Victor Davis Hanson: History’s Verdict, The summers of 1944 and 2004

NRO ^ | 7/16/2004 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Uncle Miltie]

Every time I think I'm getting smart, I read VDH or Steyn, and I'm put properly back in my place. This guy is freeking brilliant.

[baseballmom]

He makes such excellent points, Thanks for the ping.

[brothers4thID]

bump- because he GETS IT

[hobson]

This posted article didn't get very many comments so I assume many people missed it. Excellent but long read:

The Reality of Saddam’s Threat: The U.S. could not have delayed dealing with Saddam Hussein.

[LS]

*On Hanson's point about the hedgerows:

I have read a lot---not everything, but a lot---on WW II in Europe, and I have NEVER seen a reference to any intel given to the U.S. by DeGaulle's Free French forces! Yes, Allied intel failed, but WHAT THE HELL WERE THE FRENCH, WHO LIVED THERE, DOING? WHY DIDN'T THEY INFORM IKE AND CHURCHILL?

The more I read about DeGaulle, the more I think he was a pompous ass who we should have ditched at the earliest possible moment.

[LS]

Well, don't get carried away about Jackson. The Confederates, whether under Bobby Lee or Stonewall, took far higher casualties as a percentage of troops committed than did the Union in EVERY major battle, save one: Fredericksburg.

Given that in many cases the Rebs were on defense, this runs counter to all trends in military history, and is explained quite well by Grady McWhiney and Perry Jamieson, "Attack and Die," who trace Confed. tactics to the southern "Celtic" culture vs. the more northern Anglo-German culture.

[x]

Nonsense. If Hanson had been writing during Vietnam he'd turn out inspiring pieces comparing 1944 to 1964 or 1965 or 1966 or 1967 or 1968 ... The more "conventional" a war is the closer it fits Hanson's favorite scenarios, the Civil War and World War II. The more a conflict involves guerillas or terrorists the harder it is to fit it into VDH's analogies.

In 1944 you could see how far we were from Berlin, and assume that taking Berlin would more or less be the end of the war in Europe. In Vietnam one couldn't make such an assumption because of the way the war was fought. And that's all the more true today of Iraq. That doesn't mean that the war can't or won't be won, just that it's a lot harder to see how far we've come and how far we have left to go.

If you know some history, it's not so hard to make analogies between events, periods, leaders, and strategies. The tough thing is to see where the analogies don't fit or begin to break down.

[My2Cents]

Second guessing does no one any good.

This is why the Democrats cannot be trusted with the security of the nation. They wring their hands over the possibility of making even one mistake, and the result is they are paralyzed into inaction.

[Tribune7]

ping

[robowombat]

Because of the changes in perspective which emerged in the 60s it is doubtful that whatever sized war against what ever enemy will produce the sort of media support for the US and its armed forces that was seen in World war 2 or even Korea. The 'culture of critique' has become so ingrained in the psychology of university educated people that the people who become media types have a basically antagonist attitude toward any military operation that serves any sort of national interest as well as a deepseated contempt for the armed services in general.

Many liberals have become effectively radicalized by their educational experiences and they simply loath the United States and hate its institutions and feel a generalized hatred toward what can be called 'normal Americans'. Along with this is a visceral feeling that any conflict between an western nation (including Israel) and any turd world state is basically unjust an immoral.

During the Falkland's War I was amazed to see how the Laborite left melted down in a combination of rage, selfhatred, and pacifist hysteria. Aside from apartheid regime South Africa I would have thought that there was no government on earth more detested by the liberal left than those of Argentine junta and Pinochet's Chile. Yet when the vote to approve military action against Argentina finally came to the floor of Commons the Labor leader Michael Foot collapsed in incoherent rage and hysteria in opposing the measure. Subsequently after the war was ended and the Argentine junta fell and was replaced by another junta this time pledged to returning constitutional government (which they did) there was all sorts of ugly contemptuous commentary by the left media and 'intelligentsia' directed at the PM. the British armed forces and particularly at 'glorifying war' by having a victory parade in London and a request from the Queen for church's to have services of thanksgiving over the successful end to the conflict. This was really eyeopening to me. If the media and the left wouldn't rally around the concept of national unity in a war with a regime they loath then they never will in any conflict.

The same is true here as in the UK. Much of the media and the 'intelligentsia' and academia have been won over to cultural Marxism and they will never give unconditional support to their country even if we were invaded by space aliens. In a massive combat with a regime that embraces every value they hate such as the Third Reich today's radicalized liberals would not be able to give unconditional support to the US. Instead the press would in the name of 'fair and balanced coverage' dwell on every possible actual or potential shortfalling by US forces and give every benefit of the doubt to the enemy. If the enemy's PR operation were in the hands of someone as intelligent and nihilistically cynical as Goebbels US reporters would end up embedded with enemy forces and shown a carefully contrived propaganda image which would be played back as defeatist propaganda.

If anyone thinks the image of CNN broadcasting from an enemy position while those forces battle US forces just examine the coverage given the type of people we are fighting now. Could any group embrace more attitudes and prejudices repellent to American liberals as Jihadists Moslems. Fanatical, sadistic, misogynistic, homo-phobic, reactionary, and ignorant are all quite accurate descriptors of the terror bombers and Jihadists in Iraq or Afghanistan of at 9-11. Is this given voice in media coverage of the war. More in depth reporting has been and continues to be done over the supposed lapses at Abu-Ghrib Prison than about the aims, beliefs, and motivations of our enemy since 9-11. We already have a fifth column in our midst and from now on ever will. Whether it will be possible to ever conduct major military operations lasting beyond a few weeks without having to deal with strong doses of defeatism, deliberate demoralization and studied hatred for those who fight for us is doubtful and it bodes great evil now and in the future for this nation and its loyal citizens.

[Temple Owl]

Please put me on your VDH ping list. And thanks for the post.

[RottiBiz]

Thoroughly appreciated both posts. Thanks.

[carton253]

I will get carried away about Jackson. He won while outmanned, outgunned, and outsupplied. In my opinion, he was the best general this country ever produced. I can tell by your post you would disagree. Oh, well!

With all due respect to Grady McWhiney and Perry Jamieson, I think their theory is a bunch of bunk. But, they've published a book and mine is not ready for the publisher yet. So, there you go.

Give me Stonewall!!!!!

[LS]

Well, you can like Jackson's abilities all you want, but he was NOT "outmanned and outgunned" by very much in many of those battles. Moreover, if you are on defense, the enemy needs to have a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage to be successful, yet Stonewall lost a higher percentage of his men in almost every engagement.

There are also a lot of intricacies of Civil War combat with which I'm sure you are familiar, namely that the Confed. "divisions" were much heavier than Yankee "divisions," and therefore if a Southern division was arrayed against a Yankee division---regardless of the reserves available---the weight was with the Rebs. So I don't buy the "outgunned" theory. Later in the war, at Gettysburg, for ex., definitely, but not up until 1863.

[carton253]

Yeah, yeah, yeah!

I'll give Jackson the credit he is due...even if you won't... :)

Have a great day!

[carton253]

The yeah, yeah, yeah in my previous post comes from the fact that I don't have time to really debate it... (which would be fun) and I'm frustrated because I would love to have the debate.

Darn work! Gets in the way of my freeping...and defending my beloved Stonewall!

Needless to say that I disagree with you...maybe at a later date we could compare notes, etc. Jackson was outmanned, outgunned, and outsupplied but he managed to win against those odds. His victories came because of his military genius and no other reason.

Maybe this weekend!

[Charlotte Corday]

Another excellent column by VDH as always. His historical comparison of the mistakes in WWII vs. today is spot on.

But remember one thing. Despite all the blunders and missteps in WWII, despite the deaths necessary and needless, every couple of weeks the pins on the map closed in a little more on Berlin and Tokyo.

To talk of "victories we can't discuss" and "attcks that never happened" works with the minority of literate and knowledgable patriots, but has little or no effect on the millions in the Mushy Middle.

There has to be an awareness somewhere of what victory over Islamic fascism will look like, and of how we get there.

And I think it's connected with Rudy Giuliani's (very correct) approach to law enforcement in that it's the perceptions of the little things that count. If, in 2015, we're still taking our shoes off in airports and having a collective aneurysm every time a discarded paper bag is spotted in a subway car, America's perception is going to be that this is a war that can never and will never be won.

[Valin]

Second guessing does no one any good. Bad things happen in war. We have done quite well.

That's exactly Victors point.

[Valin]

get exasperated when I even read posts on FR by Freepers, who think they could run this war so much better than the people in charge. The only thing I would say...if you can, then you owe it to your country to get log off your computer and offer your sword and life... (you being a rhetorical you)

I call them armchair commandos.

[shhrubbery!]

I have sometimes despaired over what you have accurately described as the fifth column in our midst, composed of the so-called educated elite and the leftist media.

But I am no longer so pessimistic. There has begun to be a backlash amongst some of our young --a small one, to be sure, but strong enough that the fifth column will not be able to roll on unopposed.

More and more parents are homeschooling their children, and alternative institutions of higher education, such as Patrick Henry College, are springing up to 're-seed' the culture with graduates who value the ideals of our founders, rather than reinforce the leftist 'culture of critique.'