It was reported on the evening news that the Red Cross was attempting
to atone for the fact that they charged the troops for coffee and
donuts during WWII.

This truly angered my father who refused to give anything to the Red
Cross after he found out about it.

He directed all his charity donations to the Salvation Army in protest
of the Red Cross.

Strange what the cobwebs of time keep hidden deep in the old brain
cells.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
It was reported on the evening news that the Red Cross was attempting
to atone for the fact that they charged the troops for coffee and
donuts during WWII.

This truly angered my father who refused to give anything to the Red
Cross after he found out about it.

He directed all his charity donations to the Salvation Army in protest
of the Red Cross.

Strange what the cobwebs of time keep hidden deep in the old brain
cells.

Lew

======They haven't changed there stripes or spots in all that time, i.e.,
WTC contributions diversion and their fiasco providing help to Katrina
victims. I have stopped all donations to them, and like your Dad, opted to
donate to the Salvation Army.

Leif

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:45:14 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

...Red Cross was attempting
to atone for the fact that they charged the troops for coffee and
donuts during WWII.

This truly angered my father who refused to give anything to the Red
Cross after he found out about it.
...

I believe that is not an uncommon attitude among veterans of that era.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:45:14 -0800, Lew Hodgett wrote:

It was reported on the evening news that the Red Cross was attempting
to atone for the fact that they charged the troops for coffee and
donuts during WWII.

This truly angered my father who refused to give anything to the Red
Cross after he found out about it.

He directed all his charity donations to the Salvation Army in protest
of the Red Cross.

Strange what the cobwebs of time keep hidden deep in the old brain
cells.

Lew

I too will not donate to the Red Cross. I forget now the situation, but at
one time the government gave the Red Cross blankets for the victims of a
flood or something. The Red Cross was selling these blanket to the victims.
I too donate to the Salvation Army and any items that I want to get rid
of, donate to the local Salvation Army store for them to sell.

Paul T.

--
The only dumb question, is the one not asked


http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

When I hear these stories, I always check out snopes.com to check the
veracity. Here's the link, interesting reading.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/emergent/redcross.asp


Kevin

Interesting reading indeed.
It's amazing how urban legends and myths come to have lives of their own.
Mis-information must be self propagating.
Tom

--
Maker of Fine Sawdust and Thin Shavings
Take out the One to email me.
"Kevin" wrote in message
ups.com...
When I hear these stories, I always check out snopes.com to check the
veracity. Here's the link, interesting reading.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/emergent/redcross.asp


Kevin

Lew Hodgett wrote:
It was reported on the evening news that the Red Cross was attempting
to atone for the fact that they charged the troops for coffee and
donuts during WWII.

This truly angered my father who refused to give anything to the Red
Cross after he found out about it.

He directed all his charity donations to the Salvation Army in protest
of the Red Cross.

Strange what the cobwebs of time keep hidden deep in the old brain
cells.

Lew


I remember my Dad having the exact same sentiments for the same reasons.

If snopes is to be believed, the Red Cross only charged American
servicemen overseas. My father and stepmother both witnessed this
happening here in the US; returning vets being charged for coffee and
donuts by the red cross here on American soil. One at a red cross
sponsored dance in New York, the other at an airport in California.
I wasn't there, but they were, and I believe them. They both hold a
grudge against the red cross for this.

Tom Bunetta wrote:
Interesting reading indeed.
It's amazing how urban legends and myths come to have lives of their own.
Mis-information must be self propagating.
Tom

DS wrote:
If snopes is to be believed, the Red Cross only charged American
servicemen overseas. My father and stepmother both witnessed this
happening here in the US; returning vets being charged for coffee and
donuts by the red cross here on American soil. One at a red cross
sponsored dance in New York, the other at an airport in California.
I wasn't there, but they were, and I believe them. They both hold a
grudge against the red cross for this.


While perhaps true, it's likely not "the rest of the story"...they
undoubtedly weren't in position to know the whole truth.

--

DS wrote:
If snopes is to be believed, the Red Cross only charged American
servicemen overseas. My father and stepmother both witnessed this
happening here in the US; returning vets being charged for coffee
and
donuts by the red cross here on American soil. One at a red cross
sponsored dance in New York, the other at an airport in California.
I wasn't there, but they were, and I believe them. They both hold a
grudge against the red cross for this.

One would expect a dance in the US to be a fund-raiser, where everyone
in attendance is expected to do their part.

Tom Bunetta wrote:
Interesting reading indeed.
It's amazing how urban legends and myths come to have lives of
their
own. Mis-information must be self propagating.
Tom

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
DS wrote:
If snopes is to be believed, the Red Cross only charged American
servicemen overseas. My father and stepmother both witnessed this
happening here in the US; returning vets being charged for coffee
and
donuts by the red cross here on American soil. One at a red cross
sponsored dance in New York, the other at an airport in California.
I wasn't there, but they were, and I believe them. They both hold a
grudge against the red cross for this.

One would expect a dance in the US to be a fund-raiser, where everyone
in attendance is expected to do their part.
....

Certainly not necessarily so at the end of WWII in particular would I
expect that....as noted, though, I would be willing to bet there were
other circumstances similar if not identical to, those outlined previously.

--

J. Clarke wrote:
DS wrote:
If snopes is to be believed, the Red Cross only charged American
servicemen overseas. My father and stepmother both witnessed this
happening here in the US; returning vets being charged for coffee
and
donuts by the red cross here on American soil. One at a red cross
sponsored dance in New York, the other at an airport in California.
I wasn't there, but they were, and I believe them. They both hold a
grudge against the red cross for this.

One would expect a dance in the US to be a fund-raiser, where everyone
in attendance is expected to do their part.

Tom Bunetta wrote:
Interesting reading indeed.
It's amazing how urban legends and myths come to have lives of
their
own. Mis-information must be self propagating.
Tom

Perhaps, but if you're raising funds to comfort the troops, then the
money should come from ... the troops??? No. Not in my estimation.

My stepmother as a young woman was asked to volunteer at this dance in
order to "do something nice for the troops". She was assigned to SELL
them drinks and snacks. It didn't seem to her that she was doing
anything FOR them.

My father, at a west coast airport, watched as the red cross sold coffee
and donuts to soldiers - to GIs both returning and leaving for pacific
areas.

Like I said, I wasn't there. I'm relying on their experience, and that
there really doesn't seem to be a "rest of the story" here. At least not
one that justifies the behavior.

I have a friend (a Korea vet) that is spending his retirement as a red
cross volunteer. I know that he does good and necessary things with that
organization.
My point wasn't that I think the red cross is evil... Just that I know
two people that can personally discredit the snopes account of the era.

DS wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
DS wrote:
If snopes is to be believed, the Red Cross only charged American
servicemen overseas. My father and stepmother both witnessed this
happening here in the US; returning vets being charged for coffee and
donuts by the red cross here on American soil. One at a red cross
sponsored dance in New York, the other at an airport in California.
I wasn't there, but they were, and I believe them. They both hold a
grudge against the red cross for this.

One would expect a dance in the US to be a fund-raiser, where everyone
in attendance is expected to do their part.

Tom Bunetta wrote:
Interesting reading indeed.
It's amazing how urban legends and myths come to have lives of their
own. Mis-information must be self propagating.
Tom

Perhaps, but if you're raising funds to comfort the troops, then the
money should come from ... the troops??? No. Not in my estimation.

My stepmother as a young woman was asked to volunteer at this dance in
order to "do something nice for the troops". She was assigned to SELL
them drinks and snacks. It didn't seem to her that she was doing
anything FOR them.

My father, at a west coast airport, watched as the red cross sold coffee
and donuts to soldiers - to GIs both returning and leaving for pacific
areas.

Like I said, I wasn't there. I'm relying on their experience, and that
there really doesn't seem to be a "rest of the story" here. At least not
one that justifies the behavior.

I have a friend (a Korea vet) that is spending his retirement as a red
cross volunteer. I know that he does good and necessary things with that
organization.
My point wasn't that I think the red cross is evil... Just that I know
two people that can personally discredit the snopes account of the era.

Nothing in their account does anything to discredit the Snopes account
-- it addressed overseas fixed-location facilities, not stateside
temporary set ups. And again, unless one has the information in detail
on the organization of the events, etc., one doesn't have "the rest of
the story", all one has is the perception of an attendee or bystander.

--

DS wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
DS wrote:
If snopes is to be believed, the Red Cross only charged American
servicemen overseas. My father and stepmother both witnessed this
happening here in the US; returning vets being charged for coffee
and
donuts by the red cross here on American soil. One at a red cross
sponsored dance in New York, the other at an airport in
California.
I wasn't there, but they were, and I believe them. They both hold
a
grudge against the red cross for this.

One would expect a dance in the US to be a fund-raiser, where
everyone in attendance is expected to do their part.

Tom Bunetta wrote:
Interesting reading indeed.
It's amazing how urban legends and myths come to have lives of
their
own. Mis-information must be self propagating.
Tom

Perhaps, but if you're raising funds to comfort the troops, then the
money should come from ... the troops??? No. Not in my estimation.

If you're raising the money for the troops stuck in some hellhole
overseas then I don't see anything wrong with raising some of it off
the troops who are safe and warm in New York or California.

By your reasoning they'd give the troops war bonds for free.

My stepmother as a young woman was asked to volunteer at this dance
in
order to "do something nice for the troops". She was assigned to
SELL
them drinks and snacks. It didn't seem to her that she was doing
anything FOR them.

Why would they need anything done FOR them?

My father, at a west coast airport, watched as the red cross sold
coffee and donuts to soldiers - to GIs both returning and leaving
for
pacific areas.

Oh, yeah, those guys were in real danger sitting in an airport.

Like I said, I wasn't there. I'm relying on their experience, and
that
there really doesn't seem to be a "rest of the story" here. At least
not one that justifies the behavior.

I have a friend (a Korea vet) that is spending his retirement as a
red
cross volunteer. I know that he does good and necessary things with
that organization.
My point wasn't that I think the red cross is evil... Just that I
know
two people that can personally discredit the snopes account of the
era.

The purpose of the red cross is not to distribute free coffee and
donuts to people in airports. I just don't understand that attitude
that expects everything they do to be free. If you're going to sleep
in a warm bed tonight and not be shot at tomorrow morning and you
don't have any holes in you or parts missing and you got your pay last
week and you're going to get it next week and your mail is going to
catch up with you and you had an Army breakfast and you're going to
get an Army dinner and they're going to pay you a travel allowance for
your lunch (which they do when you're travelling on orders but not
when you're travelling on leave) then you don't have any need for free
services from the Red Cross.

If they were profiteering over guys bleeding in the field that would
be something to get upset about but you're complaining because they
don't give people safe in rear areas freebies.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

OK. I'm of the opinion that our troops deserve special consideration
whether they're coming, going, or on station.
Apparently at least two people disagree.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

DS wrote:
OK. I'm of the opinion that our troops deserve special consideration
whether they're coming, going, or on station.
Apparently at least two people disagree.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's a completely different question, however...

I don't disagree about the "deserving", just disagree about the impugned
motive of the RC...

--

On Nov 14, 9:27 am, DS wrote:
OK. I'm of the opinion that our troops deserve special consideration
whether they're coming, going, or on station.
Apparently at least two people disagree.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've got two particular, personal memories of the Red Cross: I was
stationed at Cherry Point when my father died, and the Red Cross
arranged for my notification, leave, and transport to the New York
area, all at no cost; a few years years later, the entire block I was
living in burned, and my wife and myself got out in the clothing we
had on, with much of our cash (pretty much pre-credit card days, and
college students to boot) and pretty much all else of value turned to
ash, at which time the Red Cross arranged for a place for us to stay,
and gave us chits for clothing at a local store, after making sure the
store was open. Again, no charge.

I have to wonder about the situations encountered where the Red Cross
is said to have charged servicemen for coffee and donuts. My two
uncles, one returning from carrier duty in the Atlantic, and one an
Army CB tour in the South Pacific, said their Red Cross coffee and
buns were free. I can see possibilities where a nickel or dime for a
coffee and donut got collected to help supplement overseas offerings.
I've heard of a couple of cases where the the payment was voluntary.
And I've heard the stories about the Red Cross collecting without any
apparent reason, but based on my own experience, and that of my own
family members, I have to say I think we're again looking at a part of
the story, not the whole thing. Were these fund raising events? Do we
know? Did anyone ask, or did they do, as so many of us do, simply get
angry without finding out all the facts?

As I understand it the carge for the coffie and donuts was a "local" thing
mostly in Europe. The British Red Cross had to charge for the items and the
American Red Cross was forced to follow suit. This is what I was told when I
was in Europe wearing green.
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 14, 9:27 am, DS wrote:
OK. I'm of the opinion that our troops deserve special consideration
whether they're coming, going, or on station.
Apparently at least two people disagree.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've got two particular, personal memories of the Red Cross: I was
stationed at Cherry Point when my father died, and the Red Cross
arranged for my notification, leave, and transport to the New York
area, all at no cost; a few years years later, the entire block I was
living in burned, and my wife and myself got out in the clothing we
had on, with much of our cash (pretty much pre-credit card days, and
college students to boot) and pretty much all else of value turned to
ash, at which time the Red Cross arranged for a place for us to stay,
and gave us chits for clothing at a local store, after making sure the
store was open. Again, no charge.

I have to wonder about the situations encountered where the Red Cross
is said to have charged servicemen for coffee and donuts. My two
uncles, one returning from carrier duty in the Atlantic, and one an
Army CB tour in the South Pacific, said their Red Cross coffee and
buns were free. I can see possibilities where a nickel or dime for a
coffee and donut got collected to help supplement overseas offerings.
I've heard of a couple of cases where the the payment was voluntary.
And I've heard the stories about the Red Cross collecting without any
apparent reason, but based on my own experience, and that of my own
family members, I have to say I think we're again looking at a part of
the story, not the whole thing. Were these fund raising events? Do we
know? Did anyone ask, or did they do, as so many of us do, simply get
angry without finding out all the facts?

"Charlie Self" wrote

ash, at which time the Red Cross arranged for a place for us to stay,
and gave us chits for clothing at a local store, after making sure the
store was open. Again, no charge.

The donuts, coffee, and paperbacks books were free in RVN the one time I saw
a contingent of 'Donut Dollies' ... they didn't quite frequent the mostly
Vietnamese (all but me) area I was in.

But I do recall that they had the cutest little butts I'd seen in a good
while, which was worth a damn sight more than the coffee and donuts at the
time.

ARC also did better than FEMA ,when we flooded out a few years back, who
were insisting upon giving me a double wide trailer for my driveway ... all
10' x' 15' of it.

I finally gave up when the dude with the new table notebook showed up to do
a 'damage assessment' but simply wasn't smart enough to work it. He told me
he was getting $100 a house, and he was "doing" 8 to 12 a day.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/11/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Working along the gulf coast helping rebuild IT infrastructures after
Katrina I met many FEMA people. I'll never forget one FEMA employee,
staying in a Biloxi casino hotel with free meals, who said that he was
having the time of his life, and said he wished that we'd have a Katrina
every year so he could travel more.

Swingman wrote:

ARC also did better than FEMA ,when we flooded out a few years back, who
were insisting upon giving me a double wide trailer for my driveway ... all
10' x' 15' of it.

I finally gave up when the dude with the new table notebook showed up to do
a 'damage assessment' but simply wasn't smart enough to work it. He told me
he was getting $100 a house, and he was "doing" 8 to 12 a day.

When I was in France near the end of WWll, the Red Cross set up their
business and I bought and paid for many do-nuts from them. Today I
refuse to give to the Red Cross. I still have a few tickets that I
purchased. I wonder if they are still redeemable? George

George G wrote:
When I was in France near the end of WWll, the Red Cross set up their
business and I bought and paid for many do-nuts from them. Today I
refuse to give to the Red Cross. I still have a few tickets that I
purchased. I wonder if they are still redeemable? George

And while perhaps not hard to understand in the circumstances, as noted
earlier in the thread you're carrying the grudge against the wrong folks
-- it was US military that made the request to the Red Cross to charge a
nominal fee to be in line with the rest of the Allies' (particularly the
Brits) policy to try to help minimize the ill-feeling between the
various groups that was already extant owing to the significantly higher
payrate for GIs.

I just read Churchill's four-volume history of the war last winter and
while I don't recall the Red Cross canteens specifically being
mentioned, the issue of pay differential and discontent over privileges,
etc., was a significant enough item to have come even to the PM's
attention. As Eisenhower's later letter (also referenced earlier in the
thread) indicates, that policy, not any desire on the part of the Red
Cross to try to profit, was the underlying reason.

--

Then why is it after over 60 years is the Red Cross apologizing for
their actions. They wouldn't even mention it because they figured we
would all be dead by now. But some of us are still here and it is
coming back to haunt their organization. So easy to blame the
government for their actions. George

Something else: After I got home to Wisconsin, the Red Cross used to
drive around town in their Purple Cadillac displaying their Red Cross
symbol on the door. Old Memories ! George

On Nov 15, 2:11 pm, (George G) wrote:
Then why is it after over 60 years is the Red Cross apologizing for
their actions. They wouldn't even mention it because they figured we
would all be dead by now. But some of us are still here and it is
coming back to haunt their organization. So easy to blame the
government for their actions. George

Well, there's this from NBC News:
http://www.nbc4.com/news/14571907/detail.html
A bad decision made 65 years ago still haunts the Red Cross. In 1942,
during World War II, the Red Cross was ordered by then-Secretary of
War Harold Stimson to charge soldiers a nickel for the doughnuts and
coffee that it distributed at "Red Cross clubs" behind the battle
lines in parts of Europe.

According to the Red Cross, Stimson's thinking at the time was that
non-U.S. allied soldiers had to pay for refreshments, so in the spirit
of morale, which Stimson feared was suffering, he ordered American
soldiers to pay for refreshments.

The move made soldiers furious. Even today, many of the soldiers tell
their families to boycott the Red Cross.

On Monday, as Americans observed Veterans' Day, a day to honor the
sacrifices of soldiers, the Red Cross officially apologized.

-----------------

I don't tell anybody what or who they spend their money on. All I'm
saying is, it sure sounds to me like it isn't the Red Cross who should
bear the blame for all those nickels all those years ago.

Still... they probably should have put up more of a fight. Or maybe
given free donuts to the other allies instead. That would have been
the nice thing to do.

George G wrote:
Then why is it after over 60 years is the Red Cross apologizing for
their actions. They wouldn't even mention it because they figured we
would all be dead by now. But some of us are still here and it is
coming back to haunt their organization. So easy to blame the
government for their actions. George

To make a gesture to heal old wounds -- but while real, this is one not
of their direct responsibility of causing.

While I don't have a link to an online copy of it, there was, in fact, a
directive from Henry Stinson, FDR's Secretary of War, to the Red Cross
requesting they establish facilities overseas open to _all_ Allied
forces, not just American. Since the Brits and Aussies were being
charged by _their_ supported organizations, for overall morale within
the Allied forces it was considered mandatory to make things even for
the GIs.

As I noted previously, there was discussion all the way to between FDR
and WC on the problems of morale owing to the discrepancies between the
Yanks and the Brits/Aussies/Candians/etc. that were imperative to try to
minimize between them. The Churchill history includes copies of every
telegram/letter/memo he wrote during the war years either as embedded in
the narrative or in the appendices. It gets to be pretty heavy
slogging, but I worked my way through every one before I quit. I
remember the issue being raised on more than one occasion. If the
action in this case taken by the US inadvertently created ill will
against the Red Cross, that was an unintended consequence. (Btw, the
sheer amount of seemingly insignificant detail that came to Churchill's
attention that one became aware of by reading those supplementary
directives is simply mind-boggling that any one person could be so
detail oriented while at the same time directing overall attention to
the largest scale operations of the war and current and present
diplomatic efforts simultaneously.)

Note I'm not saying the RC has no warts -- no organization of that size
can avoid the occasional misstep. Nor am I saying the concept of free
buns/coffee to the troops during wartime wouldn't have been a good one.
It was, however, not within the means of the Brits to provide and so
the US went along as best they knew how.

--

"dpb" wrote:


While I don't have a link to an online copy of it, there was, in
fact, a
directive from Henry Stinson, FDR's Secretary of War, to the Red
Cross
requesting they establish facilities overseas open to _all_ Allied
forces, not just American.

The operative word is "requesting".

Clearly a case of no gonads on the part of the Red Cross by not
telling the gov't to mind it's own business.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"dpb" wrote:


While I don't have a link to an online copy of it, there was, in
fact, a
directive from Henry Stinson, FDR's Secretary of War, to the Red
Cross
requesting they establish facilities overseas open to _all_ Allied
forces, not just American.

The operative word is "requesting".

Clearly a case of no gonads on the part of the Red Cross by not
telling the gov't to mind it's own business.

Clearly a case of trying to apply present-day quarterbacking on events
during WWII -- different time, different place.

--

On Nov 15, 4:53 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"dpb" wrote:
While I don't have a link to an online copy of it, there was, in
fact, a
directive from Henry Stinson, FDR's Secretary of War, to the Red
Cross
requesting they establish facilities overseas open to _all_ Allied
forces, not just American.

The operative word is "requesting".

Clearly a case of no gonads on the part of the Red Cross by not
telling the gov't to mind it's own business.

Lew

I think during WWII, it was an unusual event when someone told the
Secretary of War to **** off. It was not considered a matter of
"gonads" but a matter of not lowering the morale of allies that had
already taken one helluva whacking without folding.

Charlie Self wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:53 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"dpb" wrote:
While I don't have a link to an online copy of it, there was, in
fact, a directive from Henry Stinson, FDR's Secretary of War, to
the Red Cross requesting they establish facilities overseas open
to
_all_ Allied forces, not just American.

The operative word is "requesting".

Clearly a case of no gonads on the part of the Red Cross by not
telling the gov't to mind it's own business.

Lew

I think during WWII, it was an unusual event when someone told the
Secretary of War to **** off. It was not considered a matter of
"gonads" but a matter of not lowering the morale of allies that had
already taken one helluva whacking without folding.

More to the point, the conduct of the war _was_ the business of the
Secretary of War (that's why they called him that), and not of the Red
Cross. Further, during WWII, if the Secretary of War "requested"
something, compliance wasn't really optional.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
....
More to the point, the conduct of the war _was_ the business of the
Secretary of War (that's why they called him that), ...

Well, don't know if it's what you meant or not, but the specific words
leave a little bit of the wrong impression at least to me...

The Secretary of War was a Cabinet post which is now known as the
Secretary of Defense. The subtlety being he held the same position w/
the same title before war was declared, not just because of the war
being waged.

--

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
...
More to the point, the conduct of the war _was_ the business of the
Secretary of War (that's why they called him that), ...

Well, don't know if it's what you meant or not, but the specific
words
leave a little bit of the wrong impression at least to me...

The Secretary of War was a Cabinet post which is now known as the
Secretary of Defense. The subtlety being he held the same position
w/
the same title before war was declared, not just because of the war
being waged.

If you have a point you have not made it.

If the conduct of the war was not the business of the "Secretary of
War" then whose business was it?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I believe that is not an uncommon attitude among veterans of that era.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
--------------------------------------------
My father always hated the Red Cross for that. He told me about their
charging, but I found it hard to believe. I know he was telling the
truth, but during war time etc. it just seemed unthinkable.

mike lane

wrote:
I believe that is not an uncommon attitude among veterans of that era.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
--------------------------------------------
My father always hated the Red Cross for that. He told me about their
charging, but I found it hard to believe. I know he was telling the
truth, but during war time etc. it just seemed unthinkable.

Again, the truth, but only part of the story...

--

J. Clarke wrote:
dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
...
More to the point, the conduct of the war _was_ the business of the
Secretary of War (that's why they called him that), ...
Well, don't know if it's what you meant or not, but the specific
words
leave a little bit of the wrong impression at least to me...

The Secretary of War was a Cabinet post which is now known as the
Secretary of Defense. The subtlety being he held the same position
w/
the same title before war was declared, not just because of the war
being waged.

If you have a point you have not made it.

If the conduct of the war was not the business of the "Secretary of
War" then whose business was it?

That point wasn't in question and I intended to add that I agreed with
your point that a request was about like "requesting" the kid to take
out the trash but failed to do so.

I only wanted to clarify there wasn't a Secretary of War appointed for
the war itself, rather it was/is the regular Cabinet post. Most of the
regulars here are old enough to know that; who knows who's lurking or
from somewhere else?

Coincidentally, I stopped at the library last night -- on the "new book"
shelf was a biography of Ike. Thinking of this thread I picked it up.
Don't know if this incident is in it or not; probably not, it apparently
didn't really build any legs as an issue until after the war when people
had time again to indulge in petty grudges...

--
--

dpb wrote:
wrote:
I believe that is not an uncommon attitude among veterans of that
era.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
--------------------------------------------
My father always hated the Red Cross for that. He told me about
their
charging, but I found it hard to believe. I know he was telling the
truth, but during war time etc. it just seemed unthinkable.

Again, the truth, but only part of the story...

My father decided that the Boy Scouts were worthless organization
because the local scoutmaster didn't know how to build a fire with
wood that had been rained on. Lot of people are quick to condemn a
whole organization for a single incident.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Nov 16, 10:04 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
dpb wrote:
wrote:
I believe that is not an uncommon attitude among veterans of that
era.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
--------------------------------------------
My father always hated the Red Cross for that. He told me about
their
charging, but I found it hard to believe. I know he was telling the
truth, but during war time etc. it just seemed unthinkable.

Again, the truth, but only part of the story...

My father decided that the Boy Scouts were worthless organization
because the local scoutmaster didn't know how to build a fire with
wood that had been rained on. Lot of people are quick to condemn a
whole organization for a single incident.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

very true. And, like many people, I hate when facts get in the way of
my opinions! :-)

Kevin