Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:38, 20 February 2010

early discussion

Because no sources are cited, the veracity of this article is suspect, particularly the $36 Billion in donations. In 2005 dollars, that would represent nearly $485 Billion, which even for these guys seems excessive. --RickAguirre 30 June 2005 23:05 (UTC)

The claims are largely accurate and can be documented in several sources, especially Seldes, but the figure of billions is just wrong. Awaiting documentation, I am chaging it to a generic "millions of dollars".--Cberlet 13:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the $36 Billion was an attempt to convert millions of 1934 dollars to 2005 dollars? Viveka

Hey what's a billion dollars among friends, or $36 billion (when the annual GNP was under $100 billion)? The historian who looked at the books (Wolfskill) says it spent a little over a half-million dollars, which was about what the United Mine Workers union spent for FDR in 1936. The source used in the first version has a fantastic theory that it plotted a coup d'etat against FDR, and chose as the hit-man Smedley Butler, who was a leading Socialist! Rjensen 09:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterisation of Smedley Butler. He wasn't a socialist at the time - he had run for the US Senate as a dry Republican in 1932. The League was founded by conservative Democrats; so no great distance between them on the face of it. He had been commander of Marine Expeditionary Force in China, was a highly decorated Marine who was known for being brave, outspoken and hard-headed. His nickname was "Old Gimlet Eye", and he was immensely popular with the rank and file soldiers who were to be recruited for the coup. When he came before congress in 1934 to swear under oath that the American Liberty League had asked him to lead a military coup against Roosevelt in order to establish a fascist dictatorship, his report was plausible to many. Coups have happened often throughout history, and in 1934 fascism was a major global political force with a lot of fans in the US, particularly in corporate boardrooms.

Here's a cartoonist's take on it at the time:

http://www.clubhousewreckards.com/plot/images/photos7_r.jpg

You'll notice that Butler is depicted as a military figure, and not as a Red.

After 1934 Butler did become a prominent anti-fascist; and yes, at that time to be an anti-fascist was to be a socialist. But the order of events is the other way around. First, he's a military man; then he runs as a Republican; then he claims he's asked to head a Facist coup; then he becomes a Socialist. Viveka

I notice that there's an article dealing with all of this at Business_Plot, so instead of trying to deal with this issue in this article I'll just add a link. Viveka

I've found the source of the $36 Billion error. In Jan. 1936, Scripps-Howard papers ran a story headlined “Liberty League Controlled by Owners of $37,000,000,000."; so that was the amount of total assets controlled by the backers of the league, not the league's actual assets. Trawling the web I see conistent reports of around half a million dollars per year, and boasts by the backers that they could pull together $300 million in a pinch. http://www.davidpietrusza.com/Liberty-League.html says "In terms of finances, various studies of the League’s operations have shown that in its six-year history it solicited and disbursed almost $1.2 million, most of which was spent in the short period between its founding in August 1934 and the presidential election of 1936. These totals did not include funds handled at the state or local level, and of course it should be borne in mind that these were pre-inflation dollars. In the calendar year 1935 the American Liberty League raised as much money as the Democratic and Republican parties combined. Most of it came from a handful of generous contributors—approximately 30 percent from members of the Du Pont family."Viveka

By 1934 Butler was a paid professional speaker and most of his audiences were peace groups and far left groups. He often spoke at Communist rallies. Butler never claimed the Am Liberty league was plotting against FDR. And if it had it would have been golden ammo for the Democrats in 1936 election, but the never used it--because they knew it was false. The charge re the League came from an anti-semitic hate monger named Spivak who said the Jews were taking over the world--a close echo of Nazi propaganda at the time. Wike should not spread Nazi or antisemitic hate venom. Rjensen 13:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are a number of different sources, including contemporary newspaper accounts and the work of George Seldes. You can't delete material based on published sources because you don't like Democrats or the authors.--Cberlet 15:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

All the allegations re the Liberty League come from Spivak's NAzi propaganda. Rjensen 15:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is fascinating. The material critical of the Liberty League is hardly Nazi propoganda nor accurately dismissed as merely antisemitism. If you can find a published cite critical of Spivak, by all means add it and cite it. Otherwise the wholesale deletions are not appropriate. Seldes was a leading anti-fascist writer.--Cberlet 13:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This page should be added to the A.L.L. catigory

This page should have a lot more on it now, especially on Prescott Bush's role.

Yes, and we can tie it in with his faking of the moon landing and the twenty-seven gunmen on the grassy knoll in Dallas. This article is garbage; there are exactly two sources referencing this supposed "coup", and only the BBC can even remotely be given any credence.130.13.19.64 03:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-fascist? or Fascist?

In its opinion, the Roosevelt Administration was leading the U.S. toward fascism... and yet the ALL was allegedly a backer of the Business Plot which sought to install Fascist leadership in Washington?

Dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean "Fascism" in the strictest sense of the term.

Roosevelt's New Deal was characterized as Fascist in how it worked to control many aspects of the economy. Some of it was ruled unconstitutional for good reason.

-- Randy2063 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascism was defined by Benito Mussolini as Corporatism where a strong leader gathers power to restrict personal freedom for the benefit of large corporations. FDRs recovery banker was Jesse Jones of Houston who held the Federal purse strings to encourage large corporations to invest in jobs and work against the concentration of ownership of industry to a few eastern Wall Street interests. http://www.pbs.org/jessejones/ It seems that FDR may have used some dictatorial methods to encourage this business investment, but not fascist. How can you label FDR as socialist and fascist at the same time since the two concepts are opposing?

Also Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler may have been the most decorated American of his age with the Marine Brevet Medal (equivalent to the Congressional Medal of Honor) and TWO Congressional Medals of Honor. He served 34 years and fought in five conflicts. He wrote the short anti-war book, "War is a Racket" and thoroughly documented Wall Street using the US military for business purposes in dominating foreign governments. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Butler was a Quaker and a Republican and his father was a Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. This contradicts any accusations of connections to socialist or communist ideaology. Some may say that Christianity's support of charity and self-sacrifice and the Constitution's dedication to giving power to the citizens are consistent with Butler's views and may only seem socialist on the surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exenron (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

amaziing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.208.129 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

—

"How can you label FDR as socialist and fascist at the same time since the two concepts are opposing?"

None would argue that Nazis weren't fascist. Nazi is the German acronym for National Socialist Workers Party. The only real difference between socialist and fascist government is in fascist, private ownership of the means of production is allowed but production is controlled by the government; socialist government both owns and controls the means of production. The two ideas are hardly opposing, as both share the altruistic goals of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." Both forms of government are social authoritarian and both are morally and economically bankrupt as history has irrefutably shown.

John Galt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.165.30 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing that a Wiki article on the "American Liberty League" essentially dismisses the notion that the AAL was plotting a coup to overthrow the US government, while the Wiki article on the "Business Plot" (http://en.wikipedia.org/Business_Plot) confirms that there was a planned coup, and goes into some depth (for Wiki) in presenting the details of the planned coup, the congressional investigation that concluded there was a planned coup, the public report of the congressional investigation, the media reaction to the public report, historians' perspectives, and links to material from the congressional investigation and report.

Comparing the manner of presentation, the material presented, the sources cited, and the links provided, it is clear that the other article deserves far more (initial) credence than this. 64.122.196.98 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC

About 18 months - 2 years ago, BBC "Document" programme when into this in some detail, reading out some remaining documents. It was pretty clear from the programme, that there was a coup attempt planned, but that many of the original documents have become unavailable. This article definitely seems to downplay the case or seriousness. The BBC mentioned Prescott Bush, head of the Holland Amerika line and his German fascist linksEngineman (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

COPY VIO

This entire page is almost word for word taken from:

^ The Republic: Conversations on Fundamentals By Charles A. Beard, Clyde W. (INT) Barrow (2008) ISBN 1412808030, 9781412808033, p. xxiii

This is a copyright violation.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Look for yourself; GOOGLE BOOKS It is uncanny. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Other way around -- the page predates the introduction to the book, and the author of the cited introduction appears to have plagiarized the Misplaced Pages article (which now cites to plagiarism to support the erroneous information an anon editor added to the article). I've written the professor multiple times asking for an explanation, and he has failed to respond. THF (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC) added "introduction to the" 01:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha. That is classic. We really do live in a new world.Capitalismojo (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not the first place this has happened, by the way. Some authors are truly lazy. Collect (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The author, Charles A. Beard, is deceased. This edit appears to be the source of the plagiarism. We should remove or rewrite those sentences. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you like following me around and contradicting me, Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. inappropriate accusation of bad-faith editing but you're factually incorrect. The plagiarism was in the introduction. The author is Clyde Barrow, who is not deceased. The introduction was published after the Misplaced Pages article; the introduction plagiarized the Misplaced Pages article, including inaccurate information that was in the Misplaced Pages article. I discussed this at Village Pump(miscellaneous). THF (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, my mistake. You have my apologies. My intent was not to needle you but to participate in cleaning up an article. Since my help is not wanted, I'll leave and remove this page from my watchlist. I have also removed your violation of AGF. I would suggest, sincerely and in good faith, that you not continue the behavior that got you blocked in the first place. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:HOUND some time. And certainly, taunting me over an improper block that was reversed without my even using the unblock template qualifies as a violation of WP:CIVIL. Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. inappropriate accusation of bad-faith editing THF (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You have edited many many articles since your unblock and I have contributed to exactly one of them. I have even purposely avoided the current discussion at Talk:Bill Moyers as to avoid reigniting our conflict there. But it appears you will insist on taking any contribution to the same article as "evidence" of "hounding". I have no wish to taunt you, I merely wish to edit Misplaced Pages, and if we happen to edit the same article, I wish to be able to edit that article without you engaging in this juvenile behavior again. I don't think that's too much to ask. I'm willing to let your previous behavior drop if you can restrain yourself, but if you insist upon engaging in this nonsense, it's not going to be pleasant for either of us. Please, let it go. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be redefining "three" within the scope of "many." Per, WP:AGF, I'm sure you had a really good reason to go to an article that you had never edited in your life to put in your two cents in an eight-month old discussion -- and you had such an assumption of good faith that you posted that I was wrong without even reading what I had said about the subject. The gratuitous edit-warring to censor legitimate talk-page comments is also a WP:HOUND violation. Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. inappropriate accusation of bad-faith editing Cut it out. THF (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a reason, I can edit any article I want to edit, and the same goes for you. (I'm sure this edit is entirely coincidental and not prompted by viewing my contributions list, of course.) I posted my opinion here as any editor is free to do. I was not motivated by an interest in "correcting" you, I was interested in what was best for the article. Your paranoia about my motives and your accusations are inappropriate, as are your comments regarding them. If someone disagrees with you, they aren't out to get you. Just respond in a calm, rational fashion. If you can't handle that, go find a message board where it is acceptable to act like this and pick fights with people. I have no wish to have start any conflict with you and any perceived desire to do so is solely the result of your imagination. Any editor is free to edit any article, and I'm not going to avoid editing articles because you can't act like an adult. Your behavior needs to stop. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

100,000 members

This is an impressive number - some detail about who they were would be fascinating if citable. +sj+ 19:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

John Buchanan

Please do not cite to John Buchanan (American politician). There are plenty of legitimate historical reference works that we don't need to go to conspiracy theorists. Thanks. THF (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)