Talk:Mothers' movement


 * Copied from WP:RD/H for processing. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agnes Waters argued that FDR wanted to rule the world as a communist dictator in league with the Jews! Her whole world view is so bizarre that it is difficult that any woman, let alone six million, could have been attracted to this movement. Her range of conspiracy theories were even more outlandish than those of the Nazis. Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, had, so she said, invited Hitler to attack Britain to allow him to raise taxes. When Hitler invaided the Soviet Union in 1941 this came by Stalin's invitation, because he needed an extenal threat. Her political logic gets even worse, and it's difficult to believe that any person could entertain such conflicting views without actually being clinically insane. Roosevelt and the Jews were conspiring to end American independence by returning the country to the rule of the British Empire. This would then be merged with the Soviet Union; Christianity would be outlawed, and a world government would be created, ruled over by Roosevelt and Hitler!!! Hitler, you ask? He hated the Jews, how could he possibly unite with Roosevelt, the Jew lover and Communist. Well, you see, the Nazi leader was secretly a Bolshevik, and would declare himself to be so at the end of the war. Where, one has to ask, were the men in white coats?

The ever resourceful Mrs Waters had a 'cunning plan' to thwart this dastardly scheme. First, impeach Roosevelt, before making Henry Ford commander-in-chief. Second, abolish conscription in favour of drafting all of the convicts, and let them do the fighting. And what if there were not enough convicts? Why, that's easy: take Mexico, Central and South America and force all those Latins do the fighting for you. How one was to achieve this with an under-strength convict army is not quite clear. The indomitable Mrs Waters was ready for the Jews though; "Just let the Jews come in and the pistol-packing mamas will take care of them. There will be nothing left of them." So, no need for the convicts then!

Compared with Waters Elizabeth Dilling appears almost sane, though her malevolence was much more purposeful and to the point. When the Senate debated the Lend-Lease legislation in February 1941 she led a delegation of 500 women from Chicago to Washington, where they picketed the Capitol and harranged senators who were in favour of the measure. For all this she won over only one senator-Dennis Chavez from New Mexico. Catherine Curtis, a fellow anti-semite, founded the 'Women's National Committee to Keep the U.S Out of the War' shortly after Hitler invaded Poland. Growing in influence, she later took over the leadership of the larger National League of the Mothers of America. In this capacity she went on a speaking tour, blaming British imperialism for the war. Her friend, the aviator Laura Ingalls, flew over the White House, dropping Curtis' anti-war leaflets on the way. Ingalls was later discovered to be a German agent and a traitor.

Yet another of these 'wild women' of the right was Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, who set up 'We the Mothers Mobilize for America' in February 1941. By the early summer of that year the group was claiming a membership of 150,000 women nationwide. For Hyning Jesus and his disciples were all gentiles, except, of course, for Judas. The Jews had inspired the the American Civil War, the assassination of Lincoln, the First World War and the Second, as well as the election of Roosevelt.

This alliance of right-wing groups did not disperse, unlike other non-interventionist groups, after the United States entered the war. If anything, some became even more viciously perverse. One member of the Philadelphia branch of the National Legion of the Mothers of America said that that the attack on Pearl Harbor had really been the work of the English, flying the Japanese flag; another that she would willingly be shot for treason, rather than fight on the same side as the Soviet Union. But in the end they counted for little, hardly surprising when one considers the delusions and fantasies which filled the minds of those who took on the national leadership. What puzzles me, and the question I would have to ask, is why a national movement of pacifism and non-intervention, reasonable enough positions, whether one agrees with them or not, came to be controlled by the kinds of people normally to be found on the more outrageous fringes of politics and society? Clio the Muse 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agnes Waters
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=1865 (...) Agnes Waters did not lead a group of women but gained prominence as a self-appointed ultraconservative spokeswoman.  Waters, who had campaigned for women's suffrage, served as secretary of the National Women's Party, and had registered as a Democrat, oddly metamorphosed into a rapid anti-Roosevelt commentator, openly protesting the immigration of European refugee children, conscription, and Lend-Lease. (...)

So Agnes Waters was not the leader of anything in the anti-interventionist movement. You have to wonder- why then does she figure so prominently in the book on which this article is based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falange (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing groups?
The article refers to the Mother's Movement as "an alliance of leftwing groups." Being that they were anti-communist, anti-Roosevelt, and pro-Nazi isn't it hard to say there leftwing? I would change it, but perhaps someone knows something that I don't that would make these groups "leftwing."

ChipMD (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to have been a provocation by 69.86.204.215, keen to assimilate the Mothers' Movement to Code Pink (an assimilation which I imagine members of Code Pink would reject!) "Left-wing" is also a characterization that members of the Mothers' Movement would have rejected. So I'm reverting to the earlier "right-wing". Dsp13 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatent neutrality problems in the article
I've tagged the article as NPOV. Its neither neutral nor is it a history of the political movement of that name. These are the issues that need to be fixed.

1) The introduction "anti-World War II, pro-Nazi, anti-Communist, anti-Roosevelt and anti-Semitic groups" is an overt political characterization which is inaccurate and untrue. Its too sweeping and too political for an introduction. The article needs a neutral description of the movement.

2) "Unlike other non-interventionist groups, this alliance of far right groups did not disperse after the United States entered World War II, and became even more vocal." - Overt political conclusion with no support provided.

3) "harangued senators" - Overtly political characterization.

4) "When Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States in 1941 during World War II, several groups began to rally against the United States joining the war." - The use of Hitler in the statement is an attempt to infer that the group are nazis. The statement is not accurate in that these same groups opposed American entry into the war before 1941.

5) "small minority" and "far right women" are both non-neutral political characterizations.

6) "This anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi group was made up of many organizations in different states" - overtly non-neutral and political.

7) "The members of these groups were very diverse in age, religion, class, and education, but the leaders were mainly white, middle-aged college-educated Christians from the upper middle-class." - The statement is unsupported and contradicts itself. They are diverse but not diverse.

8) "The leaders most likely learned their organizing experience from women's clubs, political parties or movements led by men." - The suggestion is made here (with source) that women are incapable of organizing or operating a movement unless they have been taught by men. Even with citation, the statement would seem unacceptable.

9) The overview of the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 is wildly inaccurate. It does not even bother to mention the outcome of the trial. It boils down the charges to "Nazism, racism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism" which is not even close to accurate.

10) "The Mother's Movement failed to accomplish its main goal of averting the social change they feared most" Overtly political. Makes a political conclusion about the movement not based on facts. The statement suggests the ideas of a "main goal", "social change" and "fear" without any supporting material. These are overtly political conclusions.

11) "The leaders of the movement mostly dispersed into different paths and most of them lost the distinction they once had during the 1930s and 1940s." It would be more accurate to say that movement ended with the end of the war. The statement about lost the distinction they once had is overtly political. The reference to the 1930s is not carried through in the rest of the article.

70.234.194.115 (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I made some edits which fixed many of the NPOV issues with the article. --darolew (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would note that 7, if it were supported, would not contradict itself. It's easily possibly for a groups membership to be diverse but for the leadership not to be. Actually this happens quite a lot. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)