[colorado tanker]

You could have made a darn good case for "quagmire" at the end of 1943. We took North Africa, which was strategically not very significant, but were bogged down in the mountains of southern Italy with no invasion of France in sight.

In the Pacific we had taken Guadalcanal and a few atolls, but were far, far away from invading the Phillipines, much less Japan.

Indeed, some isolationists sneered at "President Roosevelt's War." He must be rolling in his grave seeing that his party is now the home of the sneering isolationists and defeatists.

[jocon307]

"Indeed, some isolationists sneered at "President Roosevelt's War." He must be rolling in his grave seeing that his party is now the home of the sneering isolationists and defeatists."

I have no doubt FDR is rolling in his grave, along with G. Washington, A. Lincoln and probably most of the rest of them. I venture LBJ & R. Nixon are not surprised at the way the American people (some of them) are acting.

But my question really is about WWII, I know Americans were unwilling to get into the war until after Pearl Harbor, but what about after that? Was there carping like there is now? Did Al Smith - or whoever it was run on a platform of "let's get out of Europe and the Pacific? I guess the commies didn't complain so much, since Uncle Joe was on our side.

Was there a vocal and annoying opposition, like now? Or is it that the left today doesn't get that we're in a fight for civilization? Or is it that they do get it, and they hope we're going to lose?

[cynicom]

North Africa was very significant...Rommel was knocking on the door of the Suez Canal. Those that were there in 1943 would not agree with you.