Letters to the Editor
-
@Arne
"Four score and seven years ago"?
That would be 1921.
The myth is older than that, and older than Wagner's re-telling.
The myth is eternal.
Clicking on your link, one finds, four score and twelve years ago:
"In October 1916, when almost three thousand Jews had already died on the battlefield and more than seven thousand had been decorated, War Minister Wild von Hohenborn saw fit to sanction the growing prejudices. He ordered a "Jew census" in the army to determine the actual number of Jews on the front lines as opposed to those serving in the rear. Ignoring protests in the Reichstag and the press, he proceeded with his head count. The results were not made public, ostensibly to "spare Jewish feelings." The truth was that the census disproved the accusations: 80 percent served on the front lines." (Elon, Amos (2002): The Pity of It All. Metropolitan Books. p.338. Jews, in fact, enlisted at a higher percentage than non-Jews, served in combat units at a higher percentage, and died at a higher percentage. The Judenzählung has since served as an example of how researchers must accept the results of their work even if the results do not support the researchers' hypothesis.
Of those Jews serving in the Kaiser's army, one of the three thousand Jews who had died before October 1916 was my great-uncle, and one of those seven thousand Jews who earned a medal was my grandfather, who received an Iron Cross in exchange for having his teeth shot out and for getting gassed by the British. (Later he got lucky and ended up in a POW camp in Scotland.)
-
Answering the wrong question
Glenn quotes the WaPo piece:
"It's a good story, but it's wrong. No amount of America firepower could have crushed the North Vietnamese people's will."
But no one was talking about crushing the will of the North Vietnamese people. Vietnam was about defending one nation (South Vietnam) from an insurgency (the Viet Cong) being supported by the military of another nation (the North Vietnamese army).
There had never been any talk of invading North Vietnam or of subjugating that nation's people. The bombing campaign in the north (and in Laos) was purely military in intent; to deny military support to the Viet Cong and NVA.
The stabbed-in-the-back narrative does work in a certain way, since the U.S. military was not allowed to do what they thought necessary to win the war in the south, an important distinction. In fact, the U.S. and South Vietnamese didn't have to really "win" anything; all they had to do was not lose. But thanks to the Congress's refusal to honor agreements for military support, particularly air support, when North Vietnam invaded in spring 1975, and President Ford's feckless giving-in to that betrayal, does indeed paint a neat stabbed-in-the-back scenario.
In short, the WaPo blogger misses the point, and Glenn's entire blog therefore addresses the wrong question.
-
Another myth to dispose of
Ho Chi Minh was our ally in WWII. He was a nationalist leader and only turned the communists and especially the Chinese communists when they were the only source of support.
Uncle Ho was a communist through and through, studying Marxist/Leninist philosophy in Paris in the 1920s. In fact, he was a founding member of the French Communist Party. He then spent nearly a decade in Moscow during the Stalin years, refining his philosophy.
He played the nationalist card out of convenience and for propaganda purposes, and he made allies of whomever was convenient at the time, but make no mistake: Ho chi Minh was a communist in the Mao/Stalin mold.
-
Thanks Jayman.
The First of the 12th Air`Moble Cav.. June !969-to Feb 10th, 1970. I was Wounded with MOH recipient, John Baca, up in Phung Long (sp) Province, somewhere near the disputed Cambodian Border (I've maps somewhere) just previous to The Sad Kent State shootings.
`
ca dao,
Husband and Wife.
The oriole eats yellow berries.
The fighting fish knows its bowl.
Husband and wife know their bodies' smell.
-
What does "winning" mean, exactly?
That's the key for me. Aside from the "stab in the back" mindset, I think the use of winning and losing in a context of Vietnam and Iraq is beyond bizarre.
Estimates for the death toll of civilians in Vietnam range from 2-4 million. If the military had been "allowed" to unleash its full force, what would have happened on top of that? We lost 58,000 troops as it was. How many more would have died along the way, after they unleashed that full force?
And, at the end of the day, what would Americans have gained from it all?
Nada. Not a thing. "Winning" in Viet Nam would not have brought one single benefit to the American people, at tremendous cost. In fact, losing even one soldier over there was too great a price to pay. Again, for what? The American PEOPLE could not gain one iota from "winning" in Vietnam. There was no "victory" for us. We were not threatened by the Vietnamese people. They did not attack us. They had not even launched an attack against our allies, except in defense.
Iraq is the same. If America had unleashed its full force against Iraq, the "victory" would have brought nothing for Americans. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. We "win" nothing by taking over that country. They didn't attack us. They didn't even threaten to attack us. They couldn't attack us, being a minnow to our school of sharks.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have already died. More than four million are exiles. More than 4000 Americans are dead, with tens of thousands wounded and maimed. What have we gained from all of this, even with the supposedly "restrained" tactics? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. What would we "win", exactly, if all hell was unleashed and Bush had simply crushed the Iraqis? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions MORE deaths. For nothing. Americans do not gain ANYTHING from any so-called "victory" in Iraq.
Aside from this bizarre idea of "stab in the back," perhaps the far more bizarre idea of "winning" needs to be scrutinized and forever debunked.
-
Not a bumper sticker
But I used to have one of those magnetic "ribbons" on my car. It was Star-spangled red, white and blue. The text?
"Just pretend it's all O.K."