New Yorker's satirical Obama cover triggers uproar


Praxius
#1

This illustration provided by The New Yorker magazine, the cover of the July 21, 2008 issue by artist Barry Blitt, shows Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0714?hub=World

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama's campaign says a satirical New Yorker magazine cover showing the Democratic presidential candidate dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist is "tasteless and offensive.''


The illustration on the issue that hits newsstands Monday, titled "The Politics of Fear'' and drawn by Barry Blitt, depicts Barack Obama wearing traditional Muslim garb -- sandals, robe and turban -- and his wife, Michelle -- dressed in camouflage, combat boots and an assault rifle strapped over her shoulder -- standing in the Oval Office.


The couple is bumping fists in front of a fireplace in which an American flag is burning. Over the mantle hangs a portrait of Osama bin Laden.


"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create,'' said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.


"But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.''


In a statement Monday, the magazine said the cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are.''


"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover,'' the New Yorker statement said.


The statement also pointed to the two articles on Obama contained inside the magazine, calling them "very serious.''


Republican John McCain's campaign spokesman, Tucker Bonds, agreed that the cover was "tasteless and offensive.''


Already the cover was generating controversy on the Internet.


The Huffington Post, a left-leaning blog, said: "Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism -- well, here's your image.''

Freedom of Speech I suppose, still pretty ignorant and offensive.... but that's what you get.
 
Colpy
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post


This illustration provided by The New Yorker magazine, the cover of the July 21, 2008 issue by artist Barry Blitt, shows Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0714?hub=World



Freedom of Speech I suppose, still pretty ignorant and offensive.... but that's what you get.

It is freedom of speech........

the problem is many still think Obama is Muslim........

The problem is the public is not well enough informed (I'm being polite here) to realize what is being satirized......not Obama, but the silliness of the extreme right-wing attacks on him.

the New Yorker, one would assume, is aimed at an educated, urban, mostly Democratic audience, all of whom (or most of whom) one would expect to understand.

Unfortunately, the ignorant also think there is a right not to be offended.
 
scratch
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

It is freedom of speech........

the problem is many still think Obama is Muslim........

The problem is the public is not well enough informed (I'm being polite here) to realize what is being satirized......not Obama, but the silliness of the extreme right-wing attacks on him.

the New Yorker, one would assume, is aimed at an educated, urban, mostly Democratic audience, all of whom (or most of whom) one would expect to understand.

Unfortunately, the ignorant also think there is a right not to be offended.

If he gets to be POTUS he will see a lot more of this. Goes with the job.
 
Colpy
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by scratchView Post

If he gets to be POTUS he will see a lot more of this. Goes with the job.

Hopefully, John McCain will have to deal with the problem....
 
#juan
#5
Hopefully, John McCain will retire along with Bush.
 
scratch
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Hopefully, John McCain will retire along with Bush.

Georgie may BUT McCain wants his pound of flesh for the time he spent in the Hanoi Hilton------regardless of where that pound comes from and the cost is of absolutely NO CONCERN to him !!!
 
Colpy
#7
Sigh

McCain is not Bush.

you should remember he could have escaped the torture at the Hanoi Hilton.....he refused release on a matter of principle, and suffered severe consequences.

He is an exceptional man. Full stop.

He has also been able to work with both sides, Republican and Democrat, throughout his career.....UNLIKE the "great unifier" Obama.

So far the only real abilities Obama has shown is as an orator, a campaign strategist,........and a skater.

Now, every politician skates, and I have nothing against Obama......but the man to effect unified bi-partisan action is McCain.....the man who has proven himself is McCain......

Two good candidates.
 
#juan
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Sigh

McCain is not Bush.

you should remember he could have escaped the torture at the Hanoi Hilton.....he refused release on a matter of principle, and suffered severe consequences.

He is an exceptional man. Full stop.

He has also been able to work with both sides, Republican and Democrat, throughout his career.....UNLIKE the "great unifier" Obama.

So far the only real abilities Obama has shown is as an orator, a campaign strategist,........and a skater.

Now, every politician skates, and I have nothing against Obama......but the man to effect unified bi-partisan action is McCain.....the man who has proven himself is McCain......

Two good candidates.

McCain's injuries were mostly from colliding with the wreckage of his airplane as he ejected. McCain was one of those who bombed and killed civilians. Americans like to talk about the VietNamese as the enemy but VietNam never attacked the U.S.. American bombers killed millions of VietNamese civilians.......If I had been VietNamese I would have wanted to kill him as well. That he was captured during a bombing sortie does not make him a hero.
 
lone wolf
#9
Apparently the Republican campaign has begun. If you have nothing to offer ... sling mud.

Woof!
 
Praxius
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Sigh

McCain is not Bush.

you should remember he could have escaped the torture at the Hanoi Hilton.....he refused release on a matter of principle, and suffered severe consequences.

He is an exceptional man. Full stop.

He has also been able to work with both sides, Republican and Democrat, throughout his career.....UNLIKE the "great unifier" Obama.

So far the only real abilities Obama has shown is as an orator, a campaign strategist,........and a skater.

Now, every politician skates, and I have nothing against Obama......but the man to effect unified bi-partisan action is McCain.....the man who has proven himself is McCain......

Two good candidates.

When he claims he's going to stick to the same Guns as Bush, keeps the same mentality as Bush on many forign policies, still uses many of the same excuses to justify the whole Iraq situation and jumps on the attack Iran banwagon, that's all people see in which relates him to Bush, and since the majority of the planet has had more then enough of Bush and his mentality, esspecially the people of the US, McCain is not a very easy sell to be honest about it.

I mean, when you cut it down, McCain is part of Bush's party and Bush's policies, and everything I have seen recently in relation to McCain and his objectives as president through US media, it spells out pretty much 4-8 more years of the same crap we just went through.

McCain isn't Bush, true enough.... but everything he's bringing to the table smells of Bush.
 
Risus
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

McCain's injuries were mostly from colliding with the wreckage of his airplane as he ejected. McCain was one of those who bombed and killed civilians. Americans like to talk about the VietNamese as the enemy but VietNam never attacked the U.S.. American bombers killed millions of VietNamese civilians.......If I had been VietNamese I would have wanted to kill him as well. That he was captured during a bombing sortie does not make him a hero.

Bombing and killing civilians... isn't that what the yanks do best??
 
Walter
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

Bombing and killing civilians... isn't that what the yanks do best??

What they have done best is improving the standard of living of 6.5 billion people. A couple hundred million have missed the boat.
 
Colpy
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

McCain's injuries were mostly from colliding with the wreckage of his airplane as he ejected. McCain was one of those who bombed and killed civilians. Americans like to talk about the VietNamese as the enemy but VietNam never attacked the U.S.. American bombers killed millions of VietNamese civilians.......If I had been VietNamese I would have wanted to kill him as well. That he was captured during a bombing sortie does not make him a hero.

No, bombing civilians does not make him a hero, and yes, he was injured in the crash, but.....

Quote:

John McCain's 5 1/2 years of captivity in North Vietnam were divided into two phases. Early on, this son and grandson of high-ranking Naval officers was accorded relatively privileged status. Then he refused early release--which he saw as a public relations stunt by his captors--insisting that POWs held longer than him should be granted their freedom first. Thereafter, McCain was treated much more severely, but he also had an opportunity to bond with his fellow prisoners. Those experiences strengthened his resolve and eased his transition back into civilian life.

http://www.vietnamwar.com/johnmccainbio.htm

that does make him a hero. Very much so. And a hero that stood on a matter of principle.

An exceptional man.

Another look at McCain

http://www.farfromglory.com/john_s_mccain.htm
 
Praxius
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

What they have done best is improving the standard of living of 6.5 billion people. A couple hundred million have missed the boat.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Yes, the US is the sole savior of our planet... and has improved the standard of living of 6.5 billion people.... the entire planet I'm guessing you're trying to get at.

Currently the world's population is a little over 6.7 billion, so I guess the other 2billion people are those killed by those bombings and were the enemies of the US, and therefore, didn't improve their way of life... since they're dead.

And sorry, but I don't reconize anything special in my life that the US has done to make me their boot licker anymore then any other country in the world.... it all works collectively or not at all...... and that's the big problem right there....
 
Colpy
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Yes, the US is the sole savior of our planet... and has improved the standard of living of 6.5 billion people.... the entire planet I'm guessing you're trying to get at.

Currently the world's population is a little over 6.7 billion, so I guess the other 2billion people are those killed by those bombings and were the enemies of the US, and therefore, didn't improve their way of life... since they're dead.

And sorry, but I don't reconize anything special in my life that the US has done to make me their boot licker anymore then any other country in the world.... it all works collectively or not at all...... and that's the big problem right there....

Well, just for one small thing, you were kept free from the boot of fascism by the (late)entry of the USA into WWII.

And, you've lived your entire life (I believe) in a country that could basically get by without the expense of a real military, because Uncle Sam protected us.

To say nothing of US help during the ice storm and other disasters.

And our closeness to the largest economy in the world.......

Just to start.
 
Walter
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

Currently the world's population is a little over 6.7 billion, so I guess the other 2billion people are those killed by those bombings and were the enemies of the US, and therefore, didn't improve their way of life... since they're dead.

Please reread my post carefully. Your math is faulty.
 
Risus
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Well, just for one small thing, you were kept free from the boot of fascism by the (late)entry of the USA into WWII.

Surely you jest. The war in Europe was already by the time the yanks joined.
 
Colpy
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

Surely you jest. The war in Europe was already by the time the yanks joined.

No offense, but you should read a little history.

The "Allies" had not made a single territorial gain against Germany by January of 1942.

By the summer of 1942 American output of military hardware was more than that of Japan and Germany combined.

I'm not saying they "won the war", (Hitler accomplished that for us by invading the USSR) but the USA certainly turned the tide.
 
#juan
#19
[quote=Colpy;967863]Well, just for one small thing, you were kept free from the boot of fascism by the (late)entry of the USA into WWII.
I'm disappointed Colpy. That is complete horse ****. Canada's contribution to WWII was among the largest of that war. On a per capita basis it was probably the largest. The U.S. helped immensely but that war would have been won without them.

And, you've lived your entire life (I believe) in a country that could basically get by without the expense of a real military, because Uncle Sam protected us.
Protected us from whom? I served in our air force during the cold war. Canada had four fighter wings in Europe(three squadrons each) and we sure as hell don't have to be ashamed of what we had. At the end of the cold war the U.S. continued to build weapons when others were slowing down. If we have enemies, the U.S. made them for us. Admittedly we have let our military falter, but again I ask who are we fighting? Right now we are fighting U.S. oil wars.

To say nothing of US help during the ice storm and other disasters.

And Canada helped during various disasters including Katrina....so what?

And our closeness to the largest economy in the world.......

Just to start.
 
Risus
#20
Right on, Juan!
 
Risus
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

No offense, but you should read a little history.

The "Allies" had not made a single territorial gain against Germany by January of 1942.

By the summer of 1942 American output of military hardware was more than that of Japan and Germany combined.

I'm not saying they "won the war", (Hitler accomplished that for us by invading the USSR) but the USA certainly turned the tide.

Read Winston Churchill's history of the second world war.
 
Praxius
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Well, just for one small thing, you were kept free from the boot of fascism by the (late)entry of the USA into WWII.

No, the Soviets did that number on the Germans, as more were lost on that front then any on the Western front.... the US just jumped in at the right time. If Hitler didn't get more stupid as he did and kept the cease fire with the USSR, chances are things would have been a bit more difficult and the outcome could have been very different.

With the Soviet's superior tank designs with tanks such as the T34 and IS2, not to mention their numbers of fresh troops and their lovely winter..... a very big chunk of the German army was flattened.... not to mention it was the soviets who captured the Reichstag and ending Germany's involvement in WWII.

And when it comes to Japan, that was already over before it began by a number of mistakes on their end of things, and the war would have been over much more sooner then it was, but the US wanted to go out and seek revenge as it always does, and wouldn't accept anything less then complete surrender, they didn't.... then the US nukes a bunch of their civilians until they did.

And the difference between the Japs and the US, was that the Japs targeted military related targets such as Pearl Harbour and other naval bases, while the US microwaved two cities full of unarmed civilians..... and somehow that makes them the heros of WWII?

Oh yeah, I forgot.... Military Related Targets is subjective and I suppose one could widdle away an eventual justification for killing those civilians, like many ammo and vehicle factories were in those cities.

..... well they're in every city.... that's what makes them cities to begin with... jobs, that are in demand, that bring people together in one area for easy work travel.

It'd be no more different then an enemy nuking all of Detroit, rather then just bombing the factories and lessening the civilian casualties.... giving people a chance at least.

No, sorry, I don't see much I should be thankful for the US for.... besides their bragging of what they did during WWII over other nations, I don't see much of a big difference.... and once again, if anybody turned the tides in WWII, it was the Soviets.

Quote:

And, you've lived your entire life (I believe) in a country that could basically get by without the expense of a real military, because Uncle Sam protected us.

Ha ha.... yeah, they protect us alright.... by trying to sell out all our defence programs, shutting down our development companies.... remember Avro? The US and the concept of their protection is what screwed up our military and made them the joke they used to be for the last number of decades.

And considdering the friendly fire incidences, their incompetence on protecting civlian life and air striking the hell out of everything..... I sure as hell don't want or need their help. If I need help from the military, I'll join.

Quote:

To say nothing of US help during the ice storm and other disasters.

Every city and every country does the same things.... We send our water bombers down to California every year.... what's the point?

Quote:

And our closeness to the largest economy in the world.......

Which is taking a lovely nose dive into the red line.

Quote:

Just to start.

By all means, keep going.
 
jimmoyer
#23
Sheeesh.

From one extreme to another.

Meet the new boss, just like the old boss...

Or ... meet the new myths, just like the old myths....

We go from rejecting the over-playing of America's part in WWII to the complete under-playing of America's part in WWII.

Go figure.

You see this often. Some one finds that some story has been overplayed and seeing this they go to the extreme and think all of it was a pack of lies. It's a very typical reaction.
 
jimmoyer
#24
Ja das ist wahr.

Es verdad.
 
Praxius
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyerView Post

Sheeesh.

From one extreme to another.

Meet the new boss, just like the old boss...

Or ... meet the new myths, just like the old myths....

We go from rejecting the over-playing of America's part in WWII to the complete under-playing of America's part in WWII.

Go figure.

You see this often. Some one finds that some story has been overplayed and seeing this they go to the extreme and think all of it was a pack of lies. It's a very typical reaction.

By all means.... point to where I am false about the Soviet's involvement in WWII and their level of contribution compared to any other allied nation, including the US.... including Canada.

In fact, show me where I am lying in anything in which I posted above.... by all means.... I am waiting.
 
#juan
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Well, just for one small thing, you were kept free from the boot of fascism by the (late)entry of the USA into WWII.



What was Canada's main contribution to World War 2?

In: Canada in WW2
[Edit]


Answer

I don't know much. I do know that Canada gave out many handy supplies. Canada had a strong air force and good pilots. Also, they were the only ones to achieve all their objectives on D-Day and it was the Canadians who liberated Holland. Canadians also helped medically with the Red Cross.

Answer

I am sitting in an internet cafe in Sunny Edinburgh and not at home with my books so this answer will lack detail. Canada,along with the rest of the British Empire and Commonwealth made a huge contribution to world war 11. World war 22 started on 1st September 1939 for the poles whwn Germany invaded from the west. Britain and France declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939. Although they did not have to do so Canada,Australia and New Zeland declared war on Germany at about the same time. I have a war time propaganda booklet about Canada's contribution to the war effort Even allowing for the context of the information it makes amazing reading. Canada sent troops and sailors and airmen to Britain. It produced ships and guns and tanks and planes nd in the process created an industrial economy that had not existed before the war. Canada also leant Britain millions of dollars in financial aid and in 1945 said its ok you don't have to pay it back. (The Americans did not do this they still wanted to be paid) So Canada made a huge contribution to the war and in turn was changed by it. Canada's relations with America already close became even closer in the wartime period and after the war British influence in Canada was reduced. Many British people met Canadian troops during the war and were impressed by the people and many Brits went to Canada after the war.

Answer

IN 1939, the population of Canada was about 12 million people. If you divide that in half, it gives about 6 million males. Subtract those who were too young or too old to serve, and you have about 3 million males of military service age.
By the end of the second world war, Canada had ONE MILLION, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN IN UNIFORM. That is one out of every three adult males.
BY far, Canada's greatest contribution to the winning of WW2 was the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, which trained 135,000 pilots and aircrew, from 22 different countries, in Canada.
Canada built over 300 airfields and 65 training schools in less than one year, and provided the instructors and ground crews to keep thousands of planes in the air. We also fed and clothed and housed and entertained those thousands of men, and did it at our expense. We also built thousands of aircraft for the CATP and produced the fuel and oil needed, as well as the training manuals and course books and air charts, and even the asphalt and concrete for the runways.
After Canada had manufactured enough small arms to equip it's own army, we started sending rifles, pistols and machine guns to Britain. At the end of WW2, 60 percent of the British Army was armed with Canadian made weapons. We also provided over a million Lee Enfield rifles to the Nationalist Chinese Army and 300,000 Browning 9mm semi-auto pistols to the Australians and the New Zealanders.
The largest class of naval vessel ever made was the Canadian Corvette escort ship, with 237 in total being made during WW2. From the beginning of the war, the Royal Canadian Navy was the chief escort force in the western Atlantic Ocean. By the end of the war, the RCN was the acknowledged leader in anti-submarine warfare, with the most U-baots sunk.
Remember this fact.........Every American and Canadian soldier who fought in Europe got there by ship convoy, nobody flew over the Atlantic, except bomber crews going to the war. The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest and most crucial of WW2. Without control of the ocean, D Day would not have been possible, at all.
Canada was able to fight in two major campaigns at the same time. Where ?
From July 1943, with the invasion of Sicily, Canada's First Infantry Division along with it's auxiliary units of armor, artillery and support, were involved in the Italian fighting. Fourteen months later, after the liberation of Rome, the D-day Dodgers of the 1CanInfDiv were told that, for all their sins, they would now be going to Northern France, to join 2ndCanInfDiv, and 5th Can Armoured in the fight to capture the Belgian port city of Antwerp.
Of course, 2nd Div and 5th Armoured had landed at Normandy, on Juno beach, on June 6th, and now the entire Canadian Corps, over 200 thousand men was going to be concentrated on a massive front. The Falsie gap, the battle for the airport at Tirquet, the Breskins Pocket, Walchern Island, the Netherlands, the Hochwald Forest, the final 40 days, are all ahead of them.
The RCAF began the war with 5 squadrons of outdated planes, and about 3,000 men. By the end of the war, it is the third largest of the Allied air forces,with over 133,000 men, and fully 60 percent of RAF bomber command is made up of Canadians. Number six group, Bomber Command are all Canadian crews, and in Fighter Command, more than half of the Squadron Leaders are Canadians. There are 44 RCAF fighter squadrons, as well as 15 in Maritime Command flying the Canadian built Canso amphibian.
Inventive, combative, irreverant, funny and tough, that was the Canadians in WW2. From Motor Torpedo Boats in the channel at night, to the jungles of Borneo, or the mountains of Yugoslavia, fighting with Tito's army, they were everywhere, and we left our dead in cemmetaries in 74 nations, in small places that will forever be considered a part of Canada.

Answer

As a member of the allies, Canada declared war on Germany within days of the invasion of Poland. Unlike World War I, however, Canadian units remained more independent of British command, and they played an important role in Allied campaigns in Western Europe. Canadian forces contributed heavily in the air raids against Germany, the Battle of Britain the Italian campaign and the Battle of Normandy, as well as the campaigns in North West Europe. From 1941, Canadian forces also participated in the defense of British territories against Japanese forces, especially Hong Kong. About one million Canadians served during WWII.
The Canadian Home front also played a vital role in producing weapons, armor and many other vital war machines in pushing back the Germans.
Canada�s first major action was the raid on the French beach of Dieppe the task force included 5000 Canadian troops which stormed the beach head.
Although the mission was a failure the allies got a first view of German defenses on the French coast, and this information would later be used for operation OVERLORD the June 1944 invasion of France.
Before operation OVERLORD could take place, the allies needed to �soften� up German defensive positions and key targets such as war factories. RCAF bomber units flew nightly raids on German cities and factories to reduce the German ability to produce war materials and weapons
 
Colpy
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

By all means.... point to where I am false about the Soviet's involvement in WWII and their level of contribution compared to any other allied nation, including the US.... including Canada.

In fact, show me where I am lying in anything in which I posted above.... by all means.... I am waiting.

Lying? No......

Mistaken? Not in the human sacrifices made by the USSR.

Not fully aware? Yes.

Sorry about above figures, thought they would come out in a neat chart.....btw, this doesn't count in all the material "lent" to Great Britain, Canada, Australia, etc etc

US war production in comparison.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...g_World_War_II

US personel....

13 million under arms

over 400,000 killed. (slightly less per capita than Canada's contribution)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_U...in_World_War_2

AND US Material supplied to the USSR

BIG TIME

US deliveries to USSR

Warsaw 1945: Willys jeep used by Polish Army as part of US Lend-Lease program.


American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.
Aircraft14,795Tanks7,056Jeeps51,503Trucks375,883Mo torcycles35,170Tractors8,071Guns8,218Machine guns131,633Explosives345,735 tonsBuilding equipment valued$10,910,000Railroad freight cars11,155Locomotives1,981Cargo ships90Submarine hunters105Torpedo boats197Ship engines7,784Food supplies4,478,000 tonsMachines and equipment$1,078,965,000Non-ferrous metals802,000 tonsPetroleum products2,670,000 tonsChemicals842,000 tonsCotton106,893,000 tonsLeather49,860 tonsTires3,786,000Army boots15,417,001 pairs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Did the USA win the war? Nope.

Could we have won it without them? Only maybe, nobody knows.
 
jimmoyer
#28
We go from rejecting the over-playing of America's part in WWII to the complete under-playing of America's part in WWII.

This is more about emphasis than disputing some "facts", although some of those facts are misleading, such as the comment "With the Soviet's superior tank designs with tanks such as the T34 and IS2"

I agree the USSR took the major brunt of it.



Reviewed by Michael Parrish
By Albert L. Weeks
Lexington Books, New York, 2004



A wartime cartoon in The New Yorker shows the docks of Murmansk covered with off-loaded containers and a Soviet official having trouble finding the word "spam" in the dictionary. Spam was one of the many food items sent to the former Soviet Union by the United States under the Lend-Lease Program first suggested by Winston Churchill, to which the United States contributed the major portion. The subject has been previously covered by such books as Hubert van Tuyll’s Feeding the Bear (1989), but the present well-written text has the advantage of access to Russian sources, which were put to good use by Albert Weeks. The author makes a clear case that the program was a major factor in the survival of the Soviet Union and the victory over Nazism.
In two particular areas the help was indispensable. With major agricultural regions of the Soviet Union under enemy occupation, and the unsatisfactory system of distribution and transportation, to say nothing of mismanagement, the Soviet state had more than a nodding acquaintance with famine. Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food.

Equally important was Lend-Lease’s contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without American Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery. The trucks were also used for more sinister activities, including the deportation of the North Caucasus Muslims. Less satisfactory for combat were the Western tanks, inferior to the German machines and particularly disadvantaged in the open terrain of the Eastern Front. The memoirs of General Dmitri Loza, published in English in 1996, give us a vivid picture of how these tanks were employed by the Russians.

American aircraft, flown by Russian ferry pilots across the vast expanse of Siberia, were put to good use by the Soviet air forces even with planes that were less than popular with Western pilots. A case in point was the Bell P-39 Airacobra, used both as a low-altitude fighter and as ground support. Its odd shape gave Soviet censors fits because it was difficult to conceal that it was the favorite mount of their second-highest-ranking ace, the future marshal of aviation, Aleksandar I. Pokryshkin.

Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory. It also strengthened Josef Stalin, a fact that did not bother its chief architect, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who saw beyond the Allied victory and looked at Stalin as a counterbalance to the European colonial powers.

The victory over Nazi Germany was achieved through the economic power of the United States and the lives of millions of Soviets, who for reasons that defy logic made the ultimate sacrifice to keep in power a regime as brutal as their Nazi enemy.

What the Soviet Union needed after the war was a peacetime version of Lend-Lease, in this case the Marshall Plan, which Stalin rejected. Misled by the victory, the Soviet Union under Stalin and his successors embarked on an imperial policy that would have put the tsars to shame...

http://www.historynet.com/russias-li...ook-review.htm
 
Colpy
#29
Please Juan, Good Lord, I didn't say Canada didn't contribute...........I never met an uncle as he was lost in bomber command in July 1941, before the USA was in.

Our contribution was huge.

BUT, the contribution of the USA, was 10 times ours, as is proper because of their population and econmic base.....

So, if our contribution was huge, and that of the USA was 10 times our own, is it not reasonable to say the US contribution was essential?
 
lone wolf
#30
Colpy, US materiel got to war before the GI ever set foot in a war zone. The war would likely have been lost without an industrial giant feeding the machine. The misconception is US footsoldiers tipped the balance which, in fact, they hadn't. That balance tipped when Hitler chose to switch his attention to Russia. I have no more doubt that Churchill was as content to see the Russians be pounded into oblivion as he would have been to see a refreshed British Empire take on the winner. Japan could have Asia. It was Europe that mattered.

As to the offensive cartoon.... Lighten up. I expect there was just as much offense taken when a Catholic became Prez....
 

Similar Threads

0
Quake off Taiwan triggers tsunami alert
by CBC News | Dec 26th, 2006
2
Western Standard causes uproar
by Jersay | Feb 13th, 2006
no new posts