I meant both. That era brought about some of the greatest tyrants with some of the most vast modern (at the time) military power the world had ever seen. Yes, you're correct that tyrants still exist. But do they exist on the level of a Hitler, a Tojo, or a Hirohito? No. Saddam was on the run within months after ground troops arrived. Hitler opened a two front war against two superpowers and lasted longer before Soviet troops pillaged and raped Berlin. The tyranny that the greatest generation rid the world of had the power to completely reshape the world. I'm not so sure you can make the same claim about Saddam. That said, you're probably right about the use of the word "Fascism" being more appropriate here.
The victory over fascism was no small task, though, to be fair, the Red Army was the decisive force there.
As for other tyrants, Saddam was in power, and actively supported by the US, for over a decade. Something like a million people died in the Iran-Iraq War. My point was less about tyranny in general, and more that there was a very substantial number of dictators who were explicitly and actively supported by the US, if not put in power, during the time period you're referring to as a sort of golden age (for what it's worth, in terms of improving living standards in the Western world, I won't argue with that characterization).
Also to be fair, the worst of the murderous tyrants in that period, Mao and Pol Pot, the US had little or nothing to do with.
The Post-War Cohort has a timeline of 1928-1945. Dr. King was born in 1929. He can safely be included with the generation we're talking about even if he was only 16 by the time the Imperial Japanese surrendered.
Fair enough. White people of that generation were also involved in fighting the Civil Rights Movement, of course.
Productivity does not = hard work.
The definition of hard work seems to be normative, then, if we eliminate all discussion of objective measures (hours worked, productivity). The best we could do here is trade anecdotes, and I'm not sure that will get us very far.
What we just came out of was a bad recession, not a depression. Though it was bad, you don't see people living out of cardboard boxes in Bush or Obamavilles. Further, I was actually referring to the numerous government programs put into place, more strict government regulation over banks, and the creation of the FDIC.
There's no agreed upon definition of depression (a recession is negative growth for 2 consecutive quarters), but "bad recession" would seem to be the closest thing to it. As for the welfare state, most of that was put into place in the New Deal in order to deal with the Recession, though you're correct that some of it was under the Johnson administration.
Now that you've expanded on your argument I find a lot less to quibble with, while noting it's important to take into consideration the general thrust of geopolitics and such at the time. No generation exists outside its own context.
