So, I take it this is a picture of your current position?
Posted on 05/12/2006 4:41:46 AM PDT by Tolik
Imagine if we’d reported and opined on WWII the way we do now.
I think Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Henry Stimson, and George Marshall conducted the Second World War brilliantly, despite “thousands of mistakes.” But I can also envision how our present intelligentsia and punditocracy would have sized up their sometimes less than perfect efforts or applied their own reporting to the struggle against Japan and Germany. So imagine something like the following op-ed appearing, say, around May 1, 1945.
The Present Debacle
May 21, 1945 — After the debacles of February and March at Iwo Jima, and now the ongoing quagmire on Okinawa, we are asked to accept recent losses that are reaching 20,000 dead brave American soldiers and yet another 50,000 wounded in these near criminally incompetent campaigns euphemistically dubbed “island hopping.”
Meanwhile, we are no closer to victory over Japan. Instead, we are hearing of secret plans of invasion of the Japanese mainland slated for 1946 or even 1947 that may well make Okinawa seem like a cake walk and cost us a million casualties and perhaps involve a half-century of occupation. The extent of the current Kamikaze threat, once written off as the work of a “bunch of dead-enders,” was totally unforeseen, even though such suicidal zealots are in the process of inflicting the worst casualties on the U.S. Navy in its entire history.
Worse still, our sources in the intelligence community speak of a billion-dollar boondoggle now underway in the American southwest. This improbable “super-weapon” (with the patently absurd name “Manhattan Project”—in the midst of a desert no less!) promises in one fell swoop to erase our mistakes and give us instant deliverance from our blunders—no concern, of course, for the thousands of innocents who would be vaporized if such a monstrous fantasy bomb were ever actually to work.
We are only now coming off even more terrible losses in Europe, after being surprised by a supposedly defeated enemy in the Ardennes where another 20,000 Americans were killed and another 60,000 wounded or missing—again, due to our continued strategic incompetence and abject intelligence failures. Macabre reports of American bazooka shells bouncing off German Tiger tanks and our Shermans ablaze like Ronson lighters have only now come to light as we plow the Belgium countryside for yet another new American war cemetery. Tragically, this is not the first, but the fourth year of this war, when victory rather than endless bloodshed has been long promised.
A number of issues arise. Why is Henry Stimson (“Gentlemen do not read each other's mail”) still Secretary of War? After the debacles at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines tragedy, the Kasserine Pass disaster, the unforeseen bocage in Normandy, the Falaise Gap escape, the Anzio mess, the fatal detour to Rome, the surprise at the Bulge, the bloodbath at Tarawa, and now the Iwo Jima and Okinawa nightmares, is not five years of his incompetence and arrogance enough? A number of our retired generals seems to agree, who have recently bravely come forward to remind us that Sec. Stimson long ago tried to dismantle key elements of our intelligence services, attempted to curtail the operational command of our Army Air Corps generals in conducting bombings of Europe, and has on more than one occasion intervened to remove targets from Gen. LeMay’s campaign over Japan.
As we see thousands of Americans dying and our enemies still in power after four years of war, it is also legitimate to question the stewardship of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall. The Sherman tank tragedy, the daylight bombing fiasco, the absence of even minimally suitable anti-tank weapons and torpedoes—all these lapses came on his watch, and the man at the top must take full responsibility for mistakes that have now cost thousands of American lives. Indeed, it is not just that America has worse tanks and guns than our German enemies, but they are inferior even to the rockets and armor of our Soviet allies. The recent publication of “The Sherman Tank Scandal” follows other revelations published in “Asleep at the Philippines,” “The Flight of Gen. MacArthur,” “Gen. Patton and the Atrocities on Sicily,” “Do Americans Execute POWs?” “Torture on Guadalcanal,” “Incinerating Women and Children?” and “Civilian Massacres in Germany”—publications in their totality that suggest a military out of control as often as it is incompetent.
Such problems start at the top. It is not out of “Roosevelt hating,” but out of the need for truth that requires this paper to remind the American people that Mr. Roosevelt, in whose hands our collective fate lies, has been untruthful to his wife about his liaisons, untruthful to the American people about the extent of his crippling illness, and thus, not surprisingly, untruthful to the United States Congress about the extent of our prewar involvement with the British Empire in its European war and the secret nature of our present commitments.
Recently we have learned that President Roosevelt, the former law school dropout, once again has violated basic freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. Supposed German suspects were subject to military tribunals, tried in secret, and then executed. Tens of thousands of Italians, Germans, and Japanese war captives are detained in hundreds of American prison compounds, without charges and often in secret. How many were truly captured in uniform, and under what conditions, is never disclosed.
Unfortunately this violation of American values comes not in isolation, but on the heels of the unlawful internment of thousands of American citizens in Western concentration camps, the cover-up of the Cobra disaster in Normandy and the criminally negligent killing of General McNair, and still more rumors that hundreds of American soldiers perished in secret in training exercises on the eve of the Normandy invasion. Yet, the American people to this day have no precise idea how many of their enlisted men and officers have been killed, much less where they perished or how.
Indeed, what little we know comes to light only due to the brave efforts of a few unnamed operatives in the Office of Strategic Services who have in secret provided such information concerning patently illegal activities to the responsible news organizations.
Yet even this government’s propaganda efforts ring hallow, as we noticed with the recently released film footage purportedly showing Adolph Hitler incompetently handling a Colt .45 revolver. In fact, such a weapon, little known in Germany, is hard to load and shoot, especially the early model that the Fuhrer was shown trying to fire. To be fair, his apparent unease is not necessarily proof that Mr. Hitler was unfamiliar with firearms, much less fraudulent in his demonstration of military experience.
Remember as well that these clandestine transgressions of this administration follow a long record of constitutional disrespect—whether trying to pack the Supreme Court with compliant justices, unilaterally turning over our destroyers to the United Kingdom, or, well before Pearl Harbor, ordering, by fiat, attacks on the high seas against German submarines. Such abuses of presidential authority, characterized by intrigue with British agents and unauthorized spying on foreign nationals, go a long way in explaining the German decision to declare war against us on December 8, 1941, presenting the United States with the present catastrophe of a two-front conflict.
We can envision that when this lamentable war is over, fought with such malfeasance, the real heroes will not be Gen. Marshall, Secretary Stimson, or yes-men like Gen Eisenhower, but courageous mavericks such as a Charles Lindbergh or Senator Robert Taft, who long ago warned us that we were provoking an unnecessary war, one that, as they feared, was subsequently to be waged barbarically and yet incompetently at the same time.
The final irony is that we may well end up friendlier with our current fascist enemies than with our Communist allies. It is not hard to envision a policy looming on the horizon that soon coddles Hitler’s current friend Gen. Franco, while opposing his dire enemy Joseph Stalin. We have it on good authority that already there are postwar contingency plans to train and reform the Japanese and German militaries to serve as a bulwark against a Communist Soviet Union and a soon to be Communist China, as America readies for yet another war, one that may last not five, but 50 years. How ironic that a struggle that started out in 1939 to ensure a free Eastern Europe and China may well end up, at best, guaranteeing their enslavement to totalitarians every bit as cruel as Hitler and Tojo.
Citizens should not have to look to our actors and intellectuals for answers, but, in the absence of political accountability, they often do. After the release of The True Story of the B-17 Slaughter, Gary Cooper thankfully came forward to remind us how President Roosevelt took us into a British war that we were utterly unprepared for. Next look for Coop’s recently completed and powerful American Gestapo this fall. Likewise, Jimmy Stewart remarked from the front lines above Germany (so unlike our president, who failed to serve in any of America’s past wars) that it is hard to know who the real enemy is after we have bombed the children of Hamburg. And Clark Gable is currently preparing a documentary on the Pacific theater, 12/7, that outlines the racist nature of that campaign that seeks the extermination of all the living Japanese we encounter.
Finally, we welcome the upcoming courageous anthology edited by John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, and William Faulkner, Worse Than Our Enemies?, that charts the near criminal direction of American foreign policy under this administration’s plans of total and endless war, of preparing for a new imperial conflict against the Soviet Union before the current one with Germany and Japan is even over. It is in this context that the venerable John Ford recently resigned from the Navy, and instead will produce a series of films Why We Shouldn’t Fight that will reveal what was really behind this needless campaign of annihilation against the Japanese.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.
Thank you. That class of AEGIS Cruisers were named after famous battles. Though I did not like the command and personnel on the Chosin, I did like the ship and knew and appreciated the history of the name and battle. I am glad I was not part of the USS Cowpens.
So, I take it this is a picture of your current position?
So, I take it this is a picture of your current position?
Posting pictures of little boys on the Internet. Way to represent FR.
Hanson goes a little overboard on this one. It's mildly amusing, though he should stick to op/ed columns and lose the "historical" slant on these articles. He's good at ancient history and warfare, but I've never been a fan of his columns on modern war.
Some of us have real lives and don't have time to respond to nonsensical posts from keyboard warriors every day. That being said, I will do my best to put forth the effort sometime this weekend in between yardwork and preparing for an overdue vacation to throw you a few bones. How's that?
Well, this is indeed flattering. I never had a stalker before!
My point was that Hanson's article isn't just a critique of the "liberal media." It was written to get exactly the kind of reactions it's getting on this thread. He is appealing to the flag-waving uber-patriots who have been cheering on the Iraq war since before it even began.
His first mistake is comparing the war in Iraq to World War II. For one thing, Japan attacked us, Iraq didn't, and Germany, which was allied with Japan, declared war on the U.S. a few days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In addition, FDR never announced an end to "major combat operations" only to see thousands more soldiers die in a war with no real end in sight.
In short, Hanson's attempt at satire fails because he begins with a false premise. Good satire requires at least a modicum of truth. 
That is a picture of children in a duck and cover drill. They are hiding under their desks.
How does this picture damage the reputation of FR?
Does your reason have something to do with child porn? If so, you might want to reflect on the fact that you saw a picture of some little kids and the first thing you thought of was sex. The first thing I thought of was a duck and cover drill.
Interesting contrast, no?
Aw, isn't that cute! You think that's rhetoric, don't you? Here's a tip: If you post an assertion and somebody asks you to defend it, that's not stalking. If you can't handle it, FR is not the place for you.
His first mistake is comparing the war in Iraq to World War II. For one thing, Japan attacked us, Iraq didn't, and Germany, which was allied with Japan, declared war on the U.S. a few days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Wrong. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, but they were clearly engaged in hostilities against this nation. They were shooting at our pilots, tried to knock off a former President, and Saddam had openly called for terrorists to strike U.S. and British targets in the Gulf region. They had so close a relationship with Al Qaida that Richard Clarke predicted that Osama would "boogie to Baghdad" if he lost his harbor in Afghanistan, and Saddam was providing medical care to Al Qaida casualties.
In addition, FDR never announced an end to "major combat operations" only to see thousands more soldiers die in a war with no real end in sight.
If there's no end in sight, why are U.S. casualties down? Why is the Iraqi army responsible for more and more battlespace? Why are Al Qaida in Iraq internal documents lamenting them being on the losing end of the war?
Oh, and here's where I will take the opportunity to post my Questions of Iraqi Wisdom. Pay special attention to number six, it's just for you:
The Big Five +1 Questions of Ultimate Iraqi Wisdom!
Finish one or more of the following sentences and show us the boffo supra-genius reasoning that lead you to it:
1. Iraq was not a terrorist state, and my case for this assertion is...
2. Even though Iraq harbored, trained and funded terrorists, it was not a legitimate target because...
3. We should not be fighting the War on Terror at all because...
4. The current level of military casualties in a 4 year war that started with the slaughter of 3,000 noncombatants on our home soil in 90 minutes is a huge problem because...(Note: Before answering this question, you may want to review the number of casualties experienced by the U.S. in WWII, or at Shiloh or Cold Harbor, or in any particular week of the Tet Offensive.)
5. If we leave terrorist states up and running, I foresee the next major terrorist attack will be prevented by...
6. It's May 10th, 2001. President Bush announces that he's using his abilities under the War Powers Act to send the military into Afghanistan to overturn the Taliban regime because they are supporting Al Qaida in planned attacks on the United states. What's your reaction?
Oh, so I'm a "keyboard warrior"...which means what exactly? Sounds to me as if you're going into cheap shot mode because you've been called out. And by the way, I was asking for an answer to a week old question, I wasn't asking you to be at my beck and call.
That being said, I will do my best to put forth the effort sometime this weekend in between yardwork and preparing for an overdue vacation to throw you a few bones. How's that?
So, let me get this straight:
1. On the day I posted to you, you had time to have an epic sturm and drang with LS in the same thread, but you didn't have time to answer my simple post.
2. You didn't answer the same request from logophile or Minutemen.
3. Hanson's article was 1,663 words long, and you couldn't name an error right after reading it. I would think one would be pretty easy to find.
I can read that pattern: It means you've got bupkis.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Please forgive my original non-response to you. I figured that other posts on the thread would have answered your questions. Well that and a basic understanding of history. I didn't realize your inane post automatically needed a response. For the most part I just ignore posters that I know do not have a grasp on the facts to actually carry on the argument. But as stated I will do my best to respond in a timely and efficient manner so you don't feel left out of the 'loop'. I fear I am not able to establish a deadline as I'm going out of country at the end of next week and have preparations this weekend that must be attended to. Believe it or not, some of us don't live on the internet. However, I will do my best to respond most hastily
Believe it or not, some of us don't live on the internet.
2. Pretending that I am unreasonable or have no life because I've asked you to respond is just more tap-dancing. If I wanted you at my beck and call, I wouldn't have waited a week to ask for an answer, jive turkey.
3. A 1,663 word article, and you can't think of what was wrong with it? Yeah, right. Put up or shut up, and please, take your valuable time. But I am certain you will not return to me with a cogent response, because if you had one you would have done so already instead of whining and mischaracterizing my position in a childless manner.
By the way...I'm still waiting for an explanation of "keyboard warrior." Define it please, and then back up your characterization of me as one.
I have heard the theory that Lindbergh had the trust of the Nazis to the point that he was able to gather valuable intelligence about that state of the Luftwaffe for the US Military, and that secretly they had encouraged him to continue to publicly show pro-Nazi sentiments to continue to have Goering's trust. And the fact is that once the war started, Lindy wanted to join the Army Air Corps to fight in the Pacific Theater, but FDR refused. However, he still ended up flying 50 Combat Missions during the war. Lindy may have been wrong about some things before the war, but he gets a bad rap.
"War is a series of calamaties that result in victory." - Clemenceau
How do you establish that a particular poster lacks the facts to carry on an argument?
Mr Silverback,
Please dont get on my "case" about you not answering my response. I did not pressure you for an answer. Quite frankly I forgot about the post!
Oh no sir, I'm not getting on your case. I only pinged you because I was asking for an answer to the same question you asked.
Have a great weekend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.