Keep in mind that back then, there was a huge movement to keep the US from entering international entanglements and to just stick to our nationalist policies. Even though famous stars, such as Chaplin, and a few politicians, up to and including our own President, warned everyone of the dangers of Hitler and his blood lust, no one cared. This cartoon, through the use of furry cute animals and bible verses twisted out of context, imbodies cowardice, indifference, fear, and the misguided notion that man, through the use of force, is somehow inherently evil.

Nevertheless, of all the cartoons I saw as a kid that was the only one I really remembered, it had that much impact. Its message still is dead on--we endlessly invent ways to divide ourselves against each other, and we're our own worst enemy. I'm not saying that use of force is never warranted, I'm just saying that as I've grown older I've come to fully appreciate just how much work we have to do to achieve any kind of peace. In the cartoon peace on earth didn't come until we were extinct.

Second, it justifies the notion that all war is wrong through the use of a bible verse we know to be false. Now, it could be true that those who created this cartoon were unaware that their bibles are incorrectly translated, in which case they are simply misguided. However, misguided or intentionally misleading, they are still incorrect, rendering the basis for their position as incorrect.

Thirdly, the history of this cartoon coincides with too many events that were occurring in 1939. If you read up on your american history of the time period, there was an INTENSE debate as to whether or not to go to aid the British, our allies, and defend against Nazisim. This debate was waged with greater intensity than the Iraqi invasion debate that occurred in 2002 and 2003. There were dozens of political cartoons and films, much like this one, that ranged from "lets go get em'" to "Hitler is our friend" during the period of 1937 till 1941. Believe me, this was an intentional allusion to the push to go to war and there were many who did not want to fight.

Finally, the overall theme of this film is that man is himself a scary monster. He is evil and filled with violence, unlike our small furry, woodland critters. It is they who justly follow God's commandment about not killing. It is they who do not fight. It is they who are not evil, like man. Man is evil because he's violent. And since man is inherently violent, as this cartoon preaches, he must be inherently evil.

Believe me, when a kid watches this, a kid who is all of 5 or 6, he will reach the same conclusions that this cartoon WANTS him to reach, the same conclusion that I have laid out to you. It is far more inidious than you guess.

Harry, if you're reading, I'm not trying to be an ass at all. I enjoyed watching these clips. I'm just wondering where AICN is headed and if it is more difficult nowadays to get sneak peak info on upcoming projects. Regardless, you at least tried SOMETHING different... to the snicker of myself and I'm sure others;)

And while you made the conclusion that it is horrible to hold your ideologies higher than another man's reguard, what if you have to defend against such violence and bloodlust? In the end, this film alludes that all violence no matter the intent or goal, is as petty as dietary debate. And given the time period of this film, there is a heavy allusion to the "let Hitler do what he does over there" mindset, or as I like to call it, the chamberlain mindset.

As far as not all men being violent and scary, well maybe true. Most of us don't have to be because our needs are met easily. But we do have violence in our natures and to deny this is foolish. We're not "evil" because of this, it's just a brute fact. It wasn't a cartoon that made me draw that conclusion, it was science.

No, ladies and gentleman, the makers of this cartoon knew very well there was a raging debate about whether to combat Hitler and his nazi thugs. They saw fascism in full flare and chalked up the attrocities, the rampaging nations of Italy and Germany, and the loss of one country after another to Germany and they equated it with nothing more than vegitarianism v. meat-eaters. democracy v. fascism, freedom v. tyranny was nothing compared to one misquoted bible verse. That is why this cartoon is so insidious. Peace on Earth? The real title of this should be "Peace In Our Time." I'm sure many of you amateur historians will know that quote and its significance.

I guess even then I took it as a parable--a scary one, but a parable. I didn't ACTUALLY believe, even at a young age, that we were in fact just like the men depicted in the cartoon.

I think the cartoon worked as a powerful cautionary tale--we must hold the line against falling into warfare for false ideologies. If you are right about the context, however, I would of course not agree with an extreme version of this message, saying nothing is worth fighting over.

Philisophically speaking, man's very nature is to grow, to learn. Learning is what enabled our ability to adapt so rapidly, to survive, and ultimately to thrive. Reason, coupled and tempered by a healthy dose of emotion (but not dominated by it) is the essence of our humanity. In Peace On Earth, our humanity is stripped away with masks and we are reduced to monstrous creatures. We fight, we war, and ultimately we are lost.

To put it in another light, were I to make a cartoon about an ethnicity, say...blacks, the first thing I have to do, if I'm to dehumanize them, is to make sure they are drawn not as people but as things, animals, monsters. And make no mistake, there were cartoons that did this very thing, especially in Germany, which had an unquenched thirst for such political rhetoric. Its the oldest trick in the book, realy, for supporting prejudice, whether it be prejudices of gender, race, ideology, or in this case, man himself.

Its no coincidence, either, that this message is rooted in christianity, in this case, fundamentalist christianity. Catholicism, during the medeival days, used every trick in the book to keep its subjects doscile and serving. After all, a slave is no good if he thinks he's better than an animal. Art was commissioned, gothic art, that depicted man bent, crooked, and in pain; the very flour of humanity. Christianity, or at least a misguided form of christianity, has always had this defining characteristic: man is evil. Concepts like Original sin, life through faith, and faith through servitude are all very old concepts designed to do one thing: hamper the growth of man.

What it boils down to is that the root message of this film is that war, no matter the cause, is inherently evil and that because man is inherently intent on war, man is ultimately evil, an ideology that is as old as man's first twisting of Christianity itself. It then proceeds to implement false representations of The Old Testament, and uses all the propogandist tricks, such as dehumanizing man and anthrapamorphizing cute woodland creatures who actually follow G-d's laws. A child, upon seeing this, is supposed to make the comparison and is supposed to walk away with the notion that man's struggles are pointless, that he is himself inferior, and ultimate, it would be better if he were gone. All hail G-d and His creation.

Did I leave anything out?

"In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done."

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity."

That was made in October, 1938. In a few short months, Germany would then attack Poland and Italy would begin its conquests. In the summer of 1939, unbeknownst to those outside of Nazi control, the holocaust had begun. However, it had been known for at least 3 years that Jews were already made second class citizens by then, slaves to the state and their properties and belongings were now Nazi properties. This was no secret, nor was the thirst for German Land, a German World.

In October of 1939, despite objections made by many leaders, the US declared its neutrality. In december of 1939, long after the debates about Hitler and his threat to freedom, long after his ascension to Dictatorship, long after the rise of faschism and the threats it posed, long after laws were passed which initially created an exodus of Jews from Germany to outlying European countries and even to America itself, long after everything was known, Peace On Earth Debuted.

I just wanted everyone to get a quick sense of the time period and the debates, very, very intense debates, that were raging in the US between 37 and 39. Newspapers were reporting on the goings on, wondering if we would join the fray. Hollywood was being courted by Germany and the "Jewish Question" was being asked in more than a few social gatherings of the time. This cartoon was not made in a vacuum. The creators knew very well the dangers and horrors and instead chose isolationism and the all-too-convenient excuse about G-d's commandment. It was cowardice of the highest order.

All of this, of course, was easily manipulated by fascists and, to some extent, communists. In any case, America's isolationism wasn't necessarily related to its anti-jewish/anti-democratic movement, but both served the purposes of the Nazis.

In any case, the ultimate point is that with all these rallies going on, all these examples of fascisms impending threat, the worldwide news of Chamberlain's agreements with Hitler, and the obvious enslavement of an entire race of people that was occuring between 37 and the time this cartoon came out, December 39, is anyone really expecting us to believe this was a simple peace cartoon? This was a message, folks, and it was leave Hitler alone, lets hide in our hole, and maybe nothing will get to us. And if you try to stop him, you'll just be evil and a warmongering monster, and besides, its not really that important, after all. Live and let live. Follow the good book and bury your head in the sand.

An absolutely chilling message, really. Almost as disgusting as Chamberlain's statement about the "road to apeasement has many obstacles." Peace On Earth is really Peace In Our Time for children.

No, the simple fact was that the US willfully rescinded itself to isolationism, not out of some sort of ideology or newly found piety, but because many americans were afraid. And some, surely, wanted the Jews dealt with, wanted to get back a little of their own.

I do know that I'm not the first to have pointed out the sentiments in that particular cartoon; there have been a smattering of debates on the subject whenever AMC airs it and I seem to recall a class or two in which this thing was discussed.

Don't feel bad, gotilk. My father in-law ended up being a bad father, a bowling-alley addict, and in short, a none-too nice man. The only reason he even slightly warmed up to me was that I was able to consistantly beat him at chess despite being relatively young.

In simplest terms, Ike was in charge, liked it that way, and felt that Patton was a loose cannon who was capable of actually taking over Ike's job. In simples terms, Ike was a political creature while Patton was solely military. However, Patton's popularity was a threat to Ike, and because Patton was an obvious wild card, Ike couldn't trust him.

That said, the impression was that Patton, especially after the battle of the bulge and his reaction upon the initial discovery of a few concentration camps warranted a lot of respect from Ike. Patton was dangerous. Useful, but dangerous.

I used to be someone who could remember a man's face with very accurate detail, but completely forget his name and personal information. After training myself for days, weeks, and months, I finally picked the knack up. Nowadays, I amaze my students that I remember all of their names after the first day, without the benefit of a seating chart.

On a side note, although George C. Scott possessed more than a passing resemblance to Patton, the real Patton was almost a foot shorter and possessed a squeaky, reedy voice.

The reason for the slash in price for the addon drive is because it is a PROPRIETARY DRIVE for the 360 console being sold at a HIGHER PRICE than most discount HD-DVD players. This reduction in price is due to the fact that hardly ANY Xbox 360 owners bothered to buy this addon drive because they are using their 360 to play video games, and what movies they DO watch on the 360 are movies they've downloaded to it from the Xbox Marketplace. It was a dumb idea from the get-go, and Microsoft is trying to push out some of the products that aren't selling.

In related news, with the conclusion of the NFL season, you can now buy Maddon 08 for HALF PRICE. This surely is the end of the Madden Franchise!

This is what happens when idiots are allowed to have blogger accounts. Call your local senators and tell them to vote NO for idiots getting blogs. The second life you save, may be your own.

Question for you though. Who knittd those nifty little clothes you are all wearing. Here's a clue for you, it was an animal with an opposable thumb.

i.e. none of you smug little bastards .

""There's no school like the old school!" - The Incredibles

There is enough reviewers on here, Harry. Do what you wanna do. It's your site. Let your mental vomit splash upon these pages! Haters be damned!!!

*Whoa!* I may have been on here too long.

I remember how I felt when I watched some of the American SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK, and some Canadian National Film Board animations, too. They really freaked me out. Same with Sesame Street, with some of the psychedelic animations. Man, they were creepy for a really young kid.

Besides, it gives old windbags like me an oppurtunity to huff and puff and, if we're lucky, to educate, too.

Apeasement, peace at all costs, by its very definition is the willingness to sell everything, to give away everything, including the lives and freedoms of yourself and all those around you, in the blind hope of quenching the thirst of an ambitious dictator.

Perhaps it was my fault in using the bumper sticker label of something costing your own soul, but what I mean is that voluntarily handing over the freedoms and lives of millions of people for some vague, undefinable notion of peace is cowardly, and ultimately dangerous.

Also, keep in mind that the goal of the allied forces wasn't "war at all costs." It was "ending the war with as little cost as possible to teh allied forces." A subtle distinction in verbage, but not so subtle in application. Hitler beleived in war at all costs. The British, and ultimately the US, believed in ENDING the war with as little losses to allied life, and ultimately human life in general, as possible. That was the tennant, at least, and whether the US lived up to that goal can be debated later, but one cannot argue that this tennant existed.

WWII seems to be a different animal to me than the situation we are faced with today. Ultimately, I do not think the U.S. is interested in stopping the genocides in Darfur or Burma because we are not directly threatened by it. But for whatever reason, we viewed Saddam as a threat and saw an opening to bring down a dictator and spread democracy in the middle east. It was appraised by those in power to be in our interest to invade. Now, were we the aggressors in that conflict or was Saddam? There are always perceived aggressors on both sides of conflict. The Saudis that crashed into the WTC perceived us as the aggressors. Does that make them right? Obviously I know when we talk about WWII Hitler WAS the aggressor, but today it too often is used as a false justification for violence. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hitler say that everyone else was threatening Germany and that's how he got everyone to go along with him?

Besides that, the question for me becomes, "at what point do we intervene?" North Korea is run by a dictator who is basically starving his own people. I've seen images of the children languishing in shit hospitals while Kim Jung Il sits and drinks his bubbly. Aren't we morally obligated to do something about that? What about Darfur? Rwanda? Burma?

And what of the cost of civilian life in armed conflict? Since WWII, the amount of casualties of non-combatants (i'm thinking mostly of children) in any conflict is astronomical. That has to be taken into account in any decision to wage war. It's not just that our soldiers will perish, but also complete innocents.

Anyways, I know I am out of my league in this debate but I'm interested to see what you think.

In any case, if you will note, I was very careful to not make any sort of modern comparison to that war. Applicability, of course, is up to you, not me. I would be careful, however, in jumping to the WW2= Iraqi war situation, however, because there are a whole slew of geopolitical complications, to say nothing of over 50 years worth of resolutions, treaties, and policies that have been inacted and/or redacted. Be careful.

Still, very good questions on your part. I would add that those questions are almost always taken into account of any armed conflict, at least in the more "civilized" countries. Civilian casualties are, of course, a horrible side effect of warfare, but in the end sometimes military actions have to take place, civilians or no. There are hundreds of factors, really, thousands, that are taken into account in warfare and the costs are always astronomical...thats why war is bad.

One final note on your comment over agression, fault, and the excuse of war. You are right in that everyone perceives an agressor. After all, everyone thinks of themselves as good, even bad people. However, one has to weigh in the argument that that person/group/governing body is making. Hitler argued that the treaty of Versailes was choking his people and that all Germany sought was living space. However, that treaty, though it employed a series of steep fines upon Germany, was JUST because it was they who started World War 1 in the first place. In other words, Hitler's reasoning for his agression was akin to a man blaming his rape of a woman on the fact that she wouldn't date him due to him being previously convicted of battery and assault. His reasoning simply was flawed, and truthfully, as steep a fine as the treaty of Versailles was, it was far more fair and lenient than it could have been. Germany, though rendered a lot poorer for the affected generation, was still intact. Her military, though allowed to be a fraction of what it once was, still existed. Her people, though forced to work harder and live a bit leaner, was still allowed their culture. No, his excuses were very, very thin and were but a smokescreen for his true motivations: power, pride, and rage.

As for our excuse? Well, in the light of a dictator who was swallowing nations left and right and, indeed, the entire world, we knew that we had to preserve democracy, in fact, our very lives. We were faced with an enemy that would not negotiate, that was ravenously intent upon our destruction, seemed to revel in death itself, in fact. In the end, war, arguments for peace or no, was upon us.

AS for the whole 911 issue, its true, the saudis that struck us carried out their mission because they perceived our very culture as an anethema to our own. And they were right, of course. Our culture is a threat to the wahabi brand of Islamic faith, which is at its heart fascism--control. After all, how can you control a people, make them happy to be under your control, or what you perceive as your god's control, make them happy to be slaves, when an obviously productive, thriving culture exists that is founded upon the very tenants that you say will undermine your social order?

But that is another debate for another day. Suffice it to say that you are indeed correct that everyone claims they are the victim and that whomever they killed needed killing. In the end, you must measure their words against history, current events, and that person/group/government's actions.

As my history professor once said, "history does not repeat itself. But similar circumstances often produce similar results." There is nothing wrong with analyzing trends to apply history's lessons to today's problems, but you are right. I did muddle the discussion a bit.

As for the question of intervention, after WWII the same question came up and the Allies formed the Unite