I Dare Say -- Police the world? (3-18-43)

The Pittsburgh Press (March 18, 1943)


Police the world?

By Florence Fisher Parry

And now talk is rife in Washington about our policing the world when the war is won for the Allies.

I think it is an unhappy phrase. I think it should quickly be dropped, and some other wording devised.

Police the world? We?

It has an ugly sound, an ugly connotation, made more so by the cruel events of the past ten bitter years.

It has always been an ugly word, invoking the feeling of compulsion. And now more than ever it jars upon the sore heart of mankind. This very war – yes, and all other wars – was brought about by mankind’s revolt against force. And the very word police suggests force.

Is there no other phrasing to convey that we are not going to replace one force with another? Is there no other wording that will carry reassurance to the world that we are going to safeguard the world, not police it?

What, indeed, is the matter with this very word SAFEGUARD? It is a good word.

Safe. Guard.

Safely watch over and protect: that’s what the word means. Safeguarding from harm.

The power of a word

It is important, the way we use words. Words, chosen to indicate a course of human behavior, have changed the course of history. They can poison and they can heal. They can divide and they can unite. Consider some of the words which, in our own country, in our own language, have changed whole trends of thought.

The word Democrat. The word Republican. Consider these two words. No words could be more American; they spring from the very soul of our nation. This is a democracy. It is also a republic, BUT – in the past decade, the word democracy has become a world word; it has become a word of common usage all over the earth. The world is fighting for democracy. The word has come to mean freedom, deliverance, every benign status of mankind.

Who shall say to what extent the rise in power of the Democratic Party (as opposed to the Republican Party) is attributable to this happy new connotation of the word Democrat? For all over the world, the people of all countries and all languages know the meaning of the word democracy. So, when they hear of the Democratic Party, they leap to the conclusion that it is the party which favors democracy.

Here in the United States, there are millions of voters who have this idea. While abroad the notion is prevalent that because our President is a Democrat, he is the representative of the party here that believes in democracy!

O the power of a word!

Now let us take another word: the word capital. Encouraged by the administration in office, the word capital, in the last 10 years, has fallen into grave disrepute. And with it, its sister words industrialist, banker, Wall Street, privileged class, financier, any word, in fact, that denotes success based upon economic security.

In peacetime, the decline of these words, in public esteem, was serious enough; but when the war overtook us, it could have produced a cleavage between capital and labor which would have brought destruction upon our war effort. The administration at least had to recognize this danger and take quick action to prevent its damage to America at war.

So, what did it do? It changed a word. It changed the word capital to the word management. For the duration at least, we were to eschew the phrase capital and labor, and instead embrace the phrase management and labor. And behold! A truce!

Danger ahead

Now it has come to be recognized that after the war, peace will not come at once. Safeguards for the peace will everywhere have to be thrown about, to insure its maintenance. But surely, we must set about at once to reassure those who are to be restored to freedom that it is freedom and not another policing system. Oh, I should think that Europe would be tired of the word police, never mind how benignant its functioning! The people of Europe have lived under policing of one sort or another for too long to trust it in any form. A more reassuring word, a more reassuring method, must be found!

And besides, who are we to impose OUR policing upon the world? We are strong and magnificent, and more than any other country, trusted. But our ways are not their ways, our systems not their systems; and I think it would be presumptuous of us to impose upon them OUR idea of world management. It smacks of superiority and smugness. It is premature. It is – a mistake.


Wait… Why 10 years?


Remember that funny-mustache man? That’s why.


It was his 10th year in power 1933-1943 and only 990 more to go in the 1000 year reich.


1945- XXXX in afterlife. Amazing plan indeed?


What about pasta man? Why forget that guy.

Only pasta man can use his splendid military in the most efficient way possible to not achieve the Roman Empire and lose instead and then become a puppet of hitler. Amazing plan indeed!


Well, nothing have changed there, since Donald claimed the election was rigged and stolen and some states are now trying to limit voting rights. Really difficult for a European to understand - it really seems that the US is splitting in 2, and the 2 sides really hate each other. We have 8 parties in the danish parliament, so everybody now how you must compromise to get it going. Major legislation is always with a huge majority cross the middle, so it won’t change after next election. On the other hand, our present high welfare, high taxes model is what the Democrats wants and what the republicans fear. But we know it can work.

I’m sure that you’re government works better than ours. The only thing our parties are United on now is let’s punish Russia for being bad. Oh and that daylight Savings time is good. I think your view of differences between republicans and democrats are outdated. Both parties spend way more than we make. Both parties have the same goal…to maintain their power over the money.

Washington DC seems more and more detached from the rest of the country. The individual states are becoming the only governments which represent it’s constituents so maybe splitting up could be in the cards. There is no clean way to do it though so I hope it doesn’t happen.

I don’t trust my government, I trust my media even less. I’m republican but I doubt I could name a dozen republicans in Washington I think are worth a damm. Money corrupts and power corrupts. The US won the Cold War and we are just on the edge of collapse 30 years later than the Soviet Union. We have 100k strong military in Europe right now. Why? To protect peace or just to protect our business. Russia is proving themselves to be weak so what does NATO do now? A strong NATO is destabilizing and the US should bring it’s troops home. Russia is right to be afraid of NATO and all the drum beating.


I think so too. I don’t want to go on about this as this is “modern politics” but the simple “Democrats = good” “Republicans=evil” most media is pushing here is just way to simple. In the US like in Europe a lot of politicians get Campaign funding or in the case of Europe straight out fat cat jobs from companies. Schroder is a good example as he like other politicians(including a Dutch ex-Minister) was bought and paid for by Gazprom. Interestingly European countries are often much more focussed on the US elections and politics than on our own.

I do think too that there is a huge escalation risk building up and the politicians and people who wanted to hollow out defence budgets in the past are the loudest.

Right now “the strategy” seems to be to send weapons like stingers (against helicopters/low flying planes) and Javelins against tanks to make the price of invasion too high probably. Patriot missiles against high flying targets or planes are not send to “not to escalate”.

The question to me it, what is the end game/ solution? Or will it become a new Syria/Libya with very long wars which completely destroy the country, also conducted by foreign hirelings. These wars would be fantastic new for the Arms business and maybe for the politicians who can now play tough girl/guy to correct the obvious mistakes in the past. (not building up the European side of NATO which was asked for multiple times. And note Putin HAS NUKES! I am not so sure it ends well.

1 Like

I know the difference, it just want to point out how difficult it is for an European to understand US politics. That said, I know that the many Democrats wants a Scandinavian style society, but that are called communism by some republicans. So Danes are Democrats by nature, because we know that a country can have high social security, free healthcare, free education, high unemployment benefits, high taxes but still a population among the happiest in the world. Furthermore we are very innovative and have a surplus on the state finances. A fact that few republicans seems to realize or wants to study more closely. I am a conservative, which is smimilar to be an republican. So the lack of understanding goes both ways.

But my primary concern is that the 2 sides in US seems to hate each other more and more. Just compare CNN and Foxnews. To me, some of that stuff tends to be propaganda. On aviation channels on YouTube Boeing and Airbus are seen as the primary enemies, but only Putin will benefit from that.

As far as I know that is known in US politics to be COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA. Your country must be in complete disarray, but able to bribe the media to hide it.

Yes. And we may accept that we can not bet on American election results for our future.


Agree, :wink: According to older economic models this is not possible, and thats what politicians had been taught. Its like the Bumble Bee: no one ever told it that by theory its not able to fly, so it keeps on flying.

Our model even has its oven name;

What is the Flexicurity model?
The Danish employment system’s combination of flexibility and security is often described as a ‘golden triangle’. The Danish model, known as the “flexicurity model”, combines high mobility between jobs with a comprehensive income safety net for the unemployed and an active labour market policy

1 Like

Agree, and that will make Europe stronger and safer in the long run. Further more EU had now suddenly become a major Geopolitical power that can run a economic and cultural war on its own. And I bet Sweden and Finland will become Nato members in the near future.

1 Like

In one sense yes but we need a kinetic defensie as well and not spend as it is 1950 when we REALLY needed the US for their defensie umbrella :open_umbrella:. That is what the US has been asking for since many years, mostly to be rebuffed. So I think we basically agree here across continents.

Not sure what a cultural war exactly means ( the EU and US states arguably encompass different cultures)

By that I mean termination of sport events and cultural interaction. We have been told that sports was not political, but for Putin, sports have always been used for political branding.

Agree, and I understand them in many ways and I had always thought that we should pay our part of the price. But I guess US, especially Trump, did not understand the European situation very well, and he was cheering for UK in the Brexit case. How could he think that a divided Europe would be to the nenefit of anything.

I read your post as we had to prepare for Trurmp coming back - is that correctly understood?

Thanks for the explanation I didn’t understand your point so asked. I have like a double feeling on this. E.g.I agree not to help Putin and boycotts help but I respectfully disagree with banning Russian athletes from the Paralympics. Not just for morals but also it might help Putin as it makes “us/EU” come across as spiteful if that make sense.

Same with banning Russian composers see below, that in my view only hardens the tensions. Not to forget that the Russian culture is also European culture. (although my Northern Siberian indigenous art is technically Asian).

Under the veil of hurting Putin and Oligarchs the motto seems to be keep buying their oil/natural gas and go after disabled athletes and cleanse dead composers. This in my pushes the wrong buttons with Russians who often complain about “Western arrogance”. Maybe we are not so fantastical and open mind. I will take the defense part separately.


1 Like

Sorry but this finding from the 1930s no longer holds. After that effective helicopters :helicopter: and vortex generators have been invented. Helicopters are not so good in flying as airplanes and thus also more expensive to rent.:open_mouth:

1 Like

There was no drum beating. Most of US personal in Germany was not busy with defending Europe (or some profits) but beeing the logistical hub to Africa, Middle East and Afganistan.
The military presence of NATO (non Polish) troops east from Germany was tiny and just symbolical.