Veterans surround Washington D.C. President orders military intervention.

Have you heard? Tens of thousands of veterans and ex-military marched on the capital. Depending on the source, the numbers range from 40,000 to 100,000.

The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand cash-payment redemption of their service certificates.

The Depression began after the manipulated stock market crash of 1929. Veterans were promised additional combat pay but were not eligible to receive it until 1945... but they needed it now.

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. Veterans were also shot dead at other locations during the demonstration. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite.

And who led the military attack on the veterans?

None other than WW 2 "heroes", General Douglas MacArthur, future President (Major) Dwight Eisenhower and Major George S. Patton who was commanding 6 BATTLE TANKS...

The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"

After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and tear gas (adamsite, an arsenical vomiting agent) entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack.The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

One common element seems absolutely clear, whether its hungry veterans, OWSers, the co-opted "Tea Party" or anti-war demonstrators, the government does not want you protesting.

Cant allow the slaves to have "too much" "freedom".

Many wonder if the military would move against the people. If history is any indication...

reply to post by gladtobehere


I think Patton just enjoyed the opportunity to battle anyone. And he was good at it.

If this happened back then, troops attacking possibly fellow troops they SERVED WITH, makes me think that our current trroops WILL turn on us if ordered to

Even with the event shown here there are still many foolish enough to think troops wouldnt fire on them.. history always repeats boys and girls .. remember you have the right to free speach but you better not use it .. big brother does not like any form of dissent.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Depends on how serious the situation and the protest. Depends on how the govt would perceive the chance of a major change in the power structure. Bottom line: Depends on threat assessment.

You start threatening the current power structure and look out...the Constitution will not be worth the TPaper you used today.

It is already obvious that the Constitution alone will not protect us, rather we must defend the Constitution.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Some would, some would not.

I am afraid if it came to that things would degenerate rather quickly with an unknown outcome.

The laws of unplanned consequences would reign supreme.

Expat888
Even with the event shown here there are still many foolish enough to think troops wouldnt fire on them.. history always repeats boys and girls .. remember you have the right to free speach but you better not use it .. big brother does not like any form of dissent.

Once the military began firing on civilians I would foresee a fracturing of the military structure. I believe Generals would take sides along with major portions of the troops they command.

The question is: How much support would Obama command once the military began to take sides?

There would also, likely, be many AWOLs.

HomerinNC

If this happened back then, troops attacking possibly fellow troops they SERVED WITH, makes me think that our current trroops WILL turn on us if ordered to

Sending the bulk of your legions overseas (for decades) to butcher people who aren't wearing uniforms? You wouldn't call that a grand exercise in "conditioning" would you? Yes. The troops that have been sent to A-cesspool-stan and I-crack without a snowballs chance of success will be conflicted. I'm sure the people in the JCS and the general officer corps will be happy to cooperate with the suits. I believe the current chairman of the JCS says he's can declare marshal law any time he wants to and he's NOT afraid to issue orders to shoot to kill. I believe his professional specialty is supply. Supplying obama with all the muscle he needs to stay in the WH indefinitely. Should be a hell of a show.

bbracken677

Expat888
Even with the event shown here there are still many foolish enough to think troops wouldnt fire on them.. history always repeats boys and girls .. remember you have the right to free speach but you better not use it .. big brother does not like any form of dissent.

Once the military began firing on civilians I would foresee a fracturing of the military structure. I believe Generals would take sides along with major portions of the troops they command.

The question is: How much support would Obama command once the military began to take sides?

There would also, likely, be many AWOLs.

they fired on citizens at kent state as well .. no fracturing occured .. troops when push comes to shove will follow orders regardless.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Many will, yes. The brainwashing and conditioning run deep.

When's the last time you openly disobeyed your boss at work? And the worst he can do is fire you. Military members who break the chain of command risk a court marshal, time behind bars, and possibly a bullet to the head.

So yeah, the young and dumb and corrupt among them will turn against us. But those older soldiers who understand what they're truly fighting for--and who they should really be fighting against--will become our greatest allies.

reply to post by gladtobehere


They were jobless losers who wanted handouts just like OWS, right? I mean, it's not like the government screwed them. Just like they didn't screw us with the bailouts. Right?

Oh wait... I see what's going on here.

yes, i've heard of this. when i first learned about it was during a movie about a another indecent that is has no firm evidence of it. happening.

the movie's name was in Pursuit of Honor. starring don johnson. it's a pretty good movie and i recomend that if you can find it watch it.
IMDB rates it at 7.4, i give 8.5 or 9. good movie.
the movie is about the transition of the U.S.Army from horses to mechanized mobility, well here's the wiki.

Plot
The movie opens in 1932 when World War I veterans are protesting and rallying in Washington D.C. for war bonuses they were promised but never received from the government, a true event known as the Bonus March. U.S. cavalry and infantry are present for crowd control. The mounted cavalry is ordered by Maj. John Hardesty (Bob Gunton), to present their sabers in order to hold back the protesters. First Sergeant John "Top" Libbey (Don Johnson), along with three fellow soldiers, refuse to raise their arms because the demonstrators were men they served with during the war. As a consequence, their military careers are tarnished and they are relegated to duty at a remote post in the American Southwest.

In Pursuit of Honor

there is a line in where Maj. John Hardesty says, i have twice been told to bear arms against my own men. or something to that effect.

again i say if you can watch it.

reply to post by ItCameFromOuterSpace



yep, patton loved a good fight.

HomerinNC

If this happened back then, troops attacking possibly fellow troops they SERVED WITH, makes me think that our current trroops WILL turn on us if ordered to

You got that right, Homer. And if anyone thinks otherwise, those are naive and foolish thoughts.

bbracken677
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

Some would, some would not.

I am afraid if it came to that things would degenerate rather quickly with an unknown outcome.

The laws of unplanned consequences would reign supreme.

This is true, there are many variables.

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by ItCameFromOuterSpace

 

yep, patton loved a good fight.

I heard stories from my grandmother about how the soldiers were getting locked up for all kinds of stuff (mostly blown out of proportion) I think it was in Louisiana so Patton got fed up with it and ordered his tank battalion to line up on the city and ordered them to release his soldiers.

It was a different era.

I would hope that if troops were told to fight the people , they would realize that while he is shooting at a family that there is a soldier just like him shooting at his family . Hopefully they will remember the oath to protect against enemies foreign and domestic......if that oath means anything anymore .

Grimpachi

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by ItCameFromOuterSpace

 

yep, patton loved a good fight.

I heard stories from my grandmother about how the soldiers were getting locked up for all kinds of stuff (mostly blown out of proportion) I think it was in Louisiana so Patton got fed up with it and ordered his tank battalion to line up on the city and ordered them to release his soldiers.

It was a different era.

i heard that story to.
but it was Phenix City Al. which i understand is just across state line from GA. and FT Benning and while he was at Ft.Benning he did this. i have seen where it is said he only threatened the chief of police to roll tanks if he didn't release one of his men where the charges were trumped up. could be urban legend, just like they say the story about the horses is.

Phenix City back then was the real sin city the way i understand it and the commanders of Ft. Benning new this and the then Secretary of War Henry Stimson called it the wickedest cit in the U.S. .

there is truth to the city being corrupt. and that the Feds and state had to step in and clean it up.

here is a link, not the best. all the others that i know of you have to register to read.

Wickedest City

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Yeah you probably have the locations right. I remember the action but not the place. My family moved all over the place as my grandfather was a roughneck for the oil industry. I am just glad I remember the stories but trying to remember the places all those stories are about gets difficult.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

i heard that story to. but it was Phenix City Al. which i understand is just across state line from GA. and FT Benning and while he was at Ft.Benning he did this. i have seen where it is said he only threatened the chief of police to roll tanks if he didn't release one of his men where the charges were trumped up. could be urban legend, just like they say the story about the horses is.

That sounds lioke the main plot to the movie 'Tank', starring James Garner
Tank