A biography I read of McCarthy wrote that the only reason he joined the Marines was that it would make him a better political candidate. He like to pose for photographers in a tent and say to the Marines, "what kind of hell did you give the japs today?" An oppurtunistic piece of something unmentionable. Rot in hell, indeed along with J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, Bull Connor and other "fine upstanding Americans."
NKP guy Here's what Joe McCarthy said about Gen. George C. Marshall in the early 1950's: ("General Marshall)... having made common cause with Stalin" in "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any such venture in the history of man," and other such reckless and untrue charges. Mr. Eisenhower soon thereafter shared a stage with Sen. McCarthy and declined to reply to or comment on McCarthy's outrageous lies. Eisenhower kept silent; after all, Joe McCarthy was an important fellow-Republican. Considering that Eisenhower was Gen. Marshall's right-hand man since at least 1932 and, in fact, made Eisenhower's career for him, Harry Truman thought it was awful that Eisenhower wouldn't rise to Marshall's defence, especially given the position Ike was in on that stage. How would any of us feel when one of our best friends wouldn't come to our defence from such a lying bully? I can "like Ike" and yet be very disappointed in his failure to speak up for the truth about such a great American patriot and friend of his as Gen. Marshall, especially to the attacks by a half-crazy drunk and fool. Eisenhower was a fine President, but like all of us he had his flaws and shortcomings. So I respect what you said, Murphy Siding, but to me this wasn't about a mere difference of opinion between two political rivals, Eisenhower and Truman. Harry Truman did have lots of opinions (many of which I share), but he stood up for his friends. May JoeMcCarthy and his ilk rot in Hell.
Here's what Joe McCarthy said about Gen. George C. Marshall in the early 1950's:
("General Marshall)... having made common cause with Stalin" in "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any such venture in the history of man," and other such reckless and untrue charges.
Mr. Eisenhower soon thereafter shared a stage with Sen. McCarthy and declined to reply to or comment on McCarthy's outrageous lies. Eisenhower kept silent; after all, Joe McCarthy was an important fellow-Republican.
Considering that Eisenhower was Gen. Marshall's right-hand man since at least 1932 and, in fact, made Eisenhower's career for him, Harry Truman thought it was awful that Eisenhower wouldn't rise to Marshall's defence, especially given the position Ike was in on that stage. How would any of us feel when one of our best friends wouldn't come to our defence from such a lying bully?
I can "like Ike" and yet be very disappointed in his failure to speak up for the truth about such a great American patriot and friend of his as Gen. Marshall, especially to the attacks by a half-crazy drunk and fool. Eisenhower was a fine President, but like all of us he had his flaws and shortcomings.
So I respect what you said, Murphy Siding, but to me this wasn't about a mere difference of opinion between two political rivals, Eisenhower and Truman. Harry Truman did have lots of opinions (many of which I share), but he stood up for his friends.
May JoeMcCarthy and his ilk rot in Hell.
Agree. I like Ike, too. I think he was one of our better presidents since WWII, but his standing on a platform in WI with a scoundrel like "Tailgunner Joe" was not a profile in courage.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman."
Holding the newspaper to the window of plane flying over is not the same as off the back platform of a train at every stop.
H. L. Mencken's commentary based on riding a presidential campaign train.
https://books.google.com/books?id=2Q19hMwsNgYC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=Mencken+campaign+train&source=bl&ots=2ZscVEMHL1&sig=uSTmX32O3jgr-Tkl13YWlqD5pbo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBWoVChMIhd-H6Y7AyAIVB-JjCh130Aho#v=onepage&q=Mencken%20campaign%20train&f=false
Firelock76 Anyone besides me noticed how good Ikes 1945 uniform looks compared to what the Army's wearing now? Army uniforms had a classic look back in those days. I can't figure out why they got away from it.
Anyone besides me noticed how good Ikes 1945 uniform looks compared to what the Army's wearing now?
Army uniforms had a classic look back in those days. I can't figure out why they got away from it.
Well, at th risk of feeding Schlimm's paucity quota.....The Army lost me when they adopted the felt beanie ; at least they managed to loose the propeller on it, and did not adopt that Boy Scout Award sash lookin thingy.
I was still reeling from the USMC taking away our wear-able, steel cooking pots, in favor of a plastic coal scuttle; then in 2013 Obama & Co wanted to make the USMC Dress uniform resemble those of a meter maid.
See@http://nypost.com/2013/10/23/obama-wants-marines-to-wear-girly-hats/
I am sure that one had Chesty Puller spinning in his grave.
Wow Schlimm, you're funny.
A previous post said it best about Ike not wanting to roll around in the gutter with Simple J. Malarkey. I think he did the right thing, saying nothing while that jerk made a fool of himself. One thing Ike had in spades and that's "class."
NKP guy Murphy Siding: You might be very interested to read what President Truman wrote about Dwight Eisenhower's behavior toward Gen. Marshall during the McCarthy era. I'm afraid that, when given a chance to speak out against McCarthy's outrageous claims & lies about Gen. Marshall, Mr. Eisenhower fell absolutely silent. Not very leadership-like.
Murphy Siding: You might be very interested to read what President Truman wrote about Dwight Eisenhower's behavior toward Gen. Marshall during the McCarthy era. I'm afraid that, when given a chance to speak out against McCarthy's outrageous claims & lies about Gen. Marshall, Mr. Eisenhower fell absolutely silent.
Not very leadership-like.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
54light15 Didn't they call it an "Ike" jacket back in Big Two? Stylish, wasn't it? Who started that style?
Didn't they call it an "Ike" jacket back in Big Two? Stylish, wasn't it? Who started that style?
I used to wear Dad's Eisenhower every now and again while I was in high school after Dad stopped wearing it. I passed it along to my younger brother when I outgrew it.
Dad told us that the Eisenhower jacket was NOT a standard issue. You would buy an extra blouse out of your uniform allowance and take it to a tailor to be altered. He recalled that some of them had pretty fancy inside linings depending on the taste of that airman/soldier.
schlimmBut looking at the forums, there is increasingly a paucity of railroad posts. I wonder why?
It goes through cycles.
Then something happens and things get busy again. Other forums go through the same thing.
Perhaps part of the blame is the relative lack of variety in railroading today. With just seven Class 1's, there is a lot of consistency coast-to-coast. That makes "this is how my railroad does it, how does yours do it?" a lot less common.
And some topics have been beat to a pulp or arouse such emotions in people that they simply aren't discussed any more.
Too, the folks who remember how it was are getting scarcer.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
WANSWHEEL: Another great post. But looking at the forums, there is increasingly a paucity of railroad posts. I wonder why?
In 1948, future famous movie director Stanley Kubrick was a young photographer taking pictures of the president of Columbia University. I wonder if Ike ever watched Dr. Strangelove or remembered meeting Kubrick.
https://collections.mcny.org/Explore/Highlights/Stanley%20Kubrick/
Excerpt from The New Yorker, January 18, 2014
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr-strangelove-was-true
This month marks the fiftieth anniversary of Stanley Kubrick’s black comedy about nuclear weapons, “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Released on January 29, 1964, the film caused a good deal of controversy. Its plot suggested that a mentally deranged American general could order a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, without consulting the President. One reviewer described the film as “dangerous … an evil thing about an evil thing.” Another compared it to Soviet propaganda. Although “Strangelove” was clearly a farce, with the comedian Peter Sellers playing three roles, it was criticized for being implausible. An expert at the Institute for Strategic Studies called the events in the film “impossible on a dozen counts.” A former Deputy Secretary of Defense dismissed the idea that someone could authorize the use of a nuclear weapon without the President’s approval: “Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth.” When “Fail-Safe”—a Hollywood thriller with a similar plot, directed by Sidney Lumet—opened, later that year, it was criticized in much the same way. “The incidents in ‘Fail-Safe’ are deliberate lies!” General Curtis LeMay, the Air Force chief of staff, said. “Nothing like that could happen.” The first casualty of every war is the truth—and the Cold War was no exception to that dictum. Half a century after Kubrick’s mad general, Jack D. Ripper, launched a nuclear strike on the Soviets to defend the purity of “our precious bodily fluids” from Communist subversion, we now know that American officers did indeed have the ability to start a Third World War on their own. And despite the introduction of rigorous safeguards in the years since then, the risk of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear detonation hasn’t been completely eliminated.
The command and control of nuclear weapons has long been plagued by an “always/never” dilemma. The administrative and technological systems that are necessary to insure that nuclear weapons are always available for use in wartime may be quite different from those necessary to guarantee that such weapons can never be used, without proper authorization, in peacetime. During the nineteen-fifties and sixties, the “always” in American war planning was given far greater precedence than the “never.” Through two terms in office, beginning in 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower struggled with this dilemma. He wanted to retain Presidential control of nuclear weapons while defending America and its allies from attack. But, in a crisis, those two goals might prove contradictory, raising all sorts of difficult questions. What if Soviet bombers were en route to the United States but the President somehow couldn’t be reached? What if Soviet tanks were rolling into West Germany but a communications breakdown prevented NATO officers from contacting the White House? What if the President were killed during a surprise attack on Washington, D.C., along with the rest of the nation’s civilian leadership? Who would order a nuclear retaliation then?
With great reluctance, Eisenhower agreed to let American officers use their nuclear weapons, in an emergency, if there were no time or no means to contact the President. Air Force pilots were allowed to fire their nuclear anti-aircraft rockets to shoot down Soviet bombers heading toward the United States. And about half a dozen high-level American commanders were allowed to use far more powerful nuclear weapons, without contacting the White House first, when their forces were under attack and “the urgency of time and circumstances clearly does not permit a specific decision by the President, or other person empowered to act in his stead.” Eisenhower worried that providing that sort of authorization in advance could make it possible for someone to do “something foolish down the chain of command” and start an all-out nuclear war. But the alternative—allowing an attack on the United States to go unanswered or NATO forces to be overrun—seemed a lot worse. Aware that his decision might create public unease about who really controlled America’s nuclear arsenal, Eisenhower insisted that his delegation of Presidential authority be kept secret. At a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he confessed to being “very fearful of having written papers on this matter.”
No matter the party - the political positions they held 60 - 70 years ago do not apply to today's world. The world has changed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm I have a vague memory of walking with my first grade class to see Ike on a "Whistlestop" tour in downtown Wheaton in 1952. A great president; we need that sort of leadership today, though sadly he probably would not get the nomination from today's GOP.
I have a vague memory of walking with my first grade class to see Ike on a "Whistlestop" tour in downtown Wheaton in 1952. A great president; we need that sort of leadership today, though sadly he probably would not get the nomination from today's GOP.
54light15: What about "a Roxy usher"? (See for reference Cole Porter's "You're the top")
P.S. Can wanswheel, as usual, help us out with a photo of a Roxy usher?
There are several uniforms that will always look spiffy and they are:
Royal Canadian Mounted Police scarlet jacket and Stetson hat.
U.S.M.C. dress blues.
U.S. Naval aviator dress greens with brown shoes.
the 1940 R.A.F. uniform- hell, it's probably a standard RAF uniform but still, who was more cool then a Spitfire jockey?
London police department with that ultra-cool helmet, the "Bobby" uniform.
There's probably more, but give Ike credit being stylish. What else was stylish? The 1953 Cadillac Eldorado convertible he rode in during one parade or another. Try doing that today.
schlimmPerhaps that best explains the endless threads of his about oil trains and braking systems as well as the PTC extension? Consistent at least.
The realities of the every-day world are lost to those with utopian dreams of perfection.
Norm
BaltACD Firelock76 Anyone besides me noticed how good Ikes 1945 uniform looks compared to what the Army's wearing now? Army uniforms had a classic look back in those days. I can't figure out why they got away from it. We aren't involved in 'classic' conflicts these days.
We aren't involved in 'classic' conflicts these days.
Quite true, but I wasn't taking about the present day camoflage combat uniforms, just the Class "A's."
I've got no problem with the combat uniforms, trust me. Whatever's comfortable and helps the troops get the job done is fine with me.
Phoebe VetI love reading posts by people who live in an alternate reality.
Perhaps that best explains the endless threads of his about oil trains and braking systems as well as the PTC extension? Consistent at least.
Photo thanks to Barndad Doug
September 15, 1948
"The spirit of a nation alone is not enough to preserve its position or even its freedom. Physical and inventive strength in its industrial structure, able to produce and deliver at all times all that is needed for the security and betterment of its people – that too is essential. And beyond that is demanded the will never to be content with the imperfect, always to be seeking improvement and increase in the ability to do every job well. Consequently, I am pleased to be here to witness a concrete evidence of the railroad industry's response to this twin necessity. For the 20th Century Limited is more than merely a train. To America and to the world, it symbolizes the forward looking attitude, the daring, and the vision that have characterized our country and its people in all their undertakings.
"Indeed it is a symbol of even a greater thing. It is a shining example of what can be accomplished by the partnership of ingenuity, brains, management and labor when freely and voluntarily associated together for the accomplishment of a definite purpose. I earnestly believe that you see pictured here today the future of America."
Euclid A radical is the last thing this Republican Party wants to nominate. We have a president that is more radically far left than any previous president, and a Republican Party leadership that has decided to never cross him. If anything, this unending appeasement by the Republican Party is the issue that is causing the current turmoil in the Party. Much of the Republican constituency wants the Party to stand up and fight back. Would that be too radical? Traditionally, the two parties have been the home of the two competing philosophies of liberalism and conservatism. But this Republican Party has recently staked out a new home as being slightly to the right of Obama because they have concluded that any friction with him will get them thrown out of office. They would rather be #2 in Washington than be out of office. Traditionally, there has always been a battle between the two parties. Today, that has changed, and the larger battle is between the Republican Party leadership who appease, and its base who want to fight back against a far left agenda.
I love reading posts by people who live in an alternate reality. All that appeasment must be how they earned the title: "The party of no".
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Concerning General Eisenhower and Joe McCarthy, I remember a quote from Ike saying he "wasn't going to get down in the gutter and roll around with him." I suppose Ike was wise enough to know that sooner or later McCarthy was going to go too far and self-destruct. And so it proved.
Eisenhower (as president) also fended off ideas of attacking the Soviet Union that came from the more hard-core anti-communist factions in the government saying "If they (the Soviets) want to keep up with us, and they do, they'll have to educate their people, and in so doing they'll sew the seeds of their own destruction." Pretty good call on his part.
One of my favorite Eisenhower quotes is "You know, I never would have gotten as far as I did if I hadn't learned to hide my own ego!"
He knew the value of restraint. McCarthy's empire soon collapsed. I remember when he was criticized for not intervening in a strike. The way I see it, he let both sides see what it was like to be without money for a while.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I find it fascinating to read or hear people's interpretation on what's happening, and how there is so much difference in how different people view the same events.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.