Protest movements during WWII?

[dirtyjob]

Hi Everyone,

Today I was having a conversation with my brother. We were discussing how anti-war movements since Vietnam have changed the way citizens and politicians approach armed conflicts. And how the wars themselves are waged.

We got to wondering if there was much in the way of dissent during WWII, or for that matter the Korean War. In the history I have studied, granted it's quite limited, I have never read nor heard of war protesters during these times. Was there really overwhelming support for these conflicts? It would be quite hard to believe, considering today's climate.

If any one could shed some light here or point me in the direction of some good resources I would be very interested to hear/read about this.

Much appreciated, Thanks.

 

[Timmy!]

I am going to take a stab at this. May be a clue is the focus on the media and the mediums that folks used at the time. Internet, TV... communications.. plays both ways.

Just a stab once again...so all please don't kill me...

;D

 

[George Wallace]

Research "Zoot Suit".

 

[cplcaldwell]

The resistance to the war was almost institutionalized in governments up to the Anschluss. The feeling that Hitler was only taking back things that Germany had some right to after the punitive settlement at Versaille had widespread acceptance. Chamberlain built his policy on this philosophy.

Very hard thinking was applied to the requirements for war, given the background of WWI; the thinking was that the cost of allowing Hitler to continue would have to be very high, given the cost of war.

In Canada and Europe, after the Anschluss, a feeling of resignation had set in, still, some contend, that if some concessions were made in the west the whole affair could be deflected to the east and the soviets and nazis could duke it out. (Well that pretty much is what happened anyway wasn't it??) 

In terms of Canada. The NRMA (Conscription Act) of 1942 led to several riots in Montreal. See also the Terrace Mutiny for an interesting little sidelight.

King was ambivalent about the whole thing right up to 1939, feeling it was a European problem. Quebec is often cited but in Toronto there was a general ambivalence. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan a similar feeling existed. No large scale protests occurred, but the feeling can be found in some of the Toronto Star and Winnipeg Free Press editorials, pre September 1939. Canada had learned about industrial warfare in '14-'19 and was not all that willing to rally to the Empire again if the price was that of WWI.

The role of the 1939 Royal Tour is often cited as a tipping point that allowed the Canadian public to accept at least a limited deployment.

Now in the US, we could write volumes about US isolationism and any number of large protests in the whole period from 1937 up to 1941. The Zoot Suit angle will get you some interesting examples without having to dig into the bowels of the history.

You will not likely find the kind of radicalization that one sees in today's war protestors, it kind of goes to what TN2IC is talking about, with a soapbox, every nutbar has a podium, and when that podium is WWW a lot of people can make a lot of silly claims and get 'press'. Nutbars on a podium  with an outlandish argument make great fodder for a public that does not have a deep understanding of the issues.

 

[Emenince Grise]

You will not likely find the kind of radicalization that one sees in today's war protestors, it kind of goes to what TN2IC is talking about, with a soapbox, every nutbar has a podium, and when that podium is WWW a lot of people can make a lot of silly claims and get 'press'. Nutbars on a podium  with an outlandish argument make great fodder for a public that does not have a deep understanding of the issues.

If I may beg to differ... the history of pacifism in Canada is long and deeply ingrained.

Witness Against War documents the heavy persecution of Canadian pacifists from the Boer War to World War H, and shows that it was more difficult in Canada to criticize our participation in British Wars, than to criticize these conflicts in Britain itself. Reverend James Herbert Bainton, newly arrived from England in 1899, left for the United States after his congregation split when he asked God to look with compassion on the British and Boer alike. Pioneering Canadian social democrat F. J Dixon bravely resisted threats of expulsion and imprisonment that were made to silence his criticism of World War I in the Manitoba Legislature. After congratulating Dixon on one of his anti-war speeches, reform minded Winnipeg journalist A. Vernon Thomas was fired from the Free Press. CCF founder J.S. Woodsworth was removed from his small coastal mission in British Columbia and forced to spend the remainder of World War I working as a longshoreman. Conscientious objectors were tortured into accepting military authority at Winnipeg's Minto Street Barracks. After being sent to England during World War I, conscientious objectors were beaten over the head, kicked with heavy boots until unconscious and even dragged to the edge of cliffs where they were threatened to be thrown over. At the outset of World War II, 68 United Church Ministers signed a "Witness against War," published in the United Church Observer, causing in "most cases,, "a corps of wealthy congregational leaders" to denounce the pacifist ministers and obtain their resignations.

Despite their clashes with powerful forces in Canadian society, Socknat demonstrates the remarkable impact pacifists were able to have on ii Prior to their campaigns against compulsory cadet instruction in secondary school, physical education for boys was largely a supplement to military training. Pacifists also played an important role in the freeing of interned Jewish refugees during World War II, in preventing the expulsion of Japanese Canadians after that war, and in the growth of the cooperative movement.

http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v03n5p41.htm

 

[cplcaldwell]

I see your point.

I am not familiar with all these persons, but I think that Woodsworth and Dixon were not what I would call radicals: leftists, socialists possibly, but they had an argument based on something the equated with supportable logic. By 'radical' here I mean someone who has arrived at an argument not so much based on logic as by emotion and is incapable of engaging in any dialectic on the matter. (Such people today can be identifed on the Globe and Mail blogs still asserting that Afghanistan is GWB's war, that Harper is a neo-con evangelical and that if we just go home, Timmie will behave himself... in contradiction to proof otherwise).

To wit, nothing wrong with being against the war, but being unalterably and vehemently opposed to a war based on spurious reasoning, is I submit, a definition of the Radical. It's the senseless and polemic obstinance that is the hallmark of a radical in this sense.

The point on the treatment about objectors in WWI is very well taken, there are many examples of objectors being harangued and assaulted during this period. So much so that by 1917 a young man in Canada without any obvious signs of injury or wounding had better have a good excuse for being on the street. IIRC, it actually went so far as lapel pins were made up for men who had applied but been denied or were in reserved occupations.

To take my reasoning one step further, defining radicals, In terms of WWI, I would submit, the Radicals would have been those who threw urine on, publicly shamed or beat up the Pacifists and Dissenters....

Such was the risk of being seen as what was perceived then as a malingerer

 

[RangerRay]

I don't think there were large popular protest like we've seen in the western world since the late 1960's, but I do believe that there were many religious, fascist, national socialist, socialist, and communist groups that were against the war.  But I believe the socialists and communists changed their minds when Hitler dumped the Non-Agression Pact and invaded the Soviet Union.

 

[dirtyjob]

Thanks for the responses everyone,

I've used some of the names and info mentioned for searches, and come across a ton of material.

As for the effect of the media in today's world. I do agree it definitely has a greater impact on peoples perceptions. However, it would seem that Vietnam was a tipping point for this. At that time the WWW was not a factor, and the American news media was still very much uncritical when it came to these kinds of issues. So it would seem that the anti-war protests/culture were less influenced by these mediums.

One thing I feel from reading some of the material I've come across. Dissenters seem to be a reflection of social and cultural trends, and their anti-war stances were just an expression of that climate. For instance, zoot suiters and the LA riots, were more an expression of racism than anti-war. As the majority "zoot suiters" were Mexican and Black youth, dissatisfied with their treatment in society. As for Vietnam, the "Hippies" and the entire movement were almost entirely youth. And the cultural revolution that was started was about rebellion against established norms. Again their anti-war sentiments seemed to be more of a "fight the power" mentality than anything else.

Just my initial feeling as I read through some of the material.

Thanks again everyone.

 

[mdh]

You may also want to look up the history of the Bloc Populaire, probably the closest thing to an "anti-war" movement in Quebec opposed to conscription and by extension the war.

 

[cplcaldwell]

If you want to use Vietnam as a tipping point (and that's not a bad thesis), try to make a connection with the MSM and resistance. Dan Rather is a good place to start.

Often held up as the ace combat reporter of the Vietnam War, he has some holes in his record, and more than a few detractors. Especially his coverage of Tet, many feel it was here that the great victory won by the US was turned into the defeat it never was; some figure Rather's coverage was key in this process.

 

[dirtyjob]

cplcaldwell,

Following your suggestion to research Dan Rather I came across a quite interesting editorial http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/vietnam_iraq_dan_rather_the_ms.html. It not only has me question that

the American news media was still very much uncritical when it came to these kinds of issues. So it would seem that the anti-war protests/culture were less influenced by these mediums.

but has much to say about the current perception of the American war in Iraq.

Thanks again everyone.

 

[3rd Herd]

Research "Zoot Suit".

Zoot Suit-the coveralls issued to Candian armoured crewman. So named as they looked like the then current in vogue attire of civilians and such that had managed to avoid contributing to the war effort by joining up and volunteering for overseas duty.

Source: Graves, Donald. South Alberta's

An excellent source on the zombie issue is C.P. Stacey's volume on the official history of the Canadian Army in particular the volume on Canada, Great Britian and the Pacific. Anyone for a mutiny in Vernon? Also his volume on Canadian Politics during the war years. Further, McNaughton's biography deals with this to some extent as do the newspapers of this time period.

 

[George Wallace]

Try this on the Zoot Suit Riots:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/zoot/

Canada had a lot of Protest Movements against Conscription.   There was a very large anti-Conscription feeling in Quebec, but not confined to Quebec.   There were whole Anglophone military Units who rioted against Conscription in BC.