Sherman and total war
I’ve been reading a book by Robert Kagan entitled Dangerous Nation, about the history of America’s international relations. Kagan’s thesis is that, from the start, the US was more involved and interventionist, and less isolationist, than conventional wisdom would indicate.
But that’s not the portion of the book I’m writing about today. I’ve been reading the part about the Civil War. In the earliest days of that conflict, people thought it would be possible to wage the war in a relatively “civilized” and circumscribed manner. Instead, it was transformed into one of the bloodiest and most “total” of modern wars fought up till that time.
McClellan, Lincoln’s first Union commander, preferred to wage a “gentleman’s war.” Ulysses S. Grant later described McClellan as one who “did not believe in this war…[letting his] ambivalent attitude toward the conflict influence [his] military performance.” Thus do perceptions of a war’s justness and necessity color the decisions made in the course of it, even by commanders.
McClellan, who was relieved of his military duties in March of 1862, famously ran for President against Lincoln on an antiwar platform in 1864. He lost, partly due to the impressive battle victories of one of his successors, Sherman, who was his very antithesis.
Kagan writes about the ever-controversial General Sherman [emphasis mine]:
The northern generals who prosecuted the war most effectively , and most ruthlessly, had more understanding of its ideological purposes…”We are not only fighting hostile armies,” William Tecumseh Sherman declared, “but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war“….Therefore the North must “make the war so terrible…[and] make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it “…The Union’s conduct of the Civil War would remain, for American commanders in both world wars of the twentieth century, the very model of a great war…a war of ‘power unrestrained’ unleashed for ‘complete conquest.’
Sherman famously said “War is hell,” a stark statement that encapsulates the horror of war. He’s been accused of committing war crimes during the Civil War, but the evidence is that his campaign against the civilians of the South was mainly limited to destroying property, although it certainly caused a great deal of suffering–as intended.
Sherman also had a way with words. He’s the author of many famous quotes about war which show a fascinating combination of the compassionate and the implacable. Sherman felt the two were closely linked in war–in order to ultimately be compassionate, one had to be ruthless, because half-measures kept the population in an undefeated state, ready to wage war again:
Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and defeat.
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.
The scenes on this field would cure anyone of war.
War as a remedy for war–it seems paradoxical. And yet, it worked for Sherman. And it seems that the dreadful wars of the twentieth century–World Wars I and II–bore out the principle that if a war is bad enough that a people actually feels defeated (not just humiliated or tricked, but defeated and war weary), they are unlikely to start another.
The First World War, bloody and vicious though it was, was not really a total war in the sense Sherman meant, although it came close. Fought mainly by armies (although those armies were decimated; an entire generation of Europeans lost its “best and brightest” men) it was stalemated for an exceptionally long time, and ended through an armistice–and then a treaty, Versailles–that was so unsatisfactory in resolving it that World War II was not long in coming.
The reasons the Germans were able to come back so quickly to start another war, despite their defeat in WWI, are complex. But one of them was probably the fact that although they felt humiliated by the terms of the Treaty, they somehow managed to feel that they had not really been conquered. In fact, in his rise to power, Hitler played on that perception: German defeat was not a “real” defeat, but the result of a betrayal by domestic forces of a varied nature (including, of course, the Jews)–the “stab in the back” theory.
World War II was, by all definitions, a total war. It involved civilian populations far more heavily; in WWI, most of the civilian deaths had been from influenza and famine, but World War II featured heavy civilian bombardment as a common tactic of the war. In fact, it seems that the experience of the total war of WWII decisively ended even the idea of warfare for Western Europe. It made its inhabitants, harking back to Sherman’s words about the South, “so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it.”
Revulsion for what they suffered during World Wars I and II–compared to the relative lack of suffering on American soil–is part of what has led to European pacifism and belief in the talking cure, as well as their contempt for what they see as America’s tendency to resort far too easily to war. Europe feels itself to have been “cured” of war. The only problem, of course, is that the cure hasn’t spread to the world of Islamic totalitarianism. Au contraire.
The first Gulf War was very different than the American Civil War, World War I, or World War II. The Gulf War was waged in a comparatively “easy and safe”–and limited–manner. However, contradicting Sherman’s statement that such wars end in defeat, it was won by the US and its allies.
On reflection, though, Sherman appears to have been correct, after all. The Gulf War was “won,” but the win was so limited that it led almost inevitably to the present Iraq War. Saddam’s defiance at the end of the Gulf War; his massacre of those who, counting on our help, rose up against him; and his flouting of sanctions and inspections; clearly indicated that neither he nor the Iraqi people (except for his victims) had felt the sting of true defeat.
The present Iraq War illustrates the same dilemma of the “easy and safe” war leading to defeat–or, in this case, the perception of defeat, one that seems to have overwhelmed much of our electorate and our MSM.
“Easy and safe” (relatively speaking, of course; no war is either) is a good description of the initial military campaign of the Iraq War. The degree to which that first stage was “easy and safe” was the degree to which the forces now wreaking havoc there felt undefeated. At the time, it was “easy” for them to pretend to roll over during the initial war, which lasted only a few weeks, and then to regroup for the asymmetrical war they’ve been fighting ever since (a war which, like all modern wars, appeals to our own media–which certainly doesn’t seem to need a total war to feel defeated).
I am most decidedly not advocating using the civilian bombardment techniques of World War II in Iraq. But I am suggesting that we acknowledge that we need to be willing to do what is necessary to win, and to make the actual enemy feel conquered (a la, take out al Sadr and his minions, for starters), and not to just go for “easy and safe.” If we do the latter, we are doing no one a favor–including most of the Iraqi people.
[General Sherman on the topic of the MSM:
I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are.
If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.]
I am reading Sandburg’s Lincoln (one-volume edition). As late as Otober 1862, after 18 months of war including two summer seasons of terrific battles, he told a group of women visiting the White House that the chief problem with the war effort was that too many people did not believe the country was in a war that had to be fought and won.
Great stuff. Supposedly Sherman is an archetypal INTJ- he goes after his goals and rarely considers the personal costs in seeking those goals. He loved the South and Southerners and had a great respect for them. He just also felt that they needed to be completely destroyed for the War and suffering to end. He was right.
We lost 3% of our population in the Civil War, which would be equivalent to 9 million people today. I wonder if we would undertake any war at that cost these days, no matter the cause. I highly doubt it. How many lives would have been spared with huge early victories by the North in the beginning? How many would have been spared by the strong use of force at the outset of the occupation in Iraq?
Neo, you often mention the looting problem at the beginning- if we had dealt more harshly with it, a lot of the violence would have been stemmed. Here’s part of a post from captainsjournal.com about the Rules of Engagement:
“It has been said that the mission of U.S. troops more closely resembles that of policing than of making war, and so U.S. activities are so-called “Military Operations Other Than War.” But even this explanation suffers in light of the facts. Police are allowed to fire on criminals who are fleeing the scene of a crime. The ROE for U.S. troops does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property (not essential to the mission, based on CJCSI 3121.01A, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction; information on version .01B cannot be located, but it is assumed that this stricture has not changed). It has been said that when the looting began of the Baghdad museum, the U.S. forces had a golden opportunity to demonstrate the kind of security the population could expect to see. Unfortunately, our ROE prohibited U.S. forces from engaging the looters, thus giving the worst possible object lesson to the population.”
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/13/the-ncos-speak-on-rules-of-engagement/
via Instapundit
I couldn’t agree with your piece more. I have been sending in comments to various blogs on this subject for some time, however, none of my comments so eloquent as yours. What was once a Moonbat joke, “In order to have peace, we must make war” is a joke no more. It is a truism.
I see where you guys are coming from.We should have encouraged McArthur to nuke the North and the Chinese, it would be like passing through the flame to reach salvation!The world would be taught the lesson,in a tough love sort of way, not to mess with the forces of Good!When Churchill gassed the Arabs to “instill a lively terror” he was doing them a favor but he quit before they were pacified forever.This is exactly why I beat my children so harshly, just so I won’t have to do it again.Put’s the fear of God in them. If we do this one right , it can be the “war to end all wars”!
But here is where I am confused. Do we have to “unleash hell” on all Muslim fundamentalists worldwide or will it be enough to just nuke the Sadyrists? Will the rest get the freedom and democracy message if we only nuke Iraq?
Interesting warning sent by Sherman to a southern friend right after South Carolina’s secession:
“You people of the South don’t know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don’t know what you’re talking about. War is a terrible thing!
You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it …
Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors.
You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.”
In Iraq, allowing the looting was only a little bad — NOT allowing local tribal/ communities to set up local self-defense/ militia units was terrible.
However, the main point about Limited War is this: only the LOSER can end the war, when they decide to lose.
Sadr, the militant anti-US Shia, is not the main problem. The main problem is the failure to “establish justice, and secure domestic tranquility” — the Sunni-supported terrorist murderers need to be stopped, first. Only after the Sunnis stop killing Iraqis can Sadr be stopped, or else taking him out will just result in another taking over.
Sunni terrorists murder.
Shia death squads retaliate — with a death squad justice.
Death squad justice is better than none.
The Sunnis who support the terrorist killers are not fully innocent, even if they’re not as guilty as the killers. What is justice for such terrorist collaborators?
But let’s say the Civil War was started by an attack on Washington DC by a rebellious radical sect of 7th Day Adventists in Arkansas, intent on overthrowing the US and converting us all to 7th Day Adventism.
Do you think Sherman would have advocated total war on all the South as a proper response?
Sherman was only partially right. War not only is Hell but has to be Hell, otherwise nothing will be resolved.
I have always believed the greatest error of the Iraq war was not to grind it out so that at the end of it, there is no questions who won. as it was, the speed of victory was exhilerating but left conspiracy theories, as well as fighters who faded back into the population to conduct guerrila war.
“a rebellious radical sect ”
If this were truly the case, we’d see a lot more uproar from the “moderate” Muslims. We have NOT. It seems that Islam as a whole is either wrongly tolerating, or actively supporting the efforts of the fundamentalists by default, therefore, unless there is a radical change in the attitude of “moderate” Islam toward the efforts of the “radical sect”, I’m forced to believe that it is ISLAM itself that is the enemy. And yes, Sherman would have been justified in making war on the entire South-if the Confederacy had responded in the manner of “moderate” Islam.
Specious argument.
Dear Troutsky, who, but you said anything about nukes? What has the Korean War, waged by a beloved Democrat, got to do with Iraq. We fought that one with all we had except nukes and drove the enemies back home. We are still there (way, way longer than we have been in Iraq , about 56 years) waiting for round two. If you want to you could enlist and request to be assigned there. When are you going to criticize us for still being there, you fuuny, funny, innocent civilian, you?
Troutsky, it has nothing to do with killing all of the combatants and everything to do with breaking their will to fight. There is an enormous difference which surely you can appreciate despite your rhetoric.
The first Gulf War, despite being massive and relatively well-executed, almost fails to quality as a war. Its goal was to remove an enemy force from a piece of ground. That’s usually the goal of a battle, not a war. We didn’t win the war until 2003, and after that we began fighting a completely new and different one.
I think neo’s right in drawing the parallel between WWI/II and the Gulf wars, in that the first war did not prevent the second and may have actually led directly to it.
That said, I’m not sure unleashing the full horrors of war on Muslims would have the desired effect. In general, they seem to stand up pretty well under extreme conditions. Also, all-out war and occupation of Muslim countries would only confirm what their leaders have been telling them for decades.
I think the horrors of war should be directed at the imams and other religious leaders who preach jihad; at the corrupt tribal leaders, national governments, and business interests who finance jihad; at Arab governments and entities who train jihadis; and at any media concerns – from TV stations to publishing houses – that put the jihadis’ message before the public. Methods would include everything from propaganda campaigns to precision airstrikes to assassinations. Anything to make jihad intensely uncomfortable to the people who currently preach it and support it but let others do the bleeding.
But we would have to be open about what we’re doing – literally declare war on the preachers and supporters of jihad. That’s definitely a new kind of warfare. Not sure who’d carry it out. The CIA? Laughable. I’d say military intelligence and special operations, based on their experience in Afghanistan.
Any thoughts?
I, too, have been a long-time proponent of targeting the leaders of jihad. Covert Ops COULD play whack-an-imam every time one pokes his head out of a minaret. OR we could offer bounties to any indigenous Arab who takes out an imam. I’m sure there are plenty of Sunnis who’d line up to take out a Shia imam, and vice-versa. No bonus points for civilians, in fact, cancel all rewards if any innocents are killed. Make it too difficult for the preachers of hate and jihad to stick their necks out in public without risking losing their heads. Incitement to jihad should come at a very steep price.
Slightly OT (but still related to government sanctioned assassinations), hopefully we’ll see the conflict between Fatah and Hamas spread. With luck they’ll wipe themselves out and the Palestinian people will have a chance of getting out from under the yoke of their dysfunctional cult-of-death leaders. -cp
Sherman lived here for a while, in Austin, Texas, I think before the War, maybe after, but, in any event, before air conditioning. One of my favorites of his aphorisms was, “If I owned Hell and Texas, I’d rent out Texas and live in Hell.”
BTW I haven’t checked your blog for a while. My wife and I are about your age, and very married, so don’t take this the wrong way:The new hair style in the photo? Hubba, Hubba!
War as a remedy for war–it seems paradoxical.
So does the human race, Neo, so is the human race.
To save Palestinian children, we must kill Palestinian children and refuse to stay our hand at killing human shields. To save Japanese cities and lives, we must obliterate and annihilate Japanese cities and lives. It works, it is, it is quantum mechanics made real by human nature and behavior.
The reasons the Germans were able to come back so quickly to start another war, despite their defeat in WWI, are complex. But one of them was probably the fact that although they felt humiliated by the terms of the Treaty, they somehow managed to feel that they had not really been conquered. In fact, in his rise to power, Hitler played on that perception: German defeat was not a “real” defeat, but the result of a betrayal by domestic forces of a varied nature (including, of course, the Jews)–the “stab in the back” theory.
Neo, the German leader, the Kaiser and the aristocrats surrendered. It was a surrender based upon political machinations and needs, instead of military expediency. The German people and the German military never believed that they were defeaten because they WERE NOT. As with most wars in the 20th century, the leaders and politicians lost will, the grunts and foot soldiers never did.
After all, you have to remember that Germany sought Britain as an ally, not as an enemy, when Germany built up their naval armadas. A miscalculation of course, but then again, not every one can be a Blood and Iron Bismarck.
The basic reason for Germany’s military superiority is because of Bismarck, Von Clausewitz, and the Prussian military aristocracy. They were the hardcore tradition and discipline, that molded the German military machine into a disciplined and mighty army. After getting their arse kicked by Napoleon, of course, but still. One learns more in defeat than in victory. It wasn’t so much the Jews, but the Junkers. When they saw the American military come on the scene, they believed that a just and fair peace could be negotiated. After all, Germany never wanted this war to begin with. They didn’t want to fight Britain or America. In point of fact, a good statesmen would have wanted to ally with America and Britain. That would have created an Axis of Power that could have dominated half the world. Crowding out the Russians for sure, before they even got off the chair.
The armistice was signed, when Germany still had fleets of naval warships. In point of fact, one Admiral ordered his ships (held by the British in parole with the German crews on board) scuttled before the terms of the cease fire was heard. He did not want the British to benefit from German warships, to use on German cities.
The line of advance, wasn’t near the German capital. yet they still surrendered, because. Because they believed that a fair and just peace treaty could be settled. Of course, France and Britain made sure that wasn’t so. Vi
My response to you, Neo, turned into a rather comprehensive post here.
Some topics like German’y surrender in WWI was covered more at my blog. And some further primary documents on Sherman, was linked there as well, that you might intriguing and informative, Neo.
Link
When you read his letter to Atlanta in full, you start to get an insight into his mind. I had only heard Sherman’s quote that War was Hell. His philosophy was never described, and I didn’t know about it until I had read his own words. Sherman was a much more complex man than his quotes might portray him as. Sherman, himself, was one of the inspirations for how I saw Iraq, Neo. I read his letter a long time ago, perhaps more than a year. once I did, I began to understand why the war was unpopular and why it will become even more unpopular. Not just because of Jacksonians, but because the enemy in Iraq won’t stop fighting. If you can’t get your enemy to stop fighting, you cannot win, and if you cannot win, the Jacksonians will crucify you if you are holding back on victory because of “limited warfare” philosophy. Which Bush believes in, Bush believes in limited wars just like his father.
Americans will forgive you if you try your damndest but were defeated because the enemy was just better than you. Americans will not forgive you if you look like you are allowing the war to be lost, because you won’t unleash the Full power of America’s military. They will see YOU as the source of defeat, not anyone else. As America now sees Bush as the problem. Most Jacksonians know that Islamic fascists are the source of the problem, but Jacksonians also know that Bush is obstructing America’s efforts to eradicate evil. Failing because you tried your best is one thing, failing because you won’t try, is another.
I think if Neo ever goes on vacation she should let Ymar do the blog.
The idea to terrorize preachers of terror is a good one; but in practice it means liquidation of the whole Muslim clergy “as a class”, ising Stalinist cliche, because there is no moderate imams in sight. The are moderate Muslims, of course, may be, even majority, but it is a very silent majority. To modernize Islam you need to do exactly what Mustafa Kemal did in Turkey: impose on society a harsh military rule and decimate clergy. If such measures will some day begin, it will start in France or Danmark. In recent polls, 26% of French now support Le Pen – a good rise from four years ago 17%. Moderate fascism became more and more popular in Europe, and in a decade it can rise to power. I would not be really upset by this development, to be honest. Arabs deserve it.
Sergey, I thought you just wanted to build a fence around all of the Arab countries and take away their guns.
Steve, do not take everything so literally. “Fencing” is a methaphor, obviously. I mean creating “cordon sanitaire” of pro-Western countries around most barbarian Muslim countries, complemented with trade embargo on weaponry and double-use tecnology, as long-term (decades) goals of GWOT. As a short-term tactic, counter-terror against ideologists of jihad can help, and in some countries, creating military dictatorships with a clear goals of anti-clerical policy in Ata-Turk or Stalin style is a good option.
Sergey,
If this question steps on dangerous ground for you, please ignore it. But the your Rx might be good for your nation too. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but at the moment what the islamic clerics are to the mid east nations, powerful crime factions are to Russia. OT: Unlike most of the Western press, I’m not convinced that the Russian government was involved in the Litvenko murder.
Not sure fencing off the Muslims and taking their guns (as Steve puts it) would be even remotely possible. We’re talking about dozens of countries, billions of people, and God knows how many weapons left over from many years of warfare. I don’t think you can cut them off from the world – you have to deal with them in some way or other.
I just wonder – if we’re going to deal with them, as many prefer, diplomatically and economically rather than militarily, just exactly WHO the hell are we supposed to deal with? You can make peace with one faction, but as soon as you do some other faction starts killing you AND the first faction. Even if Israel and the PA signed a treaty that would give the Palestinians all the water and electricity they wanted, open up all the roads, remove all the checkpoints, tear down the wall, and let the Saudis build some condos, some group or other would be murdering Jews again before the ink was dry. Has this not been the history of Mideast peace efforts since the whole business started? Can you name an instance where a Palestinian group or government said “Wait, let’s talk” and the Israelis said “OK,” and then the IDF immediately blew up a refugee camp? (That’s a serious question, too – I don’t know as much about the conflict as Steve an some others, so I really need to know.) Given this apparently endless cycle, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to believe the Palestinians are basically intractable and, by extension, most of their Muslim brethren – who use Israel as the excuse for everything they do.
Fact-based people, tell me if I’m missing something here…
A spot of cultural history, especially for Herr Ymarsakar.
After WW-I, German veterans of all political stripes wore a small lapel button with the letters “IFNG” standing for “Im Felde Niemals Gesiegt” which translates as “On the battlefield, never defeated”. And they believed it…
Which is why Adolph’s first steps to war were so popular. He was fulfilling a long desire to right the balance by taking a victor’s share.
One worry I do have is that some day American veterans will have similar buttons on their lapels. I thought it might happen after Vietnam and I’m thinking that a sell-out would certainly give the concept a push.
Whether or not it achieves a critical mass depends…
Charlie – Not sure our military would behave like the old. Our guys have no aristocratic tradition. They don’t think of themselves as the the nation’s natural ruling class, and they have very little social or political capital to lose if they’re defeated. Our officers may resign in disgust, enlistments may fall off, but I wouldn’t look for any military coups any time soon. Besides, our Left is so paranoid that any attempt by a politician to openly woo the military would be met with howls of outrage – and rightly so.
that’s “old Prussians.”
This is one of your best posts yet.
McClellan nearly drove poor Lincoln crazy with all his foot-dragging and missed opportunities. But boy did Sherman mean business when he went through Georgia. I have always thought that’s what’s wrong with peacenik Jimmy Carter: Sherman scared those people down to their DNA and their descendents still have that defeat in their genes.
I love it when Ymarsakar acts as if he knows something about anything.
“Neo, the German leader, the Kaiser and the aristocrats surrendered. It was a surrender based upon political machinations and needs, instead of military expediency. The German people and the German military never believed that they were defeaten because they WERE NOT.”
The problem with this is that it is wrong. After the Spring Offensive of 1918, the German Army simply did not have any troops left. They had used up all of their reserves in one last attempt to split the French and British armies, and they failed. The Germans lost almost a million soldiers in a matter of months, while American troops had begun to pour into France to make good on Allied losses. By summer the Germans had lost all of their spring gains, and were soon loosing territory they had held since 1914. While there was no single engagement that saw the destruction of German fighting force, they simply couldn’t keep fighting.
Part of the reason the spring offensive failed was that German troops, on overrunning Allied supply stores, stopped to eat. They were starving, eating ersatz meat and artificial fats. The offensive ground to a halt for a variety of reasons, but this was an important one. Germany’s resources had been totally expended.
This is all historical fact, and easily learned if one were to pick up a book containing facts, rather than sci-fi books depicting made-up wars. But it’s good to give Ymar chances like this to expose himself by parroting Nazi propaganda; at least you know where he stands. I’m assuming that once he hits puberty and starts high school, his arguments will start to improve.
Interesting stuff, Charlie and David Foster.
Bugs, I think you are right about the factionalism amongst barbarian tribes. After all, the whole problem with fighting barbarians isn’t that they are tough to beat, but rather that they don’t know when to give up. You annihilate one barbarian tribe, and the rest of the tribes say to themselves, “oh that tribe that got wiped out, they were all full of women, we can do much better as Men against the infidels”.
One solution, is if you back the Kurds with 100% US military support, you can get the Kurds to conquer a large swath of territory. That way, you have somebody you can negotiate with, that you can trust. But that’s a long term solution, not a short term one. You want something that can get all the Arabs to stop fighting you, and only nuclear weapons are able to fullfill that requirement.
I think on its base, the American military has learned all it can from the Prussians. We are in fact, better than the Prussians. And not only because we beat them and their Panzer divisions, either.
The web of loyalties in the US, precludes what you saw in Germany, because Vietnam was the actual example of that. The Vietnam vets stayed quiet, even though they got a raw deal when they got back to the US and when the Democrats wasted all their sacrifice. Because, I think, their loyalty was to the Constitution, and so they obeyed civilian commands, regardless of the personal sacrifice. They were fighting for their nation, and they still are, when they spoke out against John Kerry.
The Germans had a fickle, aristocratic tradition, in which martial glory was emphasized. But the American people do not believe in invading for vengeance. Otherwise Vietnam and Cuba would be a nuclear crater at this moment. Because we have to remember, the Prussians were only a small, small part of the German population. Most of them were executed after the failed coup attempt at Hitler. And many died or were disgraced in WWI. The national character of Germany and America, were and are still very different.
I love it when Spank comes in here with his government ip and aliases, as if he can argue.
Can you give us any leaks, Spank? I’d like to see some insider info.
Get some more if you aren’t satisfied with what I’ve written here.
Bugs: I will make an attempt to set out my perspective on the matter.
As far as Israel-Palestine goes, peace has not always been top priority for either side.
As far as the Islamic world is concerned, it’s a complication of demographics and collapsed ideologies and superstructure.
To take the second part first.
What typically happens when there are large population fluctuations is that it puts strain on the infrastructure. There are two types of infrastructure. There’s the infrastructure that involves roads, schools, hospitals, and so on, and there’s the infrastructure that involves people’s attitudes about
their surroundings.
When you get a large population spurt, the infrastructure gets over-taxed and people become primed for rebellion. Exactly what causes the transition to rebellion is unclear, but there’s no question that there were (at least) large population spurts in France prior to their Revolution, in Russia prior to theirs, and Europe in general prior to the World Wars. (America absorbed a lot of the excess Euro population between the end of the Civil War until WW1, but all we got out of it was the IWW and a few terrorist incidents. Probably because we were so huge and largely unpeopled.)
When the physical infrastructure starts to break down, people get pissed. They become, among other things, alienated. They want changes, not just more roads. They stop being passive, they are ripe for all kinds of revolutionary leadership. They start questioning the status quo. This is also what happened in France, Russia, Europe after WW1.
What’s happening in the Muslim world is that population growth has over-taxed the existing material infrastrure. It has also over-taxed the social infrastructure. It is well on the way of creating “secular” Islam.
But there are many problems there.
The first problem is that the over-taxed infrastructure means that people are not being adequately taken care of. The second problem is that the population growth is interfering in the social infrastructure. It was common, for example, for farmer or herdsman to marry at a certain age, and have many children. IOW, a young man gets some assets, gets married, has kids, end of story. But there’s a tremendous number of what the Russians used to call “superfluous people” who have no real assets, and if they have a job, it’s some kind of BS bureaucrat job. Read Dostoevsky or Gogol to get a handle on what I mean. These guys have little hope of acquiring assets, little hope of acquiring social standing, little hope of marrying, and settling down. These people may, or may not be, poor. But their advancement is blocked because their social infrastructure is overloaded and there’s no room to move. Most of the 9/11 guys came from this frame of reference.
A third problem is taking people away from their villages, putting them in big cities, and putting them to work in factories. This always happens when there’s a big demographic bump. Typically, two things happen here. First, any city has a multitude of frames of reference. There’s no “one explanation” for reality anymore. So, people become secular. When they become secular, they start asking questions. Questions like, “Why am I working in this crummy factory/refinery while that guy drives a Mercedes and has six wives?” In short, in the Muslim world, they are asking the kinds of questions we Westerners asked before our revolutions, which also involved the overthrow of nobility. (Remember that much of the power in the Gulf is princely power.)
There are reactions to this process of urbanizing, secularizing, and industrialization. One reaction is fascism. That covers Syria, the former Iraq, and Egypt. The attraction of fascism is that it gives everyone an identity, that is, a national identity, and it tells a single story, so people have something to believe in again. Another reaction is retreat, but a calculated retreat. That is Iran. Iranians are not really religious fanatics, but they go along with the mullahs because it gives them a simple set of rules and interpretation. It’s easier than wide-open secularization, which is what we have in the US and Europe today. A third reaction is simple maintenance of the royal status quo, by force. That covers Saudi Arabia, and most of the rest. Of all the Arab countries in the region, Egypt, which is sort of post-fascist, and Jordan, which is sort of post-monarchical, are I think the most stable.
So what’s going to happen? It depends on where the demographic pressure is most severe. Off the top of my head, I think, today, the pressure is worst in the Persian Gulf region, comprising Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the fertile crescent along the Mediterranean, including Israel/Palestine. I think Iran is feeling its oats. I don’t think it wants to conquer anyone, but I do think it wants to dominate the region. That is not in our interest, and it’s not in Israel’s interest. However, it’s another question as to whether we (or Israel, if they could) would fight a war over it, because it would threaten to dislocate the global economy, which could create economic problems and the possibility of creating revolutionary situations all over the world.
First thing I should say, is that the likelihood of a western style democracy is not in the cards. The economic reality, and the historical tradition, do not support a democracy emerging for many decades. What you are likely to get is more countries like Egypt and Jordan.
There will probably be civil wars and/or revolutions in many of these states. These will be about jockeying for power. There will probably be many dead. There will also probably be many refugees, giving a strong Muslim flavor to both Europe and America. After 20-30 years, things will calm down.
The $64 question is, what’s going to happen to us, to Europe, to Israel.
9/11 proved that we Americans have an interest in the Muslim world. We have to guide, and backstop, them. What is the likelihood of a small terrorist group like Al Qaeda getting a nuke and blowing it in the US? I would say, first, a nuke is a bit of a step up from a box cutter: let’s not make these freaks into supermen. IF we work on our intelligence, and we maintain our security, we should be able to nip something like this in the bud. We aren’t going to make ourselves safer, however, by bombing various Muslim countries. All that will do is radicalize more people, swell the ranks of Al Qaeda, and create more refugees.
Obviously we can’t beat them if we don’t even know what they’re saying. I heard Ken Adelman say we have SIX Arabic language experts in our defense establishment. That’s absurd. We should have six thousand. Spend the money. It’s not hard a language, it’s no harder than Hebrew.
We have to integrate the Muslims. That’s not a problem for the US, we integrate and assimilate very well. It is a problem in Europe — where most of these plots are hatched — and in Israel, where integration is officially not done (but of course, unofficially it’s common.)
What is the risk of a state actor nuking someone? Well, let’s put it this way. I wouldn’t trust Ahmadenijad with an electric razor. The guy is seriously nuts. On the other hand, he’s not the real power in Iran. I wouldn’t be too concerned about him. He frankly should not be in power because he is deliberately inflammatory. Look for him to go in the next year or os.
Will Iran get nukes? Probably. Will the nuke anyone, esp Israel? No. Nuking Israel would end up making all of the Holy Places there, which are sacred to Muslims, radioactive, even a low yield bomb would kill as many Arabs as Jews, incidentally probably make large parts of the country uninhabitable. I doubt if if that would please the Palestinians much.
Iraq is probably going to descend into civil war, and that may lead to wars between Turkey/Kurds, Syria/Saudi/Sunni vs Shiite/Iran, and so on. But those won’t be nuclear wars. If there are great casualties, and large numbers of refugees, the US will probably get blamed for it, because we deposed Saddam, but it won’t really be our fault. We would probably end up taking in many hundreds of thousands of refugees, however. We’re good at that.
What about Israel and the Palestinians? I think you are right, the Israelis cannot stop being vigilant, because there’s always going to be someone ready to start shooting. The problem is that Israeli expansion has occurred in such a way that it is now thoroughly enmeshed around and in the Palestinians.
I think for the first 20 years after 67 the Israelis did not intend to give up the West Bank. I think they were hoping that the Palis would get tired and leave and/or accept Israeli suzerainty. What changed that was the first intifada. It was only after that, I feel, that Israel seriously entertained giving up land for peace. Of course, not all Jews nor all Israelis like that idea. That’s why the first Israeli architect of the idea, Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated.
Of course, the Palestinians haven’t been interested in peace, either. Under Jordanian control, the Palestinians were hassled by the Jordanians, and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from where Israel now stood (some of whom were forcibly expelled, see Rabin’s memoirs) were confined to UN administered refugee camps, where they, and their descendants, still live today.
Arafat got his start way back in ’65, when he tried to blow up an Israeli water line (yes, even then it was an issue.)
The Palestinians who left where Israel is today, or who were forced to leave, want to go back. It’s impractical of course, but, since they’re confined to refugee camps, what’s the alternative? They really have no place to go, so, they have made the old homes an obsesssion, complete with wearing door keys around their necks. That is why, in any future peace, the Israelis are going to have to bite the bullet and say “I’m sorry” about those expulsions.
Of course the Israelis cannot actually allow the Palestinians to return, because then Israel loses on demographics, etc. etc.
A democracy requires a just war, winning a just war, to be created. That is the prime prerequisite for a successful, working, and stable democracy. Without that war, there is no freedom for long, unless provided by the fighting of others.
For America it was the Revolution, the Civil War, WWII. For Britain, it was WWII. The longer a country survives in a state of no just wars, the more decadent that country becomes, and the more likely that country will fall to outside forces that are more vigorous and more martial.
Only when the war in Iraq goes nuclear, will anyone ever see any stability or progress. If not in Iraq, then Pakistan or Iran. One way or another, that region will require a war to purge, and not a limited war either. Israel’s been fighting limited wars since 1949, people. Limited wars don’t get you anything except more bodies and death.
A nuclear war, will give you democracy and peace. I cannot guarantee to anyone that you will win a nuclear war, but I will guarantee that if you follow Israel’s model of “Limited Wars” and caring for civilian shields, you will be fighting this war until the 24th century. That is assuming the Arabs don’t self-destruct in the mean time.
Humanity has an infinite appetite for war, but only a finite tolerance for the cruelties of war being visited upon them.
Meanwhile, Israel has its own problems. 20% of their population is non-Jewish, but the whole concept of Israel is based on a country run by Jews for Jews. The non-Jewish minority is growing, in two ways: one, through native birth rates, and two, through the influx of Soviet Jewry (the main source of immigration, or aliyah, to Israel in the past 20 years.) About a million Soviet Jews came to Israel in the last fifteen years, after legislation was passed disallowing Soviet Jews from leaving Russia with Israeli visas and then coming to the US, instead (which is where they usually went, prior to that legislation.) This was engineered by Sharon, Shamir, and others, to beef up the Jewish population vis a vis the non-Jewish population. The problem however is that many of these Soviet Jews come from mixed marriages and their Jewishness is a bit tenuous.
Israel is also suffering from battle fatigue. I mean, Israel/West Bank together is about the size of New Jersey, which is the most densely populated state in the Union, but has 2 million more people, much less rainfall, significant deserts, water shortages, and few natural resources. It has intellectual capital to burn, but there aren’t enough ways to employ that, which is why the trend for young Israelis is to wander to more moderate climes, more opportunity, less likelihood of violence (yes, that’s a factor), and so on. They are still Israelis, they still love their country, they keep their visas, but ….
Israel needs significant donations. It gets them from governments, like the US, and it gets from private Jewish agencies. To get immigrants, and to keep immigrants, it offers them great real estate deals, in the West Bank (usually), and money to live in Israel. The pull is, “this is a nation for you, a Jew.” Problem there is, Jews are just as secular as most Christians nowadays, so the religious pull of Israel is fading. What remains is, “Your fellow Jews need your help, because we are embattled, etc. etc.” That still works, at least as far as donations are concerned. However, that appeal won’t work, if Israel became a binational state.
Basically, if Israel is at peace, then it will get less support. But if it is threatened, it gets more. If it can continue to portray itself as a Jewish homeland (although only about 1/3 of the World’s Jews live there), then it will continue to get support from World Jewry. But if it becomes binational, then it’s appeal to Jews will also diminish. So they have a tough problem, not even counting the Palestinians.
A nuclear war, will give you democracy and peace.
Could you put this on a tee shirt for me, please?
The Palestinians are stuck. Realistically, I expect a lot of them will come to the US. I have known some. They are OK. They look very Jewish. 😉
The key is breaking down the refugee camps, in the West Bank and Gaza.
Then the Israelis have to offer to make serious territorial concessions, behind closed doors, including Arab East Jerusalem.
Then the Israelis have to apologize.
Then the Palestinians have to apologize.
Then the US has to support both states. Shoot, I’d raise my taxes for that. Would you? I’m tired of it.
The Israelis are ripe for territorial concessions. I would almost say, that the Israelis are ripe for a binational socialist state. The Palestinians are not ready yet. They can be helped getting ready by:
a) systematically relieving overpop through emigration to the US,
b) rebuilding infrastructure destroyed since 2000,
c) gradually returning lands, and compensating the Jews who depart,
d) investing capital in Palestinian areas,
e) US financed desalinization plants throughout Israel/Palestine/Gaza,
f) empowering moderate factions in Palestine,
g) talking, yes, even to Hamas,
There are probably other things. The wall actually HELPS, short term, because due to that the Israelis have no reason to destroy Pali infrastructure as they did in, say, 2002. But I see no reason why we Americans can’t have a significant portion of our consumer goods made by Palestinians. And that’s the kind of infusion that could help them take off.
Basically, if Israel is at peace, then it will get less support. But if it is threatened, it gets more.
Of course if Israel was at peace, they wouldn’t need any support. But then again, keep on with the false flag rhetoric and propaganda, steve, eventually you will win the ultimate prize sooner or later.
So, you see, there will probably be fighting, and a large loss of life, in the Muslim world in the next 20-30 years. But it need not go nuclear. What the US has to do is facilitate change while at the same time supporting stability. A difficult balancing act. It will cost more in terms of money, than in terms of blood.
What we as Americans can do is insist on a more involved position in the Muslim world, and that includes the entire Israel/Palestine situation. It will cost us a lot of money. And we should keep our powder dry, by increasing our armed forces accordingly. The threat is always stronger than the execution.
The end state we should be aiming at is social equilibrium throughout the Muslim world, and that includes Israel/Palestine and Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.
In this process, words are very important. Therefore, we should avoid the “A” word (used by Carter), the “R” word, the “A-S” word, and we should avoid disrespecting Muslims, like it’s a big joke to piss them off.
What we should not be doing is selling the American people a bill of goods about how we can cause these changes to occur magically by Shock ‘n’ Awe, and Democracy, in a war that will last no more than three months, that will pay for itself, and similar hogwash. The American people have to be leveled with as to the sacrifices we should make. Otherwise, a lot more people will die. And we should stop looking for military solutions, when, as I have tried to show, the problems are economic, structural, infrastructural, demographic, and ideological,
and have to be managed in that manner.
I hope that helps, Bugs.
Steve: I hope that helps, Bugs.
Which is, finally, the one funny line in the whole rambling, interminable, droning mess of banalities and stupidities. Get this piece of brilliance, e.g.: “The end state we should be aiming at is social equilibrium throughout the Muslim world, and that includes Israel/Palestine and Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.” If you, or anyone else, really thinks that sort of thing helps, Bugs, then you’ll need some help just to recover your senses. If you want to learn more about the Middle East in particular, or international politics in general, fine, read a book — there’s lots — or start with the Wikipedia — it’s a good deal more accessible and objective than this narcissistic preening. Steve has been trying to monopolize comment threads on this blog for some time now, but this is his most shameless and outrageous. He uses a technique in which he works at sounding rational, but all the while pushing themes such as the Israelis are racist Jew-supremacists, while Palestinian suicide-killers are oppressed freedom-fighters. He’s not rational, he’s obsessed. And he’s a bigot.
So, you see, there will probably be fighting, and a large loss of life, in the Muslim world in the next 20-30 years.
So far so good. The commentor and I sort of agree. There’s probably going to be a bunch of dying, for sure – and it could in happen in numbers to make Iraq casualties seem trivial.
But it need not go nuclear.
La la lala la … oh, look at the pretty daisies! Oh, they are so nice and pretty. I know! LET’S ALL PICK POSIES! Lala la la la. In the background a loud noise followed by a distant roar – beyond the Dreamer on the horizon an odd shaped cloud rises while the Dreamer and friends look on with wide, uncomprehending eyes.
What the US has to do is facilitate change while at the same time supporting stability. A difficult balancing act.
The above could be a very, very good short description of actual US policy toward the ME since WW2 but the problem is that commentor doesn’t know it.
It will cost more in terms of money, than in terms of blood.
Ah, yes – the sacrifice of the American people that Bush has failed to forewarn us about. The commentor writes often about the sacrifice but is a bit vague about just what the sacrifice might be. Some casualties and a bunch of money seems to be the prediction.
What we as Americans can do is insist on a more involved position in the Muslim world, and that includes the entire Israel/Palestine situation.
About the only way the US could become MORE involved in the Israel/Palestine situation would be to engage in war with one of the 2 principals.
It will cost us a lot of money.
Yes, “it”(the WOT?) will no doubt be expensive. Safe predictions earn few points.
And we should keep our powder dry, by increasing our armed forces accordingly. The threat is always stronger than the execution.
Increasing the size of US military forces? – a good idea but it’s somewhat like saying you are for apple pie and motherhood. BTW, if they continue in power I can’t see the Democrats increasing funding for soldiers. Funding soldiers, as opposed to other defense funding, creates few jobs in the ward.
The end state we should be aiming at is social equilibrium throughout the Muslim world, and that includes Israel/Palestine and Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.
Again, this has been the US policy for some fifty-odd years. The commentor gets demerits for lack of historical grounding.
In this process, words are very important. Therefore, we should avoid the “A” word (used by Carter), the “R” word, the “A-S” word …
I guess “A” is … apartheid? But what is “R?” And “A-S” also escapes me. Are these like the “N word?”
… and we should avoid disrespecting Muslims, like it’s a big joke to piss them off.
The Muslim world daily castigates and insults the West in their newspapers, TV, radio, etc. but WE have to walk on eggs around THEM. And who and what has been disrespectful? As u
… and we should avoid disrespecting Muslims, like it’s a big joke to piss them off.
The Muslim world daily castigates and insults the West in their newspapers, TV, radio, etc. but WE have to walk on eggs around THEM. And who and what has been disrespectful? As usual, the commentor is reticent regarding such insignificant details but I’ll guess he means the cartoons.
What we should not be doing is selling the American people a bill of goods about how we can cause these changes to occur magically by Shock ‘n’ Awe, and Democracy, in a war that will last no more than three months, that will pay for itself, and similar hogwash. The American people have to be leveled with as to the sacrifices we should make. Otherwise, a lot more people will die.
The reasoning here is difficult for me. …. Bush should say to the American public that the WOT will incur (unspecified)“sacrifices” … otherwise more (unspecified)people will die than would have to die if they only knew what the commentor and Bush know … Bush, in the commentor’s mind, seems to be fully aware of the “sacrifices” ahead, but is very meanly keeping quiet about it … out of spite? … out of ignorance? … out of cunning? We are left to guess.
And we should stop looking for military solutions, when, as I have tried to show, the problems are economic, structural, infrastructural, demographic, and ideological,
and have to be managed in that manner.
More vagueness, a hallmark of the commentor’s technique. Aren’t ALL problems “economic, structural, infrastructural, demographic, and ideological”? The pattern seems to be: Make a lot of safe, vague predictions and assertions and blame everything on Bush/America.
“What she doesn’t like”
Code for, “What is disruptive – a diffusional and displacive form of off-tracking censorship”.
1 In response to your last quote, Neo, it just goes to show that nostalgia is limiting. Things were the same back then as they are now. True, we have different problems and different technology, but everyone has their problems in war. They had them in the Civil War, the Revolutionary, and WWII. Will, resources, and ability were always in demand, things have not changed or become revolutionalized since the advent of the 21st century. Now in a way, that is kind of disappointing, but however, it does mean you can learn from the past to continue the present and fullfill the future.
The foundation of humanity’s roots are deep into the soil. No hurricane of disbelief from the Left may easily pull us out, Neo.
Thanks for the analysis, Steve.
You comment about talking “even with Hamas” relates to my previous rant. Even if we and Hamas become best buddies, won’t there always some other group out there waiting to draw blood? Do we handle each group as an isolated case – to arrest or destroy or negotiate with? And are we obliged to take a certain number of casualties as the price of peace? That would be a lot to ask, and I’m not sure many people would go for it.
Oh – something kind of related but strange. Just popped into my head. Why are there so many pictures and videos out there of Hamas and other groups having parades and wearing their hoods and high-stepping around with their AK-47s and shouting “death to Israel,” and when these events occur why do the Israelis not cluster bomb them?
Iran From IRIB News December 15, 2006:
Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel said, “The vote of anybody who goes to polls today, irrespective of whom they vote for, marks a `No’ answer to America.”
“He said by their participation in the elections people would renew their allegiance to Islam, Islamic Revolution and leadership, and voice their hatred towards the powers that wish to rule over other states under the pretext of freedom and democracy.”
As America sleeps, Iran makes it clear that its nation supports “ISLAMIC REVOLUTION.” Not only does Iran support Islamic Revolution, they export it throughout the world using terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.
Iranian leaders also make it clear that a vote in today’s Iranian election is a vote in support of hatred for the United States. Iran is a hate-based system of government. This is reflected in the conferences they have hosted denying the holocaust and making fun of the holocaust.
Welcome to Iran, home of Islamic Revolutionary Terrorism, Incorporated. This nation was formed on hate for America as its national motto. The national moto, “Death to America”, has been openly chanted at state-sponsored rallys in Iran since 1979. The Iranian Constitution (Article 11) demands the Iranian people “spread Islamic Revolution.” America has slept as this hate-based nation has grown stronger. America has slept while the hate-based nation has exported its Islamic revolutionary terrorism to several other nations. America has slept while this nation, whose president calls suicide martyrdom (attacks) an “art”.
Those blaming the United States for the increase in terrorism, or who believe the United States is responsible for terrorism of any sort, cling to weak-minded false-beliefs while ignoring the truth that Iran has been working non-stop since 1979 to export terrorism in the name of Allah. Iran is the blood-soaked terrorist snowball rolling down hill getting larger as the world, and America sleeps.
No peace will exist in the world so long as the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Constitution requiring the exportation of Islamic Revolution exists. The Islamic Republic of Iran has one goal,; one constitutional duty; to assimilate the nations of the world under its Islamic World Nation or destroy those nations. Those are the simple facts that anyone with the good sense God gave a Billy goat can not miss. Iran is working overtime to create nuclear weapons. Iran is currently enriching uranium. Imagine a little bit of enriched uranium in suicide “martyrs” bombs.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is Terrorism Incorporated. The Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT the solution to Middle East problems. The Islamic Republic of Iran IS THE PROBLEM. Destroy this cruel deamonic government and the terrorism movement shall crumble.
http://blue-is-beautiful.blogspot.com
In our Country…one class of men makes war and leaves another to fight it out.”
William T.Sherman
I think today that would read “One generation avoids war, increases entitlement spending, leaves the next generation to fight a bigger war and clean up the mess.” Hooray, babyboomers!
“After us, the deluge.”
“I care not what happens when I am dead and gone.” So said Mdme. de Pompadour, the mistress of Louis XV. (1722–1764). Metternich, the Austrian statesman (1773–1859), is credited with the same: but probably he simply quoted the words of the French marchioness. http://www.bartleby.com/81/291.html
Future generations? What the hell have they done for us lately?
Or look at it this way: If you were Metternich and could somehow foretell how history would be played out between his time and ours, would you give a crap what happened to us?
and when these events occur why do the Israelis not cluster bomb them?
because Israeli politicians care more for civilians than the civilian(Palestinian terrorist) cares for the Israelis. America suffers from the same problem, bugs.
FWIW, the authors of “A War to Be Won”, about WW II, insist the Germans won WW I.
When the armistice was signed, the Germans were everywhere on Allied soil. They had picked up some fat country in the east under the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
They were getting tired, and they saw five million US soldiers in training for the 1919 season and they asked the Allies if they wanted to quit. The Allies were only too happy to quit.
The Germans withdrew to their borders, the Allies got all their country(ies) back from the invaders, and things were as they were, except, as on writer said, Europe had cut its throat and would bleed to death for a century.
Another writer, a vet of the war, observed that the German regiments returned home behind the regimental bands, glockenspiels chiming and the wolf tails on the bass drum sticks twirling. Not beaten, in other words.
Viet vets insist they, too, were not beaten, in which they are supported by certain of their opponents, such as Giap.
Now, after WW II, which ended much more decisively than WW I, the Germans have been nice as pie. For three times as long, and show little interest in any foreign or military ventures, or even much interest in their future.
The problem with people who read history and think they understand what was going on, is that they don’t read primary documents. Richard Aubrey is a good example of someone who reads primary documents, and tries to see history as historical figures saw it, instead of this paper research mentality most academics have towards history.
The information you accrue from reading primary documents, isn’t all that much greater than reading summarizations and collations of historical events. But the wisdom and correct comprehension you get, is many many orders greater.
I think Neo had an advantage when she was relearning some topics after 9/11, because she directly applied history to what she was seeing and witnessing at the time. It wasn’t just a collation of events and dates to her. A person who views history through the eyes of historical actors and life events, will have a better grasp of how humans affected history and how history affected humans.
Those who don’t act like Neo and Aubrey, are the pretenders. They quote the “facts”, they say, but it is like the fact about Bush lieing.
August 8, 1918 was the ‘Black Day’ of the German Army. Wide scale retreat — contrary to higher orders – occurred. This is what convinced the top German generals that the cause was lost. The war was lost on the Western Front.
British and French tanks coupled to American manpower did the trick, and the German front line troops figured it out.
Four years of bloodshed had removed all elan from European ranks – but not the green Americans.
Germany sought the peace table before all semblance of military effectiveness was lost. Germany was defeated at the front, at the factory and on the farm: she was starving.
Her generals shifted their failures onto the civilians who had to clean up their failure. Their mutual antipathy being natural: the civilians – rightly – blamed the military for the national defeat.
You may wear propaganda on your sleeve, but it’s still propaganda.
In 1865 many a troop in the Army of Northern Virginia STILL wanted to go at the Federals. They personally could not accept that they’d been defeated. So what. Calmly, Lee had to convince his army that lacking food, bullets, guns, powder and shoes that the end was here. He was BARELY successful. [ His earlier attempts were obviously not.]
I recommend DREADNOUGHT as a most excellent history leading towards the onset of WWI.
Blert, you confirm Ymars analysis. Yes, the Germans were having problems, and the arrival of the fresh American troops spelled their end ,and they knew it- but the Germans saw further. He who fights and marches back home behind the regimental band lives to fight another day (speaking nationally). The Germans, in WWI, wisely decided not to lose. Sure, they didn’t really win, but they DID NOT LOSE (well, until the treaties were signed, but in the end it bred a bigger stronger Germany- too bad for them it only brought on their demise). Point being, make sure EVERYONE knows who won and who lost. Don’t leave it up to the MSM to ‘tell’ folks who won (ala Tet).
The other parallel, I guess, is that the Allies, in an effort to purge German culture and politics of its Prussian-militaristic character, installed a government that the Germans did not respect, trust, or fear. This, under the economic strains of losing the war and later of the Depression, led to massive power struggles between socialists, fascists, and various other groups. Might the same be said of Iraq today?
Foot soldiers make up the army, not the Generals. When the Generals surrender as they did in Wake Island and the Philliphines, it don’t mean the soldiers thought they had lost. Everybody and their grandma kept saying we have lost, we have lost, but that don’t mean anything. Only perception matters. Whether you believe you have more to gain than you lose, if you keep fighting. People to make elementary mistakes in war such as not figuring out the perceptions of the enemy, would probably look at Japan’s situation and say to themselves, “hey we have won, we won’t need an invasion for them to surrender, we can just tell them we have an atomic bomb and they will surrender because they have obviously lost”. Elementary mistakes such as this, not knowing your enemy, is not a good idea.
Just cause somebody somewhere believes Japan has lost, doesn’t mean the japanese does, nor does it mean they will stop fighting. People think war is about facts, that it is all scientifically mapped out. Well, it ain’t. War is both a science as well as an art. Science cause bullets obey the laws of physics, art because humans fight in it and cause the fog of war.
The SPD were going to blame the military reglardless. They were Social Democrats, born of the aristocracy. And the military allowed the peace treaty to be signed because they knew exactly what kind of unfavorable terms would be imposed on them, so they let the civilian government take the fall. Which the civilian did, take the fall that is.
Four years of bloodshed had decimated the French ranks. They didn’t have enough to keep on fighting. And at the peace talks in Paris, they kicked out the Americans. So it isn’t like Americans have any real loyalty to the French and British to cover their arse in WWI concerning the Germans.
The Germans didn’t surrender to the United States. First mistake. Second mistake, they surrendered in the first place.
Relying upon the mercy and justice of the Brits and the French, not a very good idea.
Update
It has been covered in the update.
Saadam should use the “total war” defense.
Total war is framed as practical and justified by the victors, but considered a war crime when done by the loser. Saadam is conviced and will be executed on charges of pretty much practicing “total war” on rebel Kurd and Shiite elements. The Kurds and Shiites he killed where not for ethnic cleansing reasons, but because supported revolution, separatists, terrorists and insurgents. Saadam’s Baathist government was not race or faith based, in that it included all Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups, not exclusively Sunni as is a common misconception. In other wars civilian casualties are written off as collateral damage.