NationStates Jolt Archive


Do you think that people today have unrealistic expectations for war?

Von Kleve
13-05-2006, 16:47
May 12, 2006
In the Eye of the Beholder
Imagine if we’d reported and opined on WWII the way we do now.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

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 P.O.Ws?” “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.

©2006 Victor Davis Hanson

I think this article makes a good point. Is there any war waged in history that could stand up to the current "media" standards for warfare? I'm not saying the military should receive carte blanche and be free to behave in any way possible, but the current climate seems to suggest that anything less than the 'perfect' war is unacceptable. In the war in Iraq american KIAs have yet to reach the military predictions for the initial invasion, which I believe was over 3,000. I don't really think that the american public could stomach fighting WWII in our current climate.
Ifreann
13-05-2006, 16:50
The media don't want a perfect war, it's so much easier to make news out of a bad one.
Ultraextreme Sanity
13-05-2006, 16:53
Its a brilliant piece of work .
Mikesburg
13-05-2006, 17:03
I think a significant difference between the era of WWII and modern day military involvements, (other than the obvious increasing presence and importance of the media) is that WWII was largely about a) retaliating against the Japanese, b) liberating allied nations, and c) crushing the axis forces who most definitely waged a war of aggression.
Kzord
13-05-2006, 17:04
My only expectations of war are flying bullets and explosions. I'd said that's pretty realistic.
Franberry
13-05-2006, 17:06
Yeah, you could argue that WWII was a defensive war, as the Axis attacked the Allies

While the current Iraq war is nothing fo the sort
Ashmoria
13-05-2006, 17:09
no i dont think that people have unrealistic expectations for war

i think that governments have unrealistic expectations of people's willingness to send their sons and daughters to fight and die for poor reasons.

they seem to think that they can start any war they like anywhere in the world on any pretext and we should all be willing to spend the lives our our countrymen on it

those days are gone by. for the US, they died in vietnam. we are no longer willing to let the government do as it likes without question.
JuNii
13-05-2006, 18:07
The media don't want a perfect war, it's so much easier to make news out of a bad one.
there's such a thing as a Perfect War?

news to me...
JuNii
13-05-2006, 18:13
no i dont think that people have unrealistic expectations for war

i think that governments have unrealistic expectations of people's willingness to send their sons and daughters to fight and die for poor reasons.

they seem to think that they can start any war they like anywhere in the world on any pretext and we should all be willing to spend the lives our our countrymen on it

those days are gone by. for the US, they died in vietnam. we are no longer willing to let the government do as it likes without question.if this I tend to disagree. when one becomes a soldier, it's known that that person will face the probability of dying in some confrontation. Their job is not just to defend their countries citizens and interest but to also go where they are ordered to go and do what they are ordered to do.

as for those days being gone, not so. what is gone is the fact that people accept that wars can take years, not just months. that people, both combatant and innocent will get hurt and killed.

all the hype of high tech weaponry gives the public an expectation of a Quick War. go in, kill the enemy and pull out.

Vietnam taught us that better weaponry won't win the war.
Santa Barbara
13-05-2006, 18:22
Ah now we have the reminiscing for the good old days of media.

http://www.rotten.com/library/imagery/propaganda/racist-propaganda/prop-scrap-sm2.jpg

Yeah, that's what we need. :rolleyes:
Ashmoria
13-05-2006, 18:26
if this I tend to disagree. when one becomes a soldier, it's known that that person will face the probability of dying in some confrontation. Their job is not just to defend their countries citizens and interest but to also go where they are ordered to go and do what they are ordered to do.

as for those days being gone, not so. what is gone is the fact that people accept that wars can take years, not just months. that people, both combatant and innocent will get hurt and killed.

all the hype of high tech weaponry gives the public an expectation of a Quick War. go in, kill the enemy and pull out.

Vietnam taught us that better weaponry won't win the war.
im not talking about soldiers. im talking about the will of the people.

we are no longer willing to let the government decide to send our sons and daughters to fight and die for stupid reasons. we no longer blindly accept whatever lie they tell us.

with iraq, it has become all too clear that we went in on a lie and that we have no real business there. the longer it goes the fewer people are willing to spend american lives for a lie.

compare that with an equally messed up situation in afghanistan. even though we have met few of our goals there, the orignal reasons for going in still stand and there is no great public outcry to get us out prematurely.

besides, it was our own government who fed us the lie that we could get in and out of iraq quickly. are we to blame for believing them? if we had been told that we would be there for a decade and lose many thousands of US lives, we would have refused to go. and rightly so. especially if we had been told the truth about how sketchy the case against iraq was.

when (if) we ever again face a war we need to be in, we'll find out if the public has unrealistic expectations or not. until then, there will always be great resistance to wasting lives on useless wars.
Dontgonearthere
13-05-2006, 18:29
Ah now we have the reminiscing for the good old days of media.

http://www.rotten.com/library/imagery/propaganda/racist-propaganda/prop-scrap-sm2.jpg

Yeah, that's what we need. :rolleyes:
Ahhh the good 'ol days when you could make stereotypical caricatures of your enemies to explain why they needed to die.
*sniff*
Ifreann
13-05-2006, 18:29
there's such a thing as a Perfect War?

news to me...
Yes, the one ended by pre-emptive surrender. Sounds pretty good to me.
Eutrusca
13-05-2006, 18:29
"Do you think that people today have unrealistic expectations for war?"

Most assuredly. I mean, after all, TV can solve even most complex problems in 30 or 60 minutes, and even a miniseries can resolve the most intractable issues in four or five installments. What the hell is wrong with those idiot soldiers anyway? :rolleyes: [/NUCLEAR LEVEL SARCASM]
Bodies Without Organs
13-05-2006, 18:31
Do you think that people today have unrealistic expectations for war?

Expecting peace has been ruled out as entirely unrealistic then, yes?
JuNii
13-05-2006, 18:40
"Do you think that people today have unrealistic expectations for war?"

Most assuredly. I mean, after all, TV can solve even most complex problems in 30 or 60 minutes, and even a miniseries can resolve the most intractable issues in four or five installments. What the hell is wrong with those idiot soldiers anyway? :rolleyes: [/NUCLEAR LEVEL SARCASM]
OK Soldier... does the IAEA know about you useing that level of Sarcasm?!? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO DO! :mad: GET THESE FORUMS IN TROUBLE!!!

:D ;)
Eutrusca
13-05-2006, 18:44
OK Soldier... does the IAEA know about you useing that level of Sarcasm?!? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO DO! :mad: GET THESE FORUMS IN TROUBLE!!!

:D ;)
Ha! All your island is belong to us! :D
JuNii
13-05-2006, 19:05
Ha! All your island is belong to us! :D
really?? Honestly and Truly?

Yay!! FREE, FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY WE'RE FREE AT LAST!
*dances*
I can now become an amway salesman, buy me a condo and drink colorful drinks with those little itty bitty umbrellas on them... :D
Serandar
13-05-2006, 19:52
Wars without popular support have been waged throughout history. There are occasions where if a war is unpopular enough then it can be halted by public opinion. The Mexican War of the 1840's is one instance of that.

The deciding factor in modern times is the reasons for the war starting. WWII was a clear reaction to attack from a known aggressor. The cause was clear and the the goals were clear.

Since that era we have been dragged into two wars under false pretenses by politicians.

The first taught us that we could not blindly follow a leader into conflict. It taught us that we needed good reason and clear cut goals before going in or support for the war would fade. In that case support quickly faded and the war became unpopular and pulled down that leader.

The next was started with broad public support because of an attack from a foreign aggressor. It soon came to light however that the invaded country had no connection to the attack. The other reasons for the war were soon shown to be blatant lies and fabrications. Also it was shown the those in charge of the running of the war were engaged in actions that went against the ideals of the nation.

In both cases if the media can be blamed for the unpopularity of the wars it is only because they informed the citizenry of the country about the facts. That is what they are supposed to do. They are the public's watchdog on the government. That is why they are protected by the Constitution.

The piece quoted above shows how facts can be "spun" by the language used to show a certain view point of the facts.

An informed country is to be sought after. That is what a democracy is built on.
Dinaverg
13-05-2006, 20:47
Ha! All your island is belong to us! :D

All your island are belong to us.
Dododecapod
13-05-2006, 20:55
Expecting peace has been ruled out as entirely unrealistic then, yes?

Totally unrealistic. In the past Two Thousand years, we've managed to rack up not quite one year's worth of days without war, somewhere in the world. And that only because inter-tribal wars of non-literate peoples haven't been counted.

Humanity makes war. There are gaps between wars; we call them "peace". This is not going to change, until we have either evolved to a different form, or wiped ourselves out.

Or both.
Mer des Ennuis
13-05-2006, 21:03
Actually, we responded in WW2 to a known attack from Japan by invading Germany... hardly a direct retaliation.
Mariehamn
13-05-2006, 21:09
WWI would be far more interesting than WWII, seeing as to how WWII is generally considered in public opinion as a worthwhile and noble war for freedom against evil, facist tyranny and such.

Now I just can't stop imagining what modern media would do when the Golden Horde arrived in Europe. *drools*
Serandar
13-05-2006, 21:29
Admittedly attaking Germany may seem a stretch after Japan attacked us but the facts tell us something else.

Germany, Italy , and Japan had signed treaties of mutual military support forming what was reffered to as the Axis Powers. The treaty was signed as a warning to thr USSR and USA to leave those countries alone.

When we declared war on Japan we were declaring war on Germany and Italy as well. That is why we invaded Italy on the way to Germany.
Bodies Without Organs
13-05-2006, 21:33
Actually, we responded in WW2 to a known attack from Japan by invading Germany... hardly a direct retaliation.

Surely the first response following the attack from Japan was to wage war on the French, no?
JuNii
13-05-2006, 21:41
Surely the first response following the attack from Japan was to wage war on the French, no?
Smack! that's why we attacked Germany... because they attacked France before we could!

makes sense now.
Dobbsworld
13-05-2006, 21:45
I think people are far too willing to accept war, particularly shakily-conceived wars of aggression, on general principle.
Francis Street
13-05-2006, 23:02
Actually, we responded in WW2 to a known attack from Japan by invading Germany... hardly a direct retaliation.
Japan had a direct alliance with Germany, and Germany declared war on the USA first.
Francis Street
13-05-2006, 23:05
I think people are far too willing to accept war, particularly shakily-conceived wars of aggression, on general principle.
What are you talking about? People are generally much, much more prepared to accept wars of defense than wars of aggression. Most people oppose non-defensive wars on principle. That's why politicians always have to fool us into thinking that there is a threat to us.
JuNii
13-05-2006, 23:07
What are you talking about? People are generally much, much more prepared to accept wars of defense than wars of aggression. Most people oppose non-defensive wars on principle. That's why politicians always have to fool us into thinking that there is a threat to us.
and why the WAR DEPARTMENT was changed to the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
13-05-2006, 23:13
those days are gone by. for the US, they died in vietnam. we are no longer willing to let the government do as it likes without question.
Unless, of course, they're doing it for the children.
Ifreann
13-05-2006, 23:16
Unless, of course, they're doing it for the children.
Won't someone please think of the children?
Mariehamn
13-05-2006, 23:20
Unless, of course, they're doing it for the children.
It is self-evident that one must "do it" for children.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
13-05-2006, 23:22
Won't someone please think of the children?
Last time I was caught thinking of the children, the judge sentenced me with five to seven years. Fortunately, these days I'm better at hiding my visual aides . . .
Ashmoria
13-05-2006, 23:26
Unless, of course, they're doing it for the children.
there are days when id love to sign my son up for the army....

now that hes too old to sell to the gypsies
Dobbsworld
13-05-2006, 23:31
What are you talking about? People are generally much, much more prepared to accept wars of defense than wars of aggression. Most people oppose non-defensive wars on principle. That's why politicians always have to fool us into thinking that there is a threat to us.
I wasn't comparing wars of defence with wars of aggression. I said simply that I think people are far too willing to accept war on general principle. That principle doesn't serve the community well where shakily-conceived wars of aggression are concerned.

What're you talking about?
Ifreann
13-05-2006, 23:31
It is self-evident that one must "do it" for children.
I think you'll find that people have a lot of reasons for doing it. Do you think Bush is doing it for the children right now?
Ifreann
13-05-2006, 23:32
there are days when id love to sign my son up for the army....

now that hes too old to sell to the gypsies
Too old? I'm 18 and my parents are still trying to sell me to the gypsies.
JuNii
13-05-2006, 23:41
Too old? I'm 18 and my parents are still trying to sell me to the gypsies.
my parents sold me to the Gypsies... but they returned me and demanded a refund. :(
Amestria
14-05-2006, 21:33
I would like to point out that during WWII there was censorship of the Media and public speech by the American Government.
Deep Kimchi
14-05-2006, 21:35
Yes, people have an unrealistic expectation for war, but that's nothing new.
Strasse II
14-05-2006, 21:40
Yes, people have an unrealistic expectation for war, but that's nothing new.


The nature of war is cruel and terrible. As a result people shouldnt be surprised if cruel and terrible things are taking place in a war.

And if you ask me, that whole "Guantanamo Bay" crap is nothing compared to what has happened before.

I was expecting much much worse.
Romanar
14-05-2006, 22:25
The fact is, war is hell. It may be neccesary, but it should never be desirable. If the President of the USA says we're attacking a country because it's trying to develop WMDs and we don't FIND any WMDs, either the Pres was lying, or our intel sux. Or any combination of the two. I understand that mistakes happen in war, but when a war starts off as a mistake, that makes it a lot harder to accept the inevitable problems.
Ashmoria
14-05-2006, 22:41
Yes, people have an unrealistic expectation for war, but that's nothing new.
thats certainly true.

in the US civil war the north had 6 month enlistments thinking that it would only take a couple months to put down the confederacy.