Arizona Senatorial candidate and conservative commentator J.D. Hayworth may have some explaining to do to the “greatest generation” and his high school history professor. Hayworth has insisted that the United States never declared war on Germany in World War II — leading to this video. (I must say that with the Frog video on immigration (here), this Arizona election is becoming quite entertaining). As Thomas Jefferson said, “History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.”
While there have only been five declared wars, Germany was one of them.
Here is the Senate record:
DECLARATION OF STATE OF WAR WITH GERMANY
Mr. Connally, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported an original joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same, which was read the first time by its title, and the second time at length, as follows:
“Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
“Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany, which has thus been thrust upon the United states, is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I shall presently ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the joint resolution just read to the Senate. Before the request is submitted, however, I desire to say that, being advised of the declaration of war upon the United States by the Governments of Germany and Italy, and anticipating a message by the President of the United States in relation thereto, and after a conference with the Secretary of State, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I called a meeting of the committee this morning and submitted to the committee the course I expected to pursue as chairman and the request which I expected to make.
I am authorized by the Committee on Foreign Relations to say to the Senate that after consideration of the text of the joint resolution which I have reported and after mature consideration of all aspects of this matter, the membership of the Committee on Foreign Relations unanimously approve and agree to the course suggested. One member of the committee was absent, but I have authority to express his views.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the joint resolution.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
Mr. CONNALLY. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The result was announced yeas 88, nays 0.
* * * * * *
So the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) was passed.
The preamble was agreed to.
Here are the House proceedings:
DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST GERMANY
Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 256, which I send to the desk and ask to have read.
The Clerk read as follows.
“Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
“Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”
The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution?
Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
* * * * * *
The question was taken; and there were yeas 393, answered “present” 1, not voting 36.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended, and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate, by Mr. Frazier, its legislative clerk, announced that the Senate had passed joint resolutions of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House is requested:
“S. J. Res. 119. Joint resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the Government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same; and
“S. J. Res. 120. Joint resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Italy and the Government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.”
DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST GERMANY
Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s table Senate Joint Resolution 119, which is identical with the resolution just adopted by the House, and pass the Senate resolution.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The Senate joint resolution was read a third time, and passed.
It makes one think that Winston Churchill today might revise his remarks to say: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much [known] by so . . . few.”
mespo:
Having one has done wonders for my level of patience, and allowed me the flexibility to pick and choose which battles to fully engage in. 🙂
vlf2112:
Your patience and ability to deal with the simple ramblings of children continues to amaze.
vlf2112: What does race have to do with this?
TomD:
If all I based my comment on was an ad by a guy (McCain) who most of you think is a dummy, I guess you might be able to characterize my opinion as being on the head of a pin. But there are some scholars who refuse to be spoon fed the governments propaganda about WW2 and I agree with those scholars. My opinion isn’t just about Hayworth’s one comment and taking his word for it.
If John McCain is as dumb as you say then why are you taking his word for it about Hayworth’s statement?
rcampbell: You are assuming you know the context of Hayworth’s statement and the McCain’s ad isn’t going to give you that context.
See how the other comments here claim that McCain is an idiot? I agree with that and so I’m sure he is not going provide the context of Hayworth’s statements.
In other words, you shouldn’t have any confidence in McCain’s ad, because, as the other comments suggest, McCain is a dummy anyway and you seem to have fallen for it.
I’m impressed by Tootie’s ability to balance on the head of a pin to justify this guy’s just plain ignorant statement.
Anyone here watch Faux News? Are they performing similar feats of acrobatics to maintain their freedom from all those pesky “facts”?
It’s impressive that someone could position himself as “dumber than John McCain.” That’s right, more stupid than the guy who thinks that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president.
The underlying issue here is that we justify certain problematic actions by saying “we’re at WAR damn it! Things are different during war time.” But without a declaration of war, or criteria for assessing when the war is over, we’ve set ourselves up for a never ending state of war, straight out of Orwell. “We’re at war with al Qaedia!” Sort of, sure, but any bunch of imbeciles can change their name to al Qaeda, as Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad did when they arbitrarily changed their own name to something like “al Qaeda in Iraq” in order to get international funding and support.
For people who want to give the government special leeway to bend rules because “we’re at WAR!”, then we need a declaration of war and we need reasonable criteria for when the state of war will end. Otherwise, we’re just acting like countless pathetic despotic little countries around the world that extend themselves “emergency powers” for decades on end when no identifiable emergency exists.
“in the eyes of history possibly committing crimes against humanity”
Those humans being white, of course. Funny statement coming from a person who abhors anyone whose skintone is “this side” of tan. But, I digress …
Perhaps Hayworth should do a little research before opening his mouth on historical matters.
Tootie
Even if what you wrote is 100% accurate, it matters not. The question is whether the US declared war. Congress did so in accordance with the Constitution. That’s the simple answer to the simple question that Hayworth couldn’t answer. If you try to spin Hayworth’s FAIL just a liitle more, it’ll become a scarf.