[henkster]

There is some truth to what you say. Despite Stalin’s machinations in the Non-Aggression Pact to avoid it, the defeat of Hitler was accomplished at the cost of copious amounts of Russian blood. They took casualties that the Americans would never have accepted in fighting overseas. Of course, the Russians took most of those casualties in defense of their homeland, and their brutal regime didn’t care what it cost to win. The people dying had no say in the matter.

But yes, the entire American way of war is based on substituting firepower and production for combat deaths. You can look back as far as the Civil War to see it’s true; draft riots in New York, bounty men deserting at the first chance to enlist in a different state, etc.... That’s all part of our history.

[Mr. Jeeves]

What was interesting is that the Japanese were well aware of it, and based their entire defense of the Pacific on the concept that the Americans - once they had suffered too many casualties on remote and useless islands for domestic politics to tolerate - would simply declare victory, state that Hawaii and the rest of the Pacific were now safe from Japanese aggression, and give up any thought of taking the war all the way to Tokyo.

Had Walter Cronkite been as senior and influential back then as he was in the 60's, they might have gotten their wish. Fortunately, the sacrifices the Marines made at Tarawa pissed off enough of the American public to re-invigorate the will to win that Pearl Harbor had initially ignited.