I KNEW this was coming.

[JonW]

"...wasn't interested in political correctness, but rather the emphasis on peace rather than military preparation as a core value of the group."

Naaah, it had little to do with that and everything to do with selling equipment to schools.

The words chosen were deliberate in its appeal to satisfy the schools' anti-gun policies, and thereby increasing the potential of making a sale.

The words chosen also, unfortunately (and likely inadvertently), created a negative against those who still use and enjoy seeing the rifles and sabres in use, even though the words used were not directed to the fans and members of drum corps.

It was all about selling equipment, nothing more.

[chaddyt]

Some language, but....

WAFFLES

[BRASSO]

It was pretty clear that the Cadets statement wasn't interested in political correctness, but rather the emphasis on peace rather than military preparation as a core value of the group.

In my view, Peace and Military Preparedness are not mutually exclusive at all however. For example, in my view, Military Preparedness is a precursor and a requirement to maintain peace. Not to get historical here, but as we learned in our US History classes, it was the large cutback in the US military budget in the late 30's that primarily emboldened the Japanese Militarists to convince their Emperor to launch a preemptive miltitary attack on the military weakened US, and that resulted in our neccessity to go to War to defend that attack on the US. A rifle is both an instrument of Defense as well as an instrument of agressive War. The primarily pacifist Jews of Eastern Europe had few defensive rifles or firearms at all. So 6 million of them were rushed into cattle cars to be later murdered by their armed opponents. Thus, in my view a well armed " military preparedness " is more valuable toward maintaining peace, stability, defense, and order, than military unpreparedness and disarmament. That said, I do recognize the clear and important neccessity of civilian oversight on the Military and its use of its " rifles " with its firepower too. I also recognize that there are people ( such as perhaps in the Cadets leadership positions now ) that are perhaps unfamiliar with the history or the use of firearms, military, etc and as such, their views might be quite different than mine and others.. And thats cool too.

Edited August 25, 2013 by BRASSO

[kckempf]

In my view, Peace and Military Preparedness are not mutually exclusive at all however. For example, in my view, Military Preparedness is a precursor and a requirement to maintain peace. Not to get historical here, but as we learned in our US History classes, it was the large cutback in the US military budget in the late 30's that primarily emboldened the Japanese Militarists to convince their Emperor to launch a preemptive miltitary attack on the military weakened US, and that resulted in our neccessity to go to War to defend that attack on the US. A rifle is both an instrument of Defense as well as an instrument of agressive War. The primarily pacifist Jews of Eastern Europe had few defensive rifles or firearms at all. So 6 million of them were rushed into cattle cars to be later murdered by their armed opponents. Thus, in my view a well armed " military preparedness " is more valuable toward maintaining peace, stability, defense, and order, than military unpreparedness and disarmament. That said, I do recognize the clear and important neccessity of civilian oversight on the Military and its use of its " rifles " with its firepower too. I also recognize that there are people ( such as perhaps in the Cadets leadership positions now ) that are perhaps unfamiliar with the history or the use of firearms, military, etc and as such, their views might be quite different than mine and others.. And thats cool too.

Yours is a fair opinion to have, but it's not a universal one, and disagreement with it isn't necessarily an attempt to be politically correct.

[fsubone]

Not to get historical here, but as we learned in our US History classes, it was the large cutback in the US military budget in the late 30's that primarily emboldened the Japanese Militarists to convince their Emperor to launch a preemptive miltitary attack on the military weakened US, and that resulted in our neccessity to go to War to defend that attack on the US. A rifle is both an instrument of Defense as well as an instrument of agressive War. The primarily pacifist Jews of Eastern Europe had few defensive rifles or firearms at all. So 6 million of them were rushed into cattle cars to be later murdered by their armed opponents. Thus, in my view a well armed " military preparedness " is more valuable toward maintaining peace, stability, defense, and order, than military unpreparedness and disarmament.

Luckily history education has changed since I'm guessing you were in school, because now we know things weren't like that. US Defense cut-backs only lasted until 1936, when military defense spending did go back up, and re-armament began. There are various theories on why the Japanese attacked, but the embargoes on oil and steel are seen as the most reliable method, nothing to do with striking a "weakened" military. Japan was in the middle of trying to develop an empire of all of Asia down through Australia.

And to your second point, what? What about the Warsaw uprising, or the resistance groups formed before and during the war by Jewish groups throughout Europe? Resistance groups though could only go so far against a concentrated and co-ordinated effort by a maniacal dictator to wipe out a group of people. Also, not all of the people killed in the Holocaust were Jews, pretty much anyone from Eastern Europe, along with people not deemed desirable enough to keep around were persecuted.

Sorry for drifting off-topic, but when my degree is in history, specializing in World War 2, I have to jump in.

[JimF-LowBari]

Luckily history education has changed since I'm guessing you were in school, because now we know things weren't like that. US Defense cut-backs only lasted until 1936, when military defense spending did go back up, and re-armament began. There are various theories on why the Japanese attacked, but the embargoes on oil and steel are seen as the most reliable method, nothing to do with striking a "weakened" military. Japan was in the middle of trying to develop an empire of all of Asia down through Australia.

My understanding too including some thinking the embargo was FDRs way to "force" the Japanese to attack and draw the US into WWII. For the less conspiracy minded, in a sound bite the Japanese went after their biggest threat which was the Pacific Fleet. Yamamoto himself only thought the attack bought time for the Empire. And Hitler was certainly PO'ed so the US was THAT weak....

Sorry for drifting off-topic, but when my degree is in history, specializing in World War 2, I have to jump in.

Neat.... interested in history myself but majored in what is now known as IT for the paycheck (my PA German roots show )

On topic..... ah..... well there were Military D&BC operating in HI until the 60s or 70s... and at least a very small group on Guam before the war (saw a pic of 'Victory At Sea').... other than that....

Edited August 25, 2013 by JimF-LowBari

[fsubone]

My understanding too including some thinking the embargo was FDRs way to "force" the Japanese to attack and draw the US into WWII. For the less conspiracy minded, in a sound bite the Japanese went after their biggest threat which was the Pacific Fleet. Yamamoto himself only thought the attack bought time for the Empire. And Hitler was certainly PO'ed so the US was THAT weak....

That's what the conspiracies say, but the embargo was more of a punishment for Japan invading China and other places through the Pacific. It is true that the Japanese didn't even think that attacking the Pacific Fleet would take out the US, since they knew what the US was capable of with full mobilization, and since the US had already been outfitting the British and Russians from the Lend-Lease agreement. The embargo's main purpose was to try and stop the Japanese war machine, because they didn't have an indigenous source of oil and steel, although their conquests did end up finding them sources for these things later on.

[Pete Freedman]

In my view, Peace and Military Preparedness are not mutually exclusive at all however. For example, in my view, Military Preparedness is a precursor and a requirement to maintain peace. Not to get historical here, but as we learned in our US History classes, it was the large cutback in the US military budget in the late 30's that primarily emboldened the Japanese Militarists to convince their Emperor to launch a preemptive miltitary attack on the military weakened US, and that resulted in our neccessity to go to War to defend that attack on the US. A rifle is both an instrument of Defense as well as an instrument of agressive War. The primarily pacifist Jews of Eastern Europe had few defensive rifles or firearms at all. So 6 million of them were rushed into cattle cars to be later murdered by their armed opponents. Thus, in my view a well armed " military preparedness " is more valuable toward maintaining peace, stability, defense, and order, than military unpreparedness and disarmament. That said, I do recognize the clear and important neccessity of civilian oversight on the Military and its use of its " rifles " with its firepower too. I also recognize that there are people ( such as perhaps in the Cadets leadership positions now ) that are perhaps unfamiliar with the history or the use of firearms, military, etc and as such, their views might be quite different than mine and others.. And thats cool too.

Well, this thread is going bye-bye soon. (I would guess that historical claims that can only serve to support political views would themselves be considered political.)

I must say the statement in bold was an eye opener for me. I wonder if this is a popular belief among those who subscribe to the Smith & Wesson magazine. The idea that the Jews were easily rounded up because they were pacifists and didn't have guns is, I have to say, breathtaking. It's fascinating to see the little 'historical flourishes,' shall we say, the memes, that support different views.

"Round ups, or lapankas, the Polish name they were known under, became an essential feature of life in Warsaw and precipitated much wider ferocity on both sides. (...) Whole streets were sealed off by police and soldiers and most trapped men and women were carted off to concentration camps or sent as slave labour to the Reich. Tram and trainloads of people, regardless of work documents, were herded like cattle into trucks, many never to see home or family again." - Ron Jeffery memories 1943[4]

Source: Wikipedia

If only the Jews had been armed, they could have fought off their own police, German troops, and the SS.

.

[Pete Freedman]

Folks...can we please put a stop to the political discussion in the thread. It does go against the forum rules.

Thanks.

I think we are trying to beat around the bush, but it's hard when none of us really knows where the line is. This issue is inherently blurry; it is about whether George Hopkins is making a political statement in that ad. One has to discuss the various political statements he might have been making in order to even have the conversation.

Now there are historical claims being made, which do relate to the larger political issue. But each sub-topic (so to speak) being discussed does seem to relate to Hop's perceived intent or something about the Cadet's actions, or a response to such claims. At some point it crosses the line, but it's hard to know exactly where. I'm pretty sure though that nobody is saying what they really want to say. Is that the litmus test?

[JimF-LowBari]

If only the Jews had been armed, they could have fought off their own police, German troops, and the SS.

Yeah, since they were all in one place and not spread out over Europe and out numbered..... </sarcasm>

And the guys with weapons (bunch of countries with armies) didn't do much better either for the first year or so.....

Well if that kills the thread so be it.... Having known people who lost family in the Holocaust it just bugs me when people point fingers and says what others should have done...

EDit: As my hazy memories come back, this question was asked of the survivor why her village didn't fight when the trucks came. She was too young at the time to have an real answer but she brought up the possibility that the village could have been raised and survivors of that shot as a way to discourage other resistance.

Nothing to do with Drum Corps except something to remember when we second guess people running things. Hindsight is 20/20 and foresight is blinder than me without my glasses.

Edited August 26, 2013 by JimF-LowBari