Hayworth: 'In My History' U.S. Didn't Formally Declare War On Nazi Germany

[RamboLiberal]

Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who is challenging Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary, said that the United States did not formally declare war on Germany in World War II -- at least, that's how it went in his history.

While speaking last week to a local GOP organization in Phoenix, Hayworth was asked by an attendee about America's failure to formally declare war in our modern conflicts. Hayworth defended the modern-day authorizations for the use of military force. "But I would also point out, that if we want to be sticklers, the war that Dwight Eisenhower led in Europe against the Third Reich was never declared by the United States Congress," said Hayworth. "Recall, the Congress passed a war resolution against Japan. Germany declared war on us two days later. We never formally declared war on Hitler's Germany, and yet we fought the war."

The questioner then responded that he thought the United States did declare on Germany, and he would check it. Hayworth responded: "I think we should check it. Perhaps we made the rationalization -- since there was the Axis alliance -- that the attack of Japan was tantamount to the attack of the Third Reich. But as I recall in my history, Germany declared war on the United States, not vice-versa."

In fact, the United states did declare war on Germany. The timeline goes as follows: Japan attacked the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The United States declared war against Japan the next day, December 8, 1941. Then on December 11, 1941, Germany declared war against the United States -- to which the United States immediately reciprocated by declaring war against Germany that same day.

The video of Hayworth was live-streamed by the local GOP organization. It was then captured and posted online by an anti-Hayworth tracker. We were unable to immediately reach Hayworth's campaign for comment.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/hayworth-in-my-history-us-didnt-formally-declare-war-on-nazi-germany-video.php?ref=fpblg

IDIOT! Oh I forgot, you learned Tea Party History! On edit I probably should've said "Get a Brain MORAN"

[BrklynLiberal]

1. History has become downright fluid.

[Hannah Bell]

47. because they need to change the storylines to rationalize the new policies.

our kids are growing up under a different "fact regime" than we did.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Damned Texas social studies textbooks did damage even way back then.

"Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor??? HELL NO ..."
Bluto, "Animal House"

BTW, my uncle sent two telegrams supporting Jeanette Rankin who was THE ONLY member in the House and the Senate to vote against both war resolutions.

[Arkana]

10. This is not entirely true.

To my knowledge, after Germany and Italy declared war on us and the declaration of war on them came to a House vote, Rankin did not vote NO--merely PRESENT.

Still, her principles are admirable.

[no_hypocrisy]

12. Really?

That's interesting. I'll look into it.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. Right.

Only one person voted no during the declaration of wars and that was the initial declaration of war against Japan. The rest, for those who voted anyway, were unanimous.

[dem mba]

15. well if she had her way there would be no Jews left in Europe

and the Nazis might very well still be in power. I'm not sure how admirable that is.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.

From wiki:

In 1940, Rankin was again elected to Congress, this time on an anti-war platform. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, she once again voted against entering a World War, the only member of Congress to do so, saying "As a woman, I can't go to war and I refuse to send anyone else. It is not necessary. I vote NO." Montana Republican leaders demanded that Rankin change her vote, but she refused. However she did not vote against declaring war on Germany and Italy following their declaration of war on the U.S. Instead, she voted merely Present.

[ljm2002]

18. Ironic that you would say this in a thread...

...about historical revisionism. Maybe we should call it J.D. Hayworth disease, apparently it's contagious. A quick Google search turns up the truth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin

"A lifelong pacifist, she voted against the entry of the United States into both World War I and World War II, the only member of Congress to vote against the latter."



"Only four days after taking office, Jeannette Rankin made history in yet another way: she voted against U.S. entry into World War I."

and

"When, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Congress voted to declare war against Japan, Jeannette Rankin once again voted "no" to war."

[Drunken Irishman]

22. Arkana spoke the truth...

He never said she didn't vote against going to war with Japan. He merely said she didn't vote against going to war with Germany and Italy. Which is true. She didn't vote at all to declare war on either nation.

Remember, they voted more than once.

They voted to go to war with Japan the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed (that's where her no vote came) and then voted to go to war with Italy & Germany three days later. There, no one voted no. Some abstained, but no one voted no.

[ljm2002]

31. Right you are...

...I misread what was posted.

"D'oh!"

[Arkana]

27. I never said anything about the Japan resolution.

E: and from that same wikipedia article:

"However she did not vote against declaring war on Germany and Italy following their declaration of war on the U.S. Instead, she voted merely Present."

[ljm2002]

29. Well then, I guess the irony is on me!

Sorry, I stand corrected. I misread what you said and am an admirer of Ms. Rankin.

Hopefully it does not rise to the level of having to eat crow though.

Sorry!

:dunce: == moi

[Arkana]

30. Eh, no harm done.

I'm a history nerd and I love little trivia like that.

And I truly admire Rankin sticking to her principles, even in the face of overwhelming popular sentiment (and the fact that I would have disagreed with her vehemently as well).

[Angry Dragon]

3. Or Texas history

The new and improved kind

[awoke_in_2003]

38. Yeah...

and we won the Alamo, too :)

[bluestateguy]

4. Sounds like neo-con postmodernism again

Kind of like that Bush Administration M.O. of "we create our own reality and you report on what we do".

[Drunken Irishman]

5. WTF?

We declared war on Germany on Dec. 11th, 1941. The Senate voted 80-0 to declare war and the House 393-0.

It was the same day we declared war on Italy! :rofl: What a fucking MORON.

[Historic NY]

9. Re-writing history as they see it.....you just can't make this shit up but they do.

[nichomachus]

6. That's because his history book only goes up to the day

That the Neanderthal man gave Jesus a ride on his dinosaur.

[Arkana]

7. Well, that's fair.

In Hayworth's history, Ronald Reagan looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger and kills Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin with his bare hands.

[gratuitous]

8. Oh, well, he just misspoke

So it's not like the New York Times will have to run a four-part article on Hayworth and his poor grasp of history or anything. After all, anyone can make an honest mistake. No harm, no foul. Doesn't really mean anything. Move along. Move along.

[Arkana]

11. Can I interest you in the latest episode of "Jon and Kate Plus 8"?

[gratuitous]

33. Oh yes, please!

With a side of American Idol, if you have it.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. I wonder if Hayworth also realizes we declared war on Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary...

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. But, bizarrely, only 6 months after they declared war on the USA

http://worldatwar.net/timeline/other/diplomacy39-45.html
1941 December 12 Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia declare war on the United States of America and Great Britain
Romania declares war on the United States of America

1942 June 5 The United States of America declares war on Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.

What's up with that? If one country had declared war, but the other hadn't, did that make any difference? Or is the 'reply' a meaningless formality?

[Arkana]

28. It's a formality.

When a declaration of war is in place against another nation, it gives the US government power to do things and ask for things they couldn't do (not legally, anyway) without a declaration of war.

That's part of why Korea and Vietnam have such a different tone in our history as opposed to WWII--Japan attacked US and Germany declared war on US first. Korea and Vietnam weren't even official "wars".

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. I tend toward seeing it as a formality too

which is why I can't get excited by Hayworth thinking it was just Germany declaring war on the US, without the same day declaration back by the US. I notice that the webpage with all those declarations, breaking of diplomatic relations etc. on it doesn't say that Germany ever declared war on Britain or France after they declared war on it. Indeed, the USSR and the US seems to have been the only countries Germany bothered declaring war on - everyone else was just invaded, or they declared war first.

[City Lights]

16. So JD Hayworthless flunked US History.

No shocker there. :rofl:

[KonaKane]

17. Uhm, WRONG.

The US unequivocally, clearly declared war on GERMANY and Italy on December 11th, 1941. Three days after declaring war on Japan.

Where do these morons get their history? Beck?

[Cleita]

19. We never declared war on Korea. He's got his wars mixed up. Idiot! n/t

[greencharlie]

20. moran... 12-11-41 google it!!

[blondeatlast]

37. Google? What is this thing you call "google"?

Thanks,
JD

[damntexdem]

21. I believe that that was the last time the U.S. DID declare war.

Not just Japan, which had attacked, but also Japan's allies were now official enemies.

And it meant that the U.S. no longer claimed non-belligerent status for its shipping.

[harkadog]

35. Actually the last was June 5, 1942.

The U.S. declared war against Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. That treaty was not settled until 1947.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Fake opposition to McCain, as transparent as Rand Paul

[Mojeoux]

24. When training as a bartender, my boss told me "Don't discuss religion or politics."

I lost it however when some ol' guys were talking about how we had to attack Nicaragua. (this was the 80s) I spoke up the we might have another Viet Nam on our hands!

The one drunkest guy said,
"I went to Nam and do you want to know why I protected you and your kids and my kids in Viet Nam?"

"why?" (cringe)

"Because they attacked Pearl Harbor thats why!"

That guy drank like a fish and was 86ed not long after and I actually feel sorry for him.
My impression was that he drank so much to cover horrible guilt over his war-time actions.

[mitchum]

25. It appears that history classes are somewhat lacking at sportscaster school

[struggle4progress]

32. Up next: "Who is Haywood's favorite WWII hero: Patrick McHenry or Stonewall Jackson?"

[blondeatlast]

41. Some guy named Goebbels, I heard. nt

[prolesunited]

34. History is based on FACTS

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Well that is only partially true.

Much of our history is based on bullshit distortions that can only be loosely correlated to facts. There are historical facts, and then there is history, where a history is generally an interpretation of facts slanted to present a specific narrative.

[HuckleB]

40. He was always voted DUMBEST Representative in the entire HOUSE!

I see that hasn't changed.

[JVS]

43. Wow. Talk about stupidity's hall of fame!

[Robeysays]

42. did this phrase stand out to anyone else?

"the war that Dwight Eisenhower led in Europe against the Third Reich"


nice revision there too...

[Cartoonist]

45. I caught it

and MacArthur led us in the Pacific.

[Scurrilous]

44. What an idiot. n/t

[political_Dem]

46. No. In Hayworth's history, Nazi Germany came to Arizona.

Hasn't he paid attention to the actions of Frau Brewer and the neo-Nazis in the Arizona Legislature?

:sarcasm: