Chaplin on record?

Is Chaplin on record anywhere commenting on the Korean War? Or did he eventually begin to lay low on American politics? I'm not, believe me, trying to start another thread war, I am just curious about this matter.

Not aware of any comment, but he was willing to toast Zhou en Lai, whose country's invasion of Korea prolonged the war (resulting in the deaths of thousands of UN soldiers) when it appeared that North Korea's aggression was about to be repelled after MacArthur's Inchon landing.

By this time, he had left the US. He can be seen in MA grinning affably with Zhou in Geneva during the closing days of the war,

which, you conveniently neglect to mention for the umpteenth time, was at the peace conference where the end to the carnage was negotiated. George, it seems, would rather human beings continue to blow each other's brains out rather than have a drink together and figure out some other solution.

Sorry Deb, but since George couldn't resist his attempt to mislead those who don't know any better yet once more, it's only fair to complete the picture.

Actually, it's not too surprising that no one has come up with any comment by Chaplin on the subject of the Korean conflict. When you stop and think about it, considering all that he could have commented on, Chaplin made very few unsolicited comments on the political events of his day. When specifically asked, as in the case of his notorious 2nd Front Speech, he would occasionally respond. But at that particular point in his life, for pretty obvious reasons, Chaplin was not making himself available for too many interviews.

Good people don't pose for happy, smiling pictures with people who kill other people, even if those people smile a lot and promise not to do it again. Furthermore, people who don't approve of good people posing for happy, smiling pictures with people who kill other people are not making a statement that they wish that the killing would continue.

But thank you for a fine example of half-assed Liberal logic, David.

And why should he have? The guy was a *movie actor*. Beyond the scope of his films, I don't know why anyone would have given a damn what he thought about ANYTHING, since he was obviously no great shakes as thinker.

What is it about a.m.c. that attracts so many right-wing grumps? You surely must have some better use of your time

Now there you go. I express an honest opinion about actors and politics, and you resort to personal name-calling and Reagan bashing. Must be a reflex with you people.

Why would a movie celebrity be at the peace conference? If so, then he must have had *some* interest in the Korean War, no?

<snip>

You must also have learned that the people who knew Reagan have been all over the news renouncing this book as fiction, including his daughter. Be fair Richard. Do you honestly think the Communist party would have turned down any American who wished to join them at that time in history? Also, I know it's off topic, but for the life of me I can't figure out why Nancy Reagan chose a British intellectual to write about the quinntessencial American cowboy. I feel Morris may have squandered a great opportunity.

It is a fact that during the thirties and into the early forties, Reagan was a liberal and was involved in a number of leftist activities which his more conservative contemporaries would have viewed as radical and suspect. Since I haven't seen Morris's book yet, I don't know what evidence he has for this claim.

The Communist party was somewhat careful whom it admitted to membership. It had to be. However, that didn't stop some CP members from trying to co-opt celebrities by claiming they were members, and Chaplin was one of the people who were burned by this.

However, I don't think the term 'flake' was current in US slang in the '30s and '40s, so that detail seems to me manifestly fictitious.

Also, I know it's off

How does Morris qualify as an 'intellectual'? I know he's published other books, but that won't do it per se. He strikes me as more pop than scholarly.

Connie K.

Now let me see. Zhou was a killer, and the Chinese Red army, which was in North Korea at the North Koreans' invitation, were 'invading' (to use George's word).

On the other hand, the American (and other Western) forces in the south, which were there at the South Koreans' invitation, were merely guests having a tea party and wouldn't have dreamed of killing anyone.

I must say this is a novel view of the Korean War.

I wonder why it was that my cousin Gerald, who was with the Marines in Korea, wrote to his mother that he 'loved to kill' the enemy.

The 'half-assed [conservative] logic' of this post hardly qualifies you as a judge of anyone else's thinking ability.

It's rather like Lou setting himself up as a judge of the quality of Chaplin's thought. What a joke.

Connie K.

That wouldn't be anything like the reflexive Streisand and Fonda bashing would it? Nah, I didn't think so.