i just read an article pertaining to the US military being perceived as "democratic" via propaganda during WWII (it referenced a film 'sergeant york'--which i have not seen)...but we all know the US military is not democratic, even in those years that had to be known. so was the propoganda trying to show that American military was "democratic" compared to Naziism/Communism/Facism? is it even possible for a country to remain democratic while fighting a modern war? or was propaganda used to "put to rest" anxiety of the military's place in a democracy?
i cant find a link to the original article, but it was titled "this is the army: imagining a democratic military in WWII" written by Benjamin Alpers...
2007-12-04 14:48:05 · 6 answers · asked by xtcwmeg 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
the plot of sergeant york is WWI, but it was released during WWII, correct?
2007-12-04 15:03:36 · update #1
if men were drafted in a war, then they didnt enter under "free will", so how is that "democratic" or any better than any of the -ism gov'ts?
2007-12-04 15:05:18 · update #2
the connection between sgt york and democracy is that he was a pacifist, and his COs gave him leave to decide whether he wants to fight or not (choice=democratic)...that would be the connection :)
2007-12-05 00:00:04 · update #3
The US military is a tool to spread Democracy.
NO military is Democratic. Only one guy at a time gets to have an opinion, until you reach that point you do what you are told.
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
President John F. Kennedy
The film stars Gary Cooper as Alvin York a CO that received the MOH. It's a great movie, best bar fight staged by Hollywood.
SSG US Army 73-82
2007-12-04 15:10:24 · answer #1 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well it's a relative term isn't it? Democratic compared to ? To the Russian army, yes certainly more democratic. To a Greek army of 400 BC, no, it's not as democratic as that.
When you join the Army you do not have the same rights as an American citizen in civilian life but you do have rights that could be construed as democratic. There is due process, trial, evidence, investigation, charges, legal defense, etc.
2007-12-04 14:54:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only democratic army in the military annals of history were Xenophon's 12000 Greeks retreating from Cunaxa on the
Persian Gulf to the Black Sea,having had their generals killed
by treason and having elected new generals(Xenophon was one) who executed the decisions of the boby of soldiers acting as a democratic assembley.Since then the phenomenon has never been repeated.
(I have seen 'Seargant York with G.Cooper but I fail to see the connection...)
2007-12-04 19:54:05 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A military foce is not a democratic institution. Ours is an institution designed to protect our democracy. When you enter, you swear to protect the nation and to obey all lawful orders, as members of the military did then. You do not vote on what to do. So in that sense, it is not, in itself, democratic.
It is what it represents that is democratic, a nation where the free exchange of ideas and even dissent are allowed even when the nation is at war. All elections went off on schedule, didn't they?
2007-12-04 15:02:28 · answer #4 · answered by Tom K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For me, the assumption replaced into actually inborn, because of the fact I even have an comparable twin sister. It replaced into constantly 'us' and in no way 'me'. On a greater scale, a needed clue is in Genesis a million the place God says, "enable us to make guy in our photograph, in our likeness." If our author is extra complicated than only one guy or woman, then His creation is going to have the assumption of 'us' interwoven into the very fabric of existence. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity places it because of the fact the single Being of God subsisting interior the three persons of the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Bible shows all 3 have been vitally in touch in creation. there is the pre-history 'us'! It is likewise clever as quickly as we attempt to charm to close the biblical concept that God is love. If God replaced into fully on my own till now any creation began, He could desire to purely love Himself - this is narcissistic. yet while 2 different persons shared His Godhood, then that love replaced into without end flowing between the three uncreated creators, who're the single God, the single author of Genesis - the single author who's 'us'.
2016-12-10 12:58:29 · answer #5 · answered by alire 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sergeant York was in WW1 not 2. So I would say your article is flawed.
2007-12-04 15:00:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋