken place six years prior. Court records showed he made about $40,000 two years earlier, but that he owed about $1,200 in back income taxes to the State of Ohio. Further, he was not a licensed plumber.

WORD HISTORY:
Plumb-The origins of this word are uncertain, although some believe it is from a non Indo European language in the Mediterranean area, as both Latin and Greek have forms of the word. It traces back to Latin "plumbum," which meant "lead" (the metal), the plural of which was "plumba." Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited the word as "plombe," which meant "lead used on a line to weight the line for underwater sounding." English borrowed the word from French in the late 1200s. The profession "plumber" originally simply meant "worker in lead," and later, because lead was used in most water lines, it took on the modern meaning, "a worker who installs or repairs water lines."

Allied Leaders of World War Two/Roosevelt, Part 5

"FDR As War Leader/Part 3"

Roosevelt wanted to help Britain very much, and he developed a close relationship with Prime Minister Winston Churchill, whose mother had been an American. In June 1941, Hitler launched an invasion of the Soviet Union, his former ally. When Japan attacked the American naval forces at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and America declared war on Japan, Hitler and Mussolini did both Churchill and Roosevelt a favor, of sorts, by declaring war on the United States a few days later.* Now American forces could be deployed directly to Britain. The decision was made to give more weight to pursuing the war against Hitler, as he was the primary threat to Britain, but major American forces were initially deployed in the Pacific to halt the expansion of Japan.** The already accelerating American economy shifted into high gear, and with millions of men (and some women) entering into the armed forces, unemployment plunged, albeit at the cost of high budget deficits, which exceeded 100% of GDP.***

In what became a highly controversial decision, Roosevelt signed an "executive order" which led to the relocation and internment in special camps of more than a hundred thousand people of Japanese ancestry, many of them natural-born citizens of the United States. About fifteen thousand people of German and Italian ancestry were also held, as were a very few people with ancestry tied to other Axis nations.

Roosevelt met with other top Allied leaders on several occasions during the war to discuss strategy, including the landing of Allied troops in western Europe, and post-war policies, with his most controversial meeting coming in early 1945 in the Soviet city of Yalta, where Roosevelt was seen by many as capitulating to Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin over postwar territories in eastern Europe. (See the individual articles on Stalin, Churchill and DeGaulle in this series for more info on Allied relationships during the war.) Roosevelt reluctantly stood for re-election in 1944, as his health was in decline. He defeated Republican Thomas Dewey (from New York), but his margin of victory shrunk considerably from his previous three elections. After returning from Yalta and visits with other world leaders in 1945, Roosevelt went to his vacation home in Georgia. On April 12 he suffered an apparent cerebral hemorrhage and died. The nation mourned collectively. The war in Europe ended just a few weeks later. Vice president Harry Truman assumed the presidency.

* I dare say, most Americans are undoubtedly unaware of this, but America did NOT declare war on Germany and Italy because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini seemed to grasp the fact of American power, and that America's entry into the war against them, barring a dramatic change in circumstances, sealed their fate.

** Remember, while Americans didn't like Hitler, they were far more furious over the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and Roosevelt was both militarily and politically committed to halt Japan, early on.

*** The deficits declined considerably after the war.

WORD HISTORY:
Glow-The ancient history of this word is uncertain, but it "may" go back to Indo European "ghel/ghluo," which, if true, had the idea of "shine." Whether this is the source or not, Old Germanic had "gloanan," which meant "to shine." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "glowan," which meant "shine brightly, glow." Later this became "glouen," before the modern version. The noun form developed from the verb in the 1400s. Common throughout the other Germanic languages: West Frisian has "gloeie," Dutch has "gloeien," German has "glühen," Low German Saxon has "glöhn," Icelandic has "glóa," Norwegian, Swedish and Danish all have "glo."

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part Seven

This was first published in early 2012. 

"Polarization of the Spanish Civil War" Part 2

The Spanish constitution for the new republic was adopted in late 1931 and it was an attempt to right all "perceived" wrongs in Spanish society from throughout their long history. It was too much all at one time.* The new document attempted to make Spain dramatically more secular and independent of the Roman Catholic Church, as it mandated public education, banned the Jesuits, and prohibited other religious orders from teaching in the new public school system. Further, it set up secular procedures for marriage (it had been a province of the Church), and even for divorce (a major Church "no, no" in those times), and it nationalized the extensive Church properties, requiring the Church to pay rent to the government.** It also gave women the right to vote. Such fundamental change brought an immediate, and passionate, backlash. Further, the constitution provided for government confiscation of private property for the public good, although the owners were to be compensated. This alienated the large landowners, placing them against the republic.***

*What happened in Spain had not actually been a revolution, in the Bolshevik sense. Revolutionaries didn't take over the government and the government then didn't take over everything and execute or arrest enemies, real or imagined. The constitution provided for free elections and democracy (although staunch Catholics would argue otherwise, with some justification), and democracy can be contentious and messy, to put it mildly. To try to push such dramatic change onto Spanish society so quickly in a democratic nation was bound to have political consequences.

** While today some of the provisions would not be seen as terribly radical, back then, for a nation steeped in rigid Catholicism, these major changes, and their inclusion as part of the new republic, were bound to bring determined opposition, as many devout Catholics turned against the republic. Even some marginal religionists were not supportive of the new measures. The Pope (Pius XI) condemned the measures. It is probably not an exaggeration to say, these anti-Church measures went a long way toward the later outbreak of civil war.

*** There was an enormous gap between the "haves" and "have nots" in Spanish society, but just as with Church matters, many viewed the remedies as going too far and too fast. The landed segment of society (and the Church) had been protected by the monarchist government for centuries, and the new constitution suddenly turned the government from protector into a potential adversary. The land reforms were not pursued with great vigor (there was not much money available to pay for the land); consequently, the republic made enemies of the landowners just for having the policies, and the republic didn't appease the peasantry, the intended beneficiaries of the reforms.

WORD HISTORY:
Bead-The meaning of this word has changed dramatically over time, although the initial change makes the connection to its original meaning. It "seems" to go back to Indo European "bheudh," which had the meaning "request, ask;" thus also, "pray." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "bidjan/bithjan," also with the meaning "request, pray." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "biddan," a verb form with the same meaning, and the derived noun "gebed," meaning "prayer."^ By about the 1300s, the "ge" prefix had disappeared, leaving "bedu," then "bede," but the meaning had shifted to the specific "prayer bead, rosary bead."^^ Later still, the religious aspect was often lost, as the word came to be applied to many small round objects. Other Germanic languages have (all still meaning "prayer"): German has "Gebet;" some Low German dialect has "Jebäd;" Low German Saxon has "Beet," Frisian and Dutch have "gebed." The North Germanic languages have forms without the "t" or "d" sounds; Swedish "bön," for example, but whether these are related to "bead," I'm not really certain.

^ There were spelling/pronunciation variations of "biddan."

^^ English had borrowed the word "prayer" (a Latin derived word), which displaced the native word with that meaning, "gebed," ancestor of "bead."

Allied Leaders of World War Two/Roosevelt, Part 4

"FDR As War Leader/Part 2"

(See the previous article in this series about FDR and Asia) Roosevelt remained focused on combating the devastating effects of the Great Depression in the mid to late 1930s,* even though both Hitler and Mussolini were making noises; Hitler in Europe and Mussolini in eastern Africa. When a war between Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia against Germany seemed possible over German claims to German populated areas of Czechoslovakia, Roosevelt, while sympathetic to Hitler's opponents, remained determined to keep the U.S. out of such a war by saying the U.S. would be neutral. Once the crisis over Czechoslovakia passed, it didn't take Hitler long to turn up the heat on Poland, a nation on Germany's eastern frontier, against which many Germans held grievances over post World War One border adjustments.** While still wishing to remain officially neutral, Roosevelt desired to give material aid to Britain and France by the sale of weapons, especially aircraft.***

The German invasion of Poland and the resulting declaration of war on Germany by Britain and France put Roosevelt in a tough political spot. Overt American public opinion remained against U.S. military involvement in the European war, but FDR wanted to help the Allies as much as possible economically, including with weapons. The defeat of France so shocked Americans, that, coupled with an increasing fear of a world dominated by fascism, public opinion more and more favored Britain in its stand alone position against Hitler. While a strong anti-war sentiment remained, clearly the momentum had shifted enough for FDR and a number of cooperative Republicans to support an expansion of American military forces. Congress passed, and FDR signed, a bill implementing a peacetime "draft" in September 1940.**** The U.S. also gave Britain some old military vessels in exchange for bases in various British and Commonwealth territories. The major aid to Britain came in the Lend Lease Act, which literally gave Roosevelt the ability to "give" military supplies and weapons to Britain, with the durable weapons later to be returned to the U.S. (thus the "lend/lease" idea).***** After Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the policy was extended to aid that nation against the Axis powers, too. Tanks, trucks, ships and planes were common Lend-Lease weapons supplied by the U.S.

Naturally, all of this did not sit well with Hitler and Mussolini, and Germany began to sink more and more transport ships bound for Britain, mainly by submarine (U-boat) attacks. The stage was set for a confrontation.

* Americans certainly seemed content to mind their own business, perhaps even more so because of the economic calamity. While America's intervention in World War One had definitely aided the Allies, America was not really seen by many as a true super power in those times. Just as began to happen circa 2005/06, as Americans began to feel more and more economically pinched, an increasing number of people began to lose interest in fighting foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with public sentiment shifting to bolstering the nation's floundering economy, a sentiment (shown in recent polls) that is still very prevalent as we enter 2012.

** See the following article for more information on the border changes between Germany and Poland: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/05/german-question-part-ninety-seven.html

*** The production of these aircraft also boosted the American economy, something not lost on the politically savvy FDR. He got to have it both ways; to keep out of direct political involvement in hot button European issues which could lead to war, but to get more Americans employed in decent paying industrial jobs, with payment coming, mainly, from France, and later Britain. (Note: The French orders were not completed when France surrendered to Germany in June 1940. The remainder of the order, plus more, were then shipped to Britain.)

**** According to the NY Times, the vote in the House of Representatives was 232 to 124 (186 Democrats and 46 Republicans FOR; (32 Democrats, 88 Republicans, and 4 other parties AGAINST). The Senate vote was 47 to 25 (40 Democrats and 7 Republicans FOR, and 13 Democrats, 10 Republicans, and 2 other parties AGAINST).

*****Most items were obviously not returned to the U.S., but some were later sold at huge discounts.

WORD HISTORY:
Ear (2)-This is the noun meaning "seed/grain bearing part of a plant;" commonly used in "ear of corn." This word goes back to Indo European "aek," a base with the meaning "sharp, pointed." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "ahkhaz," which retained the "sharp" notion, but also began to develop the meaning "spear shaped part of a grain plant" (the spear shape tied in with the idea of "sharp"). This gave Old English "ear," seemingly with a long "e," but the "ar" also pronounced. Later this became "ere," before the modern spelling and pronunciation. The other Germanic languages have: German "Ähre," Low German Saxon "Ohr," West Frisian "ier," Dutch "aar," Icelandic "eyra," Danish and Norwegian "aks" (notion the closeness to the ancient ancestor), and Swedish "Örat." For the history of "ear, the body part for hearing:" http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/12/ant-in-room.html

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part Six

This was first published in early 2012. 

"Polarization of Spain Brings Civil War" Part 1

The American Civil War was fought over "states' rights," and more specifically over the issue of slavery, and whether states had a right to permit slavery within their own borders, or whether the national government had a right to outlaw slavery throughout the land. The practice of slavery was well established in the southern parts of the country, especially, but not exclusively, on large estates (plantations), and many prominent early Americans, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. More and more Americans of those times came to view slavery as morally wrong, although opposition came to be concentrated in northern states, with states bordering the north and south facing divided public opinion.* Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president,** was a staunch foe of slavery, and his election brought the declaration from a number of southern states that they were leaving the "Union;" that is, the United States, to form a "confederation" of states; thus, the term "Confederacy." Lincoln said states could not leave the "Union," and a violent war began to settle the issue (for those times).***

Spain was a monarchy until 1931, when King Alfonso XIII abdicated (he literally left the country). The king, the Roman Catholic Church, the army and wealthy interests, including industrialists, had had the largest say in the governance of Spain,**** and the strains on Spanish society were becoming more and more evident, as reforms to help protect workers, farmers, and regional interests were not carried through. The Spanish socialist party became increasingly popular, along with strong anti church elements, and pro-democracy elements.***** In elections in 1931, this "coalition" group won a majority in elections, the king left the country, and a "republic" was declared. All seemed well on the surface, and it appeared Spain would move forward, but opposition to the new republic from entrenched interests quickly mobilized to prevent change.

* The southern states of America were generally not as densely populated as northern states, and the availability of land for farming, combined with the longer growing season, made agriculture a major part of the southern economy, with labor intense cotton being one of the main crops, as it was also sold overseas. The long tradition of slave labor in the region carried over from colonial times to the decades after American independence.

** The Republican Party had been established with a strong anti-slavery element. Lincoln's candidacy prompted southerners to flock to the Democratic Party, where they and their descendants remained until the last couple of decades, when they began voting Republican, even if not always at first registering as Republicans. The Democratic Party maintained a staunch segregationist element from the post-Civil War era until a number of prominent Democrats began to push for an end to segregation and for laws to try to make the country fairer. More and more the segregationist elements voted Republican or became Republicans, undoubtedly causing Lincoln several turns in his grave. So historically, neither major political party is without guilt, but at least Democrats basically got over it. Republicans took their party's roots and chopped them off.

*** I say "for those times," because just in the last couple of years some Republicans in southern states, including Governor Perry of Texas, have suggested they might want to secede from the "Union," mainly because of President Obama's health care plan. Such talk has now subsided, but it is interesting that the Republican South, undoubtedly the most fundamentalist Christian (by their definition; keep reading) part of the country, and Rick Perry, who flaunts his Christianity so publicly, would talk of secession from the country, because a president wants to help Americans who don't have health insurance! I'm not saying you have to support Obama's plan (I wasn't especially thrilled by it, but for different reasons), but to essentially say to those who don't have access to adequate health care, "The hell with you! I've got mine, go get yours," is just astounding. It shows how human beings make religion to be whatever we want it to be, AT THE MOMENT. Christianity especially does NOT advocate selfishness, accumulation of wealth, turning your back on the needy or sick, but, quite to the contrary, the OPPOSITE OF THESE THINGS! Going to church, singing hymns, memorizing Bible verses, saying "God loves you," and forming social cliques is not Christianity, although many seem to believe that is its purpose. Oooo, I can feel the condemnations now! But for those condemning me, you'd better go look in that mirror and ask yourself some tough questions. And no "spinning" the answers to come out the way you want them to come out; that is, "making religion be what you want it to be, at the moment."

**** There was a military government throughout much of the 1920s, but it grew increasingly unpopular, including with the wealthy, since the government raised their taxes to help pay for public works projects. Hm, you don't think there's a similarity to modern America here, do you? The government, which was supported by the king, succeeded in angering just about every segment of Spanish society with oppressive policies or by not following through on promised reforms; thus further tarnishing the king, who already had a reputation as anti-democratic.

***** The Roman Catholic Church had had tremendous influence in Spain for centuries. Since the Church tended to support the rulers of Spain, it too was seen by a certain segment of the population as being part of the country's problems.

WORD HISTORY:
Civil-It "seems" this word, closely related to "civic" (not a Honda), goes back to Indo European "k(h)ei," with the meaning "settle, lie down;" thus, "homestead," and also the figurative noun sense, "family" (from the homestead/settle notion). This gave its Latin offspring "civis," which meant "citizen" (here again, the "homestead, settle, and family notions tie in). This then produced Latin "civilis," with the meaning "pertaining to the public, to citizens." Old French, a Latin-based language, "inherited" the word as "civil," and English borrowed it from French in the late 1300s (the Middle English period). The further notion of "courteous, polite," as in "civil discussion," seems to have been picked up by English in the 1500s, as Latin had developed that same meaning, derived from the idea of regular citizens being more polite than military and religious authorities.

A Recommendation: "The Greedy Bastards"

Folks, it's not often that I recommend things here, but I hope you will check this out. The title alone should get your attention, and if you're a regular reader here, you know I've used the term, or similar, many times over the years. Whether you like to hear it or not (please, please don't be in denial), the country has essentially been taken over by a very powerful, well financed group. They aren't "job creators," as they and their minions like to say, but they are interested in one thing....THEMSELVES! Any jobs they create, and they are not many, in my opinion, are incidental. No matter what your political affiliation, I hope you can put the COUNTRY first, and not let the superegos and "greedy bastards" continue to take us on the path of national destruction we have been on for decades now. Dylan Radigan has seen "Wall Street" first hand and his commitment to change the country for the better, for the vast majority, and not just the few, is somethng he sincerely believes.

http://greedybastards.com/


WORD HISTORY:
Meal (2)-English has two words "meal;" this is the one "food served at a particular time" ("Meal," meaning "ground grain" was covered previously). This word goes back to Indo European "me," which meant "to measure." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "maelan," which meant "(measured) time and hour, but also in certain contexts it seems to have had notions of "fixed time to eat." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "mael," with essentially the same meanings. This then became "mel(e)," before the modern version, but the meaning condensed to only "fixed time to eat, meal, feast." Very common in the other Germanic languages: German and Low German Saxon have "mal" (time(s), in math & in 'occasion' sense) & "Mahl" (meal), Dutch has "maal," West Frisian has "miel," Icelandic, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish all have "mál."

Allied Leaders of World War Two/Roosevelt, Part 3

"FDR As War Leader/Part 1"

By the late 1930s, with America still suffering from the Great Depression, Roosevelt, in tune with the sentiments of many Americans, was not inclined to get the country directly involved in overseas military actions, although the Japanese had shown aggressiveness in Asia since the days of Herbert Hoover's presidency, and China and Japan were at war in 1937. Several nations, including America, helped China by providing loans to buy war goods, and the "American Volunteer Group," known more famously as "the Flying Tigers," provided China with air support, while gaining valuable combat experience, although the unit did not actually see combat until Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. The U.S. and other nations also implemented an escalating embargo against Japan beginning in 1940, with the U.S. and Britain cutting off trade by mid 1941. It is important to remember that at that time, Hitler occupied much of Europe and had invaded the Soviet Union, and Japan had developed increasingly close ties to Hitler and Mussolini. The trade embargo heightened tensions between the United States and Japan, although negotiations between the two countries continued up until the surprise Japanese attack on American naval forces stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (then an American territory, not a state). The attack brought Roosevelt to Congress the next day to ask for a declaration of war against Japan; something Congress passed, with only one "No" vote, cast by a Republican congresswoman from Montana.

WORD HISTORY:
Meal-English has two words "meal," this is the one meaning "ground grain." It traces back to Indo European "mele," which meant "to grind." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "melwan," which meant "to grind," and the derived noun form "melwa," which meant "meal" (the result of grinding grain). This gave Old English "melu," which then became "mele," before the modern spelling. Common in the other Germaic languages: German and Low German Saxon have "Mehl," some Low German dialects have "Mäl," West Frisian has "moal," Dutch has "meel," Swedish has "mjöl" (Icelandic uses this same word, but now only in compounds), Danish and Norwegian have "mel."

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part Five

This was first published in January 2012.


So we've seen lots of protests in various parts of the world during this past year. Some of the protests have turned violent, with governments cracking down in an effort to limit the protests, and to prevent the protests from developing into outright attempts to overthrow the existing order. Even in Russia during recent weeks, large protests have taken place directed at Vladimir Putin and the United Russia political party, over what some Russians see as fraudulent parliamentary elections. So what's going on in the world?

Well, simply put, those in power, officially, or "unofficially," as in interests which support existing orders in various countries (often wealthy, business interests, or religious sects), are trying to maintain their control, while others with little or no power want some changes in their respective systems, if not out and out total change. In America for quite some time now we have seen a politically polarized electorate and governing system. The Great Depression rocked the American political system, bringing progressives, later often termed "liberals," into control of the national agenda. The country never went totally to the political left, as the midterm elections of 1938 gave Republicans* a resounding victory, although their numbers in Congress had dwindled so much since 1930, they had no place to go but up, otherwise they might have disappeared. It showed that America had political balance, since Democrats (see *) had controlled the agenda, and Franklin Roosevelt had pushed the envelop a bit too much for many Americans with his attempt to pack the Supreme Court.** Roosevelt learned his lesson, and he became one of the nation's most beloved Chief Executives, even with many Republican admirers.

The Republicans gradually made headway against Democrats over time, especially on the presidential level, as Dwight Eisenhower won two landslide elections, but the nation's agenda was clearly set by the progressive mindset of the public, and Republican officeholders tended to be moderate in policies and in temperament. Any Republican resurgence was stopped by the scandals of President Richard Nixon, a moderate Republican, in the early 1970s. It wasn't until the late 1970s when conservatives rallied to Ronald Reagan, a former Democrat, that a major Republican victory became a possibility, and a reality in 1980. While Reagan frequently poked fun at himself and was not of a nasty disposition, some of the reactionary elements in the conservative movement saw the chance to repeal progressive programs from the 1970s and 1960s, then the 1930s, and now, in my opinion, from the Civil War (we had better watch out, they may next try to undo the Revolutionary War and we'll all have to learn "God Save the Queen"). The agenda shifted more and more from progressive to conservative since those times. By the 1990s, led by then Congressman Newt Gingrich, the conservative Republicans were in firm, and growing, control of the Republican Party. Confrontation between the two parties became far more frequent, with Republicans in Congress allowing the government to temporarily shut down; a move that proved highly unpopular with many Americans. Conservatives enacted tax cuts numerous times, often skewed heavily toward upper income Americans. Statistics show that income disparity among the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us has grown tremendously since Reagan's presidency, but Americans have taken their eye off the ball, as too many are concerned with other issues, rather than with making the country fairer. Even with Democrats in control of Washington for a couple of years, conservatives boldly put forward proposals to do away with inheritance taxes, both at the federal level, and in many states. The ideological divide between the two parties is frightening to me, and in a way it reminds me of the Spanish Civil War era of the mid to late 1930s. (See next installment in this series about the Spanish Civil War)

* The Republicans of that era were not all the fire-breathing reactionaries some might associate, fairly or unfairly, with today's Republican Party, and Democrats were not socialists some might associate, fairly or unfairly, with today's Democratic Party. No, back then some of the most conservative people in the country, mainly in the south, were Democrats, and some of the more progressive people in the country, often, but not always, in New England or the Midwest, were in the Republican Party. Many of the hot-button social issues of more recent times were not really front and center back then. THE important issue was economics, and since many Americans were, or had become (due to the Depression), "have nots," the issue of fairness and income distribution was a hot topic, with even many "conservative" southerners favoring policies that helped those who were not independently wealthy. Governor, and then U.S. Senator, Huey Long of Louisiana became a champion of average people with his "Share Our Wealth" slogan. Long was a corrupt demagogue, and virtual dictator of Louisiana, but he became so popular by the mid 1930s, both major political parties feared him, especially Democrats, since he seemed an inevitable candidate for the presidency in 1936 as a third party candidate, and his appeal was to people likely to vote the Democratic ticket; thus Long, or his hand-picked candidate, could have thrown the election to the Republicans. Long was assassinated in September 1935 by the son-in-law of a judge Long was trying to have removed from office.

** Roosevelt was dissatisfied with some Supreme Court decisions and he proposed to "expand" the number of justices on the court; thus diluting the strength of a conservative block on the court. Americans saw it as a power grab, which it was, and it was a major issue used against too much power in the hands of Democrats in the late 1930s. Republicans made huge gains in the midterm election of 1938. The electoral message worked, and Roosevelt settled down to governing the country within the established boundaries. He won a third term, and then a fourth term, before passing away in April 1945, just weeks before the surrender of Hitler's Germany.

WORD HISTORY:
Price-This word traces back to Indo European "preti," which had the notion of "give back, return." This gave its Latin offspring "pretium," which meant "price, worth, value, reward." This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "pris," with the same basic meanings. English borrowed the word from French in the 1200s, with the same French spelling, "pris," which then was altered to "prise," before the modern spelling. The verb form was derived from the noun, seemingly around 1400.