
The Real War 1939-1945, by Paul Fussell (1989) - gruseom
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/battle/fussell.htm
======
lifeisstillgood
Just use this as a counter to the "rising tide of crap" on HN.

This has nothing to do with startups or technology, but it is a vital insight
into our world, that makes us more aware of that world's terrible failings.

I am glad HN is still a place I can come to read about web deployment best
practises, and find my self lost in near weeping horror about the wars I did
not try hard enough to stop.

+1 from me and let's stop worrying we might be going downhill. Just push this
uphill, Sisephyaen style.

~~~
asdkl234890
_Just use this as a counter to the "rising tide of crap" on HN._

Then again what makes HN special to me is that it is free of otherwise very
popular and frequently also great topics I agree with. Exactly because they
are popular. Why should they also be popular here as well as everywhere else?

This weekend the US will be awashed in Memorial day related content. Heck, I
think this would fit better on HN if it was voted up on any other time of
year.

The current top comment mentions Memorial day isn't about hotdogs. But
seriously is there a major US holiday _less_ commercialized? Christmas is a
god damn consumer orgy. Memorial day in my experience is still quite the
thoughtful and yes memory and appreciation full holiday.

~~~
gruseom
I ran across this piece because Paul Fussell died this week and posted it
because it was so shockingly enlightening. Nothing to do with Memorial Day;
apart from not keeping track of these things, I'm Canadian and we do our
remembering in November.

If some people voted it up for Memorial Day, so much the better for an
impassioned piece of good writing. Fussell obviously deserves to be better
known.

~~~
pyre

      > we do our remembering in November
    

The US celebrates 'Veteran's Day' on November 11th, which coincides with
Remembrance Day (or Armistice Day), though it's one of those holidays that are
more of a footnote than anything else. Memorial Day apparently holds a much
older heritage. According to Wikipedia:

    
    
      [...] it originated after the American Civil War to commemorate
      the fallen Union soldiers of the Civil War [...] By the 20th 
      century Memorial Day had been extended to honor all Americans
      who have died in all wars.

------
singular
Very interesting. I do think it's vitally important to acknowledge the real
nature of war, whose best witnesses are those who actually lived through it,
the actual reality of it, not generals or politicians conducting the war from
the safety of their offices.

There's a real question as to whether war ought to be shown in all its gory,
butcher's window horror in the media. On the one hand, it's important people
realise what war is actually like, on the other, it's easy to get desensitised
to this stuff.

Personally, I've (regrettably) seen several images which indicate the reality
of these things on shock sites, etc., and after a short while was rather
desensitised. The images are so horrible that I just couldn't even begin to
register the reality of it on any scale the way somebody who has actual
experienced it would.

I really don't know whether showing these images would _really_ get people to
see the utter, utter insanity of war and the cost to these ordinary human
beings, or whether people would just get desensitised.

It's an important question that ought to be explored.

~~~
siavosh
In some countries there's less of a taboo in showing graphic war imagery than
the US, and I don't think it's made them wiser. The injustice is when one
small segment of your population endures the horror while the rest glorifies
and romanticizes it. The extreme solution is if every time we as a country
decide to go to ANY war, we conscript across all socio-economic lines. You
really can't show or read about the cost of war.

~~~
spindritf
Contrary to the popular belief, it's the middle and upper classes which are
overrepresented in the US military, not the poor:
[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-
serves-...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-
the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers)

~~~
mkramlich
Your link is to a page on the Heritage Foundation's website. Heritage is a
well-known, right-wing pro-corporate/pro-oil/pro-plutocratic propaganda think
tank, funded in part by the Koch brother's oil tycoon family, and started by
Coors. A quick trip to their Wikipedia page will give a taste of the sort of
high quality human beings they are associated with
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation>), such as the Kochs,
Reagan, Novak, Kristol, Bennet, Cheney, Boehner, Gingrich, Scaife, and Pat
Robertson. And they have partnered with organizations like AEI, the Hoover
Institution and the Wall Street Journal. Because Heritage has such a public
track record of on-going spin and disinformation I would not trust them for
any objective, non-distorted arguments.

Furthermore, it's pretty well-known among historians that in wars it is
primarily the poor and the working middle-class, who die or suffer
predominately, either as soldiers or civilians on the homefront, or as
prisoners. The rich and their sons are disproportionately able to avoid harm,
and especially in the case of weapons contractors or supply companies, oil
suppliers, or banks, are often able to profit handsomely from wars and
militarization. This is not controversial and is a repeated pattern going back
at least a thousand years or so.

Also I looked at their report and it's cherry picked and very carefully
worded, with several sloppy arguments, often contradicting themselves in the
matter of a few sentences. Typical stuff for them.

~~~
spindritf
> Also I looked at their report and it's cherry picked and very carefully
> worded, with several sloppy arguments, often contradicting themselves in the
> matter of a few sentences. Typical stuff for them.

I don't see anything wrong with their methodology, could point those out for
me?

~~~
mkramlich
Sorry I will not. It's hilariously bad. Riddled with it. I've seen dozens of
flaws with just a few paragraphs. It's very very carefully worded and has
gaping statistical flaws and false conclusions. Even starting with the piece's
title and 1st paragraph you should be able to see the propaganda shell game
start shuffling around. I made my comment more for the sake of other readers
of HN. Instead I'll offer it as a geeky intellectual challenge for yourself to
take a fresh look at their report with a critical eye. Once you can spot all
the "fnords" in one piece of a propaganda you'll get better at seeing it
elsewhere as well. :)

~~~
spindritf
You keep repeating the ad hominem but there's not much to your critique.
Actually, you didn't offer a single valid argument and seem much more biased
than the report, I don't think HN is benefiting.

------
DanielBMarkham
Wow. I just got through reading and reviewing Fussell's book this was taken
from, Wartime. <http://i-heart.us/read-smart/wartime/> I was watching some
political commentary show a few weeks ago and one of the talking heads
mentioned it, so on a lark I got it from Amazon.

If you want to understand the war, I can't recommend this book enough. It's
not a history book like most of us are used to. It's more of a social history
-- the way things were and the way people experienced them. I know it changed
my view of WWII forever.

War is like death: when it comes we all must deal with it, and it is a great
horror upon us and society. It changes the world and the way people think
about things. When modern students look back at WWII, I don't think they have
any idea what they're really looking at. I am reminded of a section in the
book (not sure if it's in this essay, sorry, once I realized I already have
read this I skipped ahead) where two soldiers are getting off the boat at the
end of the war in New York. They were given cookies and candy. One remembers
that here they were for all intents and purposes cold-blooded killers coming
from hell, and civilians were treating them like kids home from summer camp.
Even many of the people that lived through it didn't understand the true
nature of the war.

Fussell did a great job with this article and the longer book. (side note: he
also did a book on WWI. Been meaning to read that as well. I believe both of
these books won some awards)

~~~
swang
It is mentioned in the book but it was referring to a Canadian returning home.

> The postwar result for the Allies, at least, is suggested by one returning
> Canadian soldier, wounded three times in Normandy and Holland, who recalls
> (in Six War Years 1939-1945, edited by Barry Broadfoot) disembarking with
> his buddies to find on the quay nice, smiling Red Cross or Salvation Army
> girls. >> 'They give us a little bag and it has a couple of chocolate bars
> in it and a comic book. . . . We had gone overseas not much more than
> children but we were coming back, sure, let's face it, as killers. And they
> were still treating us as children. Candy and comic books.'

------
edw519
Thank you, OP, for reminding us in the U.S. that Memorial Day wasn't meant for
barbeques and sales, but for _remembering_.

R.I.P.

Max Marcus, (1923-1944), KIA, Battle of the Bulge.

George Weissman, (1925-1945), DOW, Germany.

To the uncles I never met and the cousins who never came to be.

------
yequalsx
It was nice to read the article. My dad died last year. He was an infantryman
in 1944 & 1945 in the 3rd army. He lost a lot of friends and my uncles told me
that the war fucked him up. He became an alcoholic and never could fully shake
the demons. He could never watch a war movie or anything depicting war. He
also never could talk about what he experienced. I've realized that the ones
who talk usually didn't see any combat. My dad hated war and hated patriotic
fervor.

~~~
AlexFromBelgium
I wonder if it was harder on the American or the European soldiers. Going home
to a land where nobody knows what you've been through.. My grandfather fought
in WW2 and he talked about it all the time. But I feel like he got over it,
psychologically. Everyone here did it together.. I think.

~~~
lostlogin
That's a great comment. I have a thought that a few American civilians were
killed (Pearl Harbour and some kind of hot air balloon bombs from Japan I seem
to recall), but having the majority of the population have no idea what you
experienced has got to make it harder.

------
Aaronontheweb
My grandfather was a US Army Air Corps bombardier in WWII... During one of his
group's missions over Southern France (he was based out of Corsica) they had a
NCO from a ground division onboard, who at one point remarked "boy I'm sure
glad I'm up here far away from all of the chaos and hell on the ground." Two
minutes later a 3-inch piece of German flak penetrated the NCO's seat and
missed his balls by under an inch.

If you were a combat theater of WWII, nothing was safe. In the air, in a sub,
on the ground, in a civilian city under attack, on a ship, anything.

I recommend reading Stephen Ambrose's Wild Blue: [http://www.amazon.com/The-
Wild-Blue-Germany-1944-45/dp/07432...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Wild-Blue-
Germany-1944-45/dp/0743203399) \- it gives a realistic portrayal of the air
combat facets of WWII and features a lot of George McGovern's personal
experiences throughout.

------
rimbo789
Fussell's Great War and Modern Memory ([http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-War-
Modern-Memory/dp/0195133...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-War-Modern-
Memory/dp/0195133323)) is one of the great texts explaining WW1, though not
perfect. Hugely influential creating the view that WW1 caused a break from
Victorian to modern views and values. Fussell also passed away this week.

------
WiseWeasel
My grandfather was enlisted in the French infantry, driving horses to haul
their outdated artillery through deep mud. His unit quickly had their supply
and command cut off, and so they ate their horses and dispersed back to their
homes mostly on foot, surviving as best they could on what little they could
find.

Later, a couple men from the local resistance showed up at his house, having
learned of his experience with explosives. They asked him to join, and he
reluctantly agreed.

After he and a colleague blew up a local bridge, the SS came into town and
carried off an elderly business owner and respected member of the community.
They publicly tortured him and threatened to kill him the following day unless
those responsible turned themselves in. Allegedly, that night, my grandfather
was forwarded a note smuggled from the captive elderly gentleman saying that
he'd lived a full life, and to not under any circumstance surrender to the
Germans. He stayed hidden, and the SS executed their hostage. He never shared
the note with anyone, and for a long time felt the animosity of the people in
his community who reproached his actions and their gruesome consequences.

------
TwoBit
I'm no American flag waver, but I think the primary reason Germany had better
weapons was that they had years of head start in developing them. It makes me
wonder if this is why the US has since spent trillions trying to stay ahead of
the weapons curve.

~~~
smacktoward
I don't know about that. The Germans had the same head start on Russia that
they had on the US, but when the Russians came into the fighting in 1941 they
were already fielding the T-34 tank (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34>),
which outclassed any German panzer in a one-to-one engagement and may have
been the finest tank in the world. The best US industry could turn out in 1941
was the abysmal M3 Lee (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee>), which would go
on to get absolutely chewed to pieces by the Germans in the North African
campaign. Even the next American attempt, the iconic M4 Sherman, which was the
US' standard medium tank by 1944, was unimpressive compared to contemporary
Russian and German designs.

The big lesson of WW2, though, was that in modern all-out warfare the quality
of individual tanks didn't really matter. What mattered was the quantity those
tanks could be turned out in. The Germans, stung by the unexpected quality of
Russian tanks, had turned their efforts toward building absolute monsters like
the Tiger (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I>) and Panther
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank>). Those tanks individually
outclassed any Allied tank of the era, even the Russians'. But they were so
complicated to build that the Germans could only turn out a few thousand of
them, which was peanuts compared to the swarms of T-34s and Shermans the
Allies were cranking out. The tactical doctrine in 1944 was that it would take
five Shermans, acting together, to knock out a single Tiger; but US industry
turned out 12,000+ Shermans that year, while German industry would only turn
out around 1,000 Tigers, so five-to-one numerical superiority wasn't hard to
put together. No matter how fearsome the German tanks became, they eventually
got stung to death by swarms of less impressive enemies.

~~~
newbie12
Well put. Additionally, German industry was under heavy strategic air
bombardment, further complicating their ability to mass produce tanks. And
Tigers were vulnerable from the air, and the U.S. had nearly complete tactical
air superiority from D-Day forward.

~~~
lostlogin
Fuel was a big (bigger?) problem. Albert Speer was an organizational genius
and plane production (unsure about tanks etc) was actually increasing despite
the bombardment. Lack of fuel and pilots scuppered the air force. I'd love to
post the graph I can't find, but this Wikipedia article gives GDP versus year.
Until 1945 German output was increasing.
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_Wo...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#section_1)

~~~
josephcooney
Same with u-boat production. They still managed to build a lot in 1944, and in
the first few months of 1945 they built nearly 100.

------
hinathan
Neal Stevenson's Cryptonomicon does a pretty good job, in places, of calling
out some of the more terrifying and gruesome aspects of WW2 in the Pacific. It
reads so distinctly removed from the Hollywood version but this piece is a
good reminder of the depth and length of the discomfort and terror the ground
troops endured.

------
lukestevens
Related: the @RealTimeWWII project (<https://twitter.com/#!/RealTimeWWII/>) is
an ambitious, and very compelling re-telling of the war. You really feel the
tension, especially with the Dunkirk evacuation
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation>) just starting.

Personally, I don't think I could handle multiple daily updates for the next
six years, but it's fun to check in with now and again.

------
blacksqr
I recommend reading everything by Paul Fussel, who never got over his rage at
being exploited in war and seeing his best friend killed in France, and used
his lifelong career in English literature as an instrument to communicate it.

------
MattRogish
You kind of have to hope if more people (politicians, general public,
enlistees) saw the realities of war they may be less likely to start them.
There are a number of disturbing things about the USA Combat Robot / Drone
programs but one of them is removing the psychological impact of blowing up
another human being (bad guy, civilian). It seems like a path to increasing
conflict, not reducing it.

------
siavosh
Most of us at times have felt patriotic or romantic perceptions of battle and
war. In addition to this piece, Chris Hedges' "War is a force that gives us
meaning", will help vaccinate you from such notions and manipulations.

[http://www.amazon.com/War-Force-that-Gives-
Meaning/dp/140003...](http://www.amazon.com/War-Force-that-Gives-
Meaning/dp/1400034639)

------
forbes
Off topic: The author's son, Sam Fussell, wrote a very entertaining book
"Muscle". It is an eye-opening look into the bodybuilding sub-culture. If you
ever see a copy, grab it. Very entertaining.

------
greedo
Hard to take this article too seriously when it makes an egregious error
regarding the quality of US automatic rifles in the very first paragraph. The
M1 Garand was one of the finest rifles built, and George Patton considered it
the "greatest battle implement ever devised."

~~~
innolee
While the M1 Garand may have been one of the greatest battle implements ever
devised, it was semi-automatic, not fully automatic. The article probably
refers to the M1918 BAR.

~~~
greedo
There weren't many automatic rifles in use during the war; the BAR was one of
few since there were conflicting requirements. Most of the other "automatic
rifles" were really submachine guns; until the Stug44 came along, the
automatic rifle just wasn't that popular.

"They knew that their automatic rifles (First World War vintage) were slower
and clumsier..."

This implies that the Axis had a better automatic rifle, which wasn't the case
at all. The Wermacht didn't deploy an automatic rifle until the Stug44 in the
last year of the war. Instead, they relied upon their bolt action rifles to
provide protection to the core of the infantry unit, the MG34 and MG44.

The Japanese as well didn't use an automatic rifle in their infantry units,
relying on the Ariska bolt action. The Italians too didn't use an automatic
rifle to any extent.

If he wants to criticize the Army for using the BAR that's fine; but to imply
that US weapons (other than the atomic bomb) were inferior to their
counterparts is specious. The B-24, B-29, A/B-26 were far superior to any
bombers the Axis ever deployed. The P-51, P-47, and P-38 were outstanding
fighters.

The deuce and a half truck (that probably won the war) was far superior to any
truck the Germans had.

And other than a crappy bunch of torpedoes throughout the war, the USN was
equipped with excellent ships and aircraft. Sure in the beginning of the
conflict there were issues with hardware (Brewster Buffalo, Devastator torpedo
bomber, etc), but to make it as if the US equipment was trash is just
mistaken.

~~~
joe_bleau
Don't forget the VT (variable-time) fuse!
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT_fuse>) There's even a book about the
engineering development: The Deadly Fuze: Secret Weapon of World War II
(Baldwin, Ralph B.)

~~~
greedo
Yep, proximity fused anti-aircraft guns were essential in the Pacific.

I also think the concept of superior German technology is a tiresome and often
unsupported one. At the outbreak of the war there tanks were outclassed by
French tanks, they relied upon hundreds of thousands of horses, so on and so
forth.

High tech was almost a curse for Germany; they could never build enough wonder
weapons, and when one looks at the economic output of their opponents, the
matter was really a foregone conclusion. Individually, the US, UK, USSR and
even France before she capitulated had better economies than Germany. Now
economics isn't the sole determinant when it comes to warfare, but when you're
outproduced 3-1, and faced with opponents that are looking for unconditional
surrender your chances are rather slim.

~~~
nosse
Finnish officer once said to me that when Finnish defense forces ceased to use
horses at large,our mobility went greatly down. This happened somewhere around
sixties. Only when Sisu Nasu came to use the situation was fixed.

I can understand, as horse needs no gasoline, can move in snow, is small
enough to go between trees and is more silent than most engines.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu_Nasu>

------
rubypay
Same article, but reformatted to make it easier to read (for me at least):
<http://www.readability.com/articles/ikavpsvz>

------
antman
In my opinion the real nature of war described in a matter-of-fact kind of way
in the "Forgotten Soldier". In every chapter you think it can't get any worse,
but it does.

~~~
lostlogin
Paul Ham, Kokoda. It made me feel sick reading it. And I had never heard of it
until someone gave me the book. Closest thing to hell I can imagine.

------
taliesinb
If we are more journalistically enlightened now, what would be a good example
of mainstream war journalism detailing the horrors of war in Afghanistan or
Iraq?

------
_nato_
Also a great 'no-holds-bar' american piece is the following:

<http://www.online-literature.com/bierce/992/>

quite great.

------
_nato_
Thank-you. Absolutely Incredible.

------
swang
> "Good God," said S., shocked, "here's one of his fingers." S. stubbed with
> his toe at the ground some feet from the corpse. There is more horror in a
> severed digit than in a man dying: it savors of mutilation. "Christ," went
> on S. in a very low voice, "look, it's not his finger."

Is this referring to what I think it's referring to?

~~~
BrainScraps
I hope not - but probably so. Ugh.

P.T.S.D.

------
opminion
Most useful when shared with our enemies.

------
moldbug
Don't miss Nicholson Baker's _Human Smoke_ , far and away the best
introduction to a cynical interpretation of WWII.

~~~
Estragon
_Human Smoke_ is brilliant. I had no idea that Roosevelt was a virulent anti-
semite [1] or that starvation through blockade was a key part of allied
strategy.[2]

And TIL that between 500 000 and 3 000 000 Germans are estimated to have died
in the subsequent forced relocation back to German territory.[3]

A memoir of one soldier's experience in the Pacific which is along the same
lines as the Atlantic article is _Goodbye Darkness_.[4] It's a hell of a read.

[1]
[http://books.google.com/books?id=8HKQEJlAl9gC&lpg=PP1...](http://books.google.com/books?id=8HKQEJlAl9gC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[2]
[http://books.google.com/books?id=8HKQEJlAl9gC&pg=PA143](http://books.google.com/books?id=8HKQEJlAl9gC&pg=PA143)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_\(1944%E2%80%931950\)#Casualties)

[4] [http://books.google.com/books?id=nvPRNK-
Zo_YC&printsec=f...](http://books.google.com/books?id=nvPRNK-
Zo_YC&printsec=frontcover)

~~~
Steko
"I had no idea that Roosevelt was a virulent anti-semite"

For balance:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt%27s_recor...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt%27s_record_on_civil_rights#The_Holocaust_and_attitudes_toward_Jews)

quoting the whole thing...

"Franklin's mother Sara shared anti-Semitic attitudes common among Americans
at the time.[citation needed] Although anti-Semitism was common during the
era, it is argued[citation needed] that FDR was not anti-Semitic. Some of his
closest political associates, such as Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch and
Samuel I. Rosenman, were Jewish, and he happily cultivated the important
Jewish vote in New York City. He appointed Henry Morgenthau, Jr. as the first
Jewish Secretary of the Treasury and appointed Frankfurter to the Supreme
Court. Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin cites statistics showing that FDR’s high
level executive appointments favored Jews (15% of his top appointments at a
time when Jews represented 3% of the U.S. population) which subjected
Roosevelt to frequent criticism. The August, 1936 edition of "The White
Knight" published an article referring to the New Deal as the “Jew Deal.”
Pamphlets appeared such as "What Every Congressman Should Know" in 1940
(featuring a sketch of the Capitol building with a Star of David atop its
dome) that proclaimed that the Jews were in control of the American
government. Financier and FDR confidant Bernard Baruch was called the
“Unofficial President” in the anti-Semitic literature of the time. The
periodical Liberation, for example, accused FDR of loading his government with
Jews.[2]

During his first term Roosevelt condemned Hitler's persecution of German Jews.
As the Jewish exodus from Germany increased after 1937, Roosevelt was asked by
American Jewish organizations and Congressmen to allow these refugees to
settle in the U.S. At first he suggested that the Jewish refugees should be
"resettled" elsewhere, and suggested Venezuela, Ethiopia or West Africa —
anywhere but the U.S. Morgenthau, Ickes and Eleanor pressed him to adopt a
more generous policy but he was afraid of provoking the men such as Charles
Lindbergh who exploited anti-Semitism as a means of attacking Roosevelt's
policies.

In practice very few Jewish refugees came to the U.S. — only 22,000 German
refugees were admitted in 1940, not all of them Jewish. The State Department
official in charge of refugee issues, Breckinridge Long, insisted on following
the highly restrictive immigration laws to the letter. As one example, in
1939, the State Department under Roosevelt did not allow a boat of Jews
fleeing from the Nazis into the United States. When the passenger ship St.
Louis approached the coast of Florida with nearly a thousand German Jews
fleeing persecution by Hitler, Roosevelt did not respond to telegrams from
passengers requesting asylum, and the State Department refused entry to the
ship. Forced to return to Antwerp, many of the passengers eventually died in
concentration camps.[3]

After 1942, when Roosevelt was made aware of the Nazi extermination of the
Jews by Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Polish envoy Jan Karski and others, he told
them that the best solution was to destroy Nazi Germany. At Casablanca in 1943
Roosevelt announced there would be no compromise whatever with Hitler. In May
1943 he wrote to Cordell Hull (whose wife was Jewish): "I do not think we can
do other than strictly comply with the present immigration laws." In January
1944, however, Morgenthau succeeded in persuading Roosevelt to allow the
creation of a War Refugee Board in the Treasury Department. This allowed an
increasing number of Jews to enter the U.S. in 1944 and 1945. It also financed
Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg's work in Budapest, where he and others
helped to save 100,000+ Jews from deportation to death camps. By this time,
however, the European Jewish communities had already been largely destroyed in
Hitler's Holocaust.

In any case, after 1945 the focus of Jewish aspirations shifted from migration
to the U.S. to settlement in British mandate of Palestine, where the Zionist
movement hoped to create a Jewish state. Roosevelt was also opposed to this
idea. When he met King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia in February 1945, he assured
him he did not support a Jewish state in British mandate of
Palestine.[citation needed]"

