yup, but saying he ordered it is not only wrong, it's libelous. Eisenhower had his faults, but bloodlust wasn't one of them. I am not being a naysayer; I am pointing out a blatant and character-damaging untruth. Why you uttered it? I'm no psychologist... Well, OK, I am a psychologist, but why you say the stuff you do is beyond me.
Inciting repraisals and making them the official policy of the supreme commander are two very different things. I can't imagine someone as smart as you can't see the difference, or why I might feel compelled to point it out.
But you keep attacking me personally if you want. I've made and overmade my point.
I would ask for reputable sources to back your claim, but as I know no such sources exist, I won't bother. Thousands of Waffen SS soldiers were taken prisoner, and no order was ever given to kill then, not by Eisenhower or any other general at least (some Second Lieutenant, maybe). No evidence exists for such an order. You made it up, and pointing to Eisenhower's incendiary rhetoric is just ass-covering, as are the insults.
Yeah, no such order existed, and orders were even issued to take them alive, because they tended to provide the best intelligence, which was being lost through repraisal killings.
Anyway, I know you were there and all, fighting for both the French and Dutch Resistance (with a stint among the Ukrainian partisans), but no such order was issued. Pulling it out of your butt doesn't make it true.
In the case of the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, the causal chain is pretty direct and unbroken (and one often noted by historians). I think one could probably argue that the causal chain from the 30 Years War to World War I is a bit... tangled.
I can't speak for anyone else, but if that's the way it went down, particularly if it was an execution ordered from above, then yes, I'm very disturbed.
What I don't understand, Jason, is why you focus on the more loopy elements in the dominant religion in our country (and by focus, I mean post something about it once every few blue moons), but never, ever say anything about the craziness of religions that, while they might have small to nonexistent footprints in our country, are dominant in some other country halfway accross the world! It's almost as if you're biased towards writing about stuff that might actually affect you or your readers, which would be disappointing. I am looking forward to your posts on the silliness of fundamentalist New Guinea animism to rectify this.
You know, that's not entirely unreasonable. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the 30 Years War, except what was happening in the Commonwealth ('cause I really dig Sienkiewicz' trilogy), but I do know that Lothringen (Lorraine) was one of the focuses of early German nationalism, and German nationalism was an impetus for the Franco-Prussian War.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant. So, Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II, 1982 World Cup semifinals! It all makes sense, now.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant.
Oh, I was mostly being facetious, but it's a mistake to treat 1871 and 1914 as "qualitatively different" (not sure what that means, in this case). First, Germany took French territory, and as a result, the two were essentially in a state of "cold war" from 1872 until 1914. Remember the charges in the Dreyfus Affair? The entire French military culture was built up around an inevitable war with Germany (they wanted another war -- taking back Alsace-Lorraine was an obsession in the military, and in the government). World War I, or at least a second Franco-Prussian war, was pretty much a foregone conclusion after the Treaty of Frankfurt, and that's to say nothing of the power balance issues that the unified German state created.
So, since World War I was in many ways a result of the Franco-Prussian War, and since World War II was in many ways a result of World War I, the Franco-Prussian War is the start of a 75 year war between France, Germany, and their allies at various points.
By the way, you're now quibbling over the particulars of an example that serves as evidence against your position. Unless India, Canada, and Northern Europe are the good guys in Sri Lanka. In which case, weird.
Anyway, when you provide some facts that support your law, I'll be happy to acknowledge them. Until then, it's like most of what you say: it sounds nice, but crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.
The battle of Thames was fought between a vastly outnumbered British force that, upon learning of its naval support's defeat, promptly retreated, barely having engaged the Americans. The bulk of the land fighting, then, was done between the American force and Tecumseh’s force, which held its ground until Tecumseh was killed, and then promptly retreated. But hey, if you want to claim that as a victory that shows how good the American army is, go ahead.
Pat, this is precisely what I was getting at (strangely, an example like Afghans moving into Pakistan support my point, not Blaise’s, but he uses it anyway). I thought of adding that refugees also run to areas with ethnic or otherwise culturally similar populations, but that’s not always the case, so I don’t think it’s a good idea to include it in any “law of refugees.” A perfect example would be so many Tamil refugees ending up in India, despite India’s explicit support for the people fighting the Tamil rebels. India wasn’t the good guy to Tamils, and they were precisely the cultural group against which the Tamils were fighting, but they were nearby and there weren’t gun fights and suicide bombers there (mostly), so it was a safe place. The refugee camps within Sri Lanka were just as far from the center of fighting as they could get.
In short, safety, not who's good or bad, is all that matters to refugees, and as often as not you can't tell anything about who the "good guy" is by where refugees go. But hey, it's a nice little saying.
Except Plattsburgh was primarily a naval victory. The American navy, particularly on the rivers and lakes, faired quite well in that war. They had experience. The American army was a joke.
As for your history lesson about where we got the land, I haven't the slightest clue what that has to do with whether the army performed well enough to earn respect in that war. But I hadn't heard of this Louisiana Purchase thingie before, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Seriously, though, I’ll stop being “obtusely pedantic” when you point to one historical source that suggests that the U.S. army (not navy) became a respected force as a result of its performance in the War of 1812. One source. I’m willing to believe there’s one out there. I’ll wait (and no, telling me an anecdote about your time in Zimbabwe curing polio and killing pirates doesn’t count as an historical source on the War of 1812).
Yeah, one major victory against a significant British force, after the war was over, when the bulk of the British military was busy fighting a much more formidable foe on another continent, doesn't inspire much confidence. I doubt it seriously affected the perception of the U.S. army, particularly since it was fought largely by irregulars: Lafitte's pirates, militia from 3 different states, and Native Americans. I've never seen anything to suggest that after the War of 1812, the American land forces were suddenly respected by anyone, except perhaps anyone thinking of trying to invade U.S. territory while fighting total war half a world away at the same time.
When it comes to humanitarian war (intervention is a nice way of making it sound more antiseptic), at best, you've got afootbridge problem; at worst, burning the forest to save the trees. Libya looks more and more like something in between those two, though it’s inching closer to forest-burning. Whatever massacre we prevented in Benghazi, we allowed something of at least similar scale to happen in Misrata through poor planning and execution. And the folks we’re backing have a nasty habit of offing the loyalists they capture, suggesting that whatever the “peace” looks like when this is over, it won’t be a pretty peace. Which civilians do we protect then?
The difference, I suppose, between liberal interventionists and liberal non-interventionists (and perhaps conservative ones too) is that the non-interventionists fully recognize that negatives like the ones we’re seeing in Libya are an inevitable part of intervention, not something that can be avoided if we just work hard enough and have noble intentions.
BlaiseP’s Law of Refugees: you may always know who is right and wrong in any given war by observing the footprints of the refugees: they run away from the bad guy toward the good guy.
This law fails to explain why refugees almost always run to other countries/regions not participating in the fighting. When they do run somewhere within the territories of the warning parties, they tend to run to the side that offers the most security (e.g., the side that’s doing the bombing, instead of the side that’s being bombed). Maybe the law should read, "You can always tell where there is no fighting or greater security by observing the footprint of refugees,” but that doesn’t sound as pithy and cool, just more accurate. Of course, sacrificing any semblance of verisimilitude for a clever-sounding turn of phrase is the Law of BlaiseP’s Blog Commenting, so whatever.
Not until the end of the war of 1812 did anyone take our nation seriously. What the Barbary Wars had done for our navy, the War of 1812 did for our Army. Where once it was a scraggly, ill-paid and ill-led bunch of state militias, it had become a unified force, capable of beating the British invaders on land.
Hehe...
The war did garner respect for the U.S. in Europe, but the bit about the army is chuckle-worthy.
Except that you've tended to do little more than talk about your team with reference to the other. In fact, that's sort of what calling them teams is about.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “America, Forever At War”
yup, but saying he ordered it is not only wrong, it's libelous. Eisenhower had his faults, but bloodlust wasn't one of them. I am not being a naysayer; I am pointing out a blatant and character-damaging untruth. Why you uttered it? I'm no psychologist... Well, OK, I am a psychologist, but why you say the stuff you do is beyond me.
Inciting repraisals and making them the official policy of the supreme commander are two very different things. I can't imagine someone as smart as you can't see the difference, or why I might feel compelled to point it out.
But you keep attacking me personally if you want. I've made and overmade my point.
"
Dude, I mentioned repraisal killings already. Keep up.
"
I would ask for reputable sources to back your claim, but as I know no such sources exist, I won't bother. Thousands of Waffen SS soldiers were taken prisoner, and no order was ever given to kill then, not by Eisenhower or any other general at least (some Second Lieutenant, maybe). No evidence exists for such an order. You made it up, and pointing to Eisenhower's incendiary rhetoric is just ass-covering, as are the insults.
"
Oh yeah, well they taught me something completely different in interrogator training!
"
Yeah, no such order existed, and orders were even issued to take them alive, because they tended to provide the best intelligence, which was being lost through repraisal killings.
Anyway, I know you were there and all, fighting for both the French and Dutch Resistance (with a stint among the Ukrainian partisans), but no such order was issued. Pulling it out of your butt doesn't make it true.
"
Eisenhower issued an order no SS prisoners were to be taken alive after the massacre of American soldiers at Malmedy.
That's not true, of course.
"
In the case of the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, the causal chain is pretty direct and unbroken (and one often noted by historians). I think one could probably argue that the causal chain from the 30 Years War to World War I is a bit... tangled.
"
I can't speak for anyone else, but if that's the way it went down, particularly if it was an execution ordered from above, then yes, I'm very disturbed.
On “The Rapture in Stereo”
What I don't understand, Jason, is why you focus on the more loopy elements in the dominant religion in our country (and by focus, I mean post something about it once every few blue moons), but never, ever say anything about the craziness of religions that, while they might have small to nonexistent footprints in our country, are dominant in some other country halfway accross the world! It's almost as if you're biased towards writing about stuff that might actually affect you or your readers, which would be disappointing. I am looking forward to your posts on the silliness of fundamentalist New Guinea animism to rectify this.
On “America, Forever At War”
Somehow, that sentence ended up there twice. Stupid smart phone.
"
You know, that's not entirely unreasonable. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the 30 Years War, except what was happening in the Commonwealth ('cause I really dig Sienkiewicz' trilogy), but I do know that Lothringen (Lorraine) was one of the focuses of early German nationalism, and German nationalism was an impetus for the Franco-Prussian War.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant. So, Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II, 1982 World Cup semifinals! It all makes sense, now.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant.
"
Oh, I was mostly being facetious, but it's a mistake to treat 1871 and 1914 as "qualitatively different" (not sure what that means, in this case). First, Germany took French territory, and as a result, the two were essentially in a state of "cold war" from 1872 until 1914. Remember the charges in the Dreyfus Affair? The entire French military culture was built up around an inevitable war with Germany (they wanted another war -- taking back Alsace-Lorraine was an obsession in the military, and in the government). World War I, or at least a second Franco-Prussian war, was pretty much a foregone conclusion after the Treaty of Frankfurt, and that's to say nothing of the power balance issues that the unified German state created.
So, since World War I was in many ways a result of the Franco-Prussian War, and since World War II was in many ways a result of World War I, the Franco-Prussian War is the start of a 75 year war between France, Germany, and their allies at various points.
"
It was all just a continuation of the Franco-Prussian War.
"
Peach treaty? My favorite typo in some
"
By the way, you're now quibbling over the particulars of an example that serves as evidence against your position. Unless India, Canada, and Northern Europe are the good guys in Sri Lanka. In which case, weird.
"
Yeah, and who's policing the Tamil cams in India?
Anyway, when you provide some facts that support your law, I'll be happy to acknowledge them. Until then, it's like most of what you say: it sounds nice, but crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.
"
The battle of Thames was fought between a vastly outnumbered British force that, upon learning of its naval support's defeat, promptly retreated, barely having engaged the Americans. The bulk of the land fighting, then, was done between the American force and Tecumseh’s force, which held its ground until Tecumseh was killed, and then promptly retreated. But hey, if you want to claim that as a victory that shows how good the American army is, go ahead.
"
Pat, this is precisely what I was getting at (strangely, an example like Afghans moving into Pakistan support my point, not Blaise’s, but he uses it anyway). I thought of adding that refugees also run to areas with ethnic or otherwise culturally similar populations, but that’s not always the case, so I don’t think it’s a good idea to include it in any “law of refugees.” A perfect example would be so many Tamil refugees ending up in India, despite India’s explicit support for the people fighting the Tamil rebels. India wasn’t the good guy to Tamils, and they were precisely the cultural group against which the Tamils were fighting, but they were nearby and there weren’t gun fights and suicide bombers there (mostly), so it was a safe place. The refugee camps within Sri Lanka were just as far from the center of fighting as they could get.
In short, safety, not who's good or bad, is all that matters to refugees, and as often as not you can't tell anything about who the "good guy" is by where refugees go. But hey, it's a nice little saying.
"
Except Plattsburgh was primarily a naval victory. The American navy, particularly on the rivers and lakes, faired quite well in that war. They had experience. The American army was a joke.
As for your history lesson about where we got the land, I haven't the slightest clue what that has to do with whether the army performed well enough to earn respect in that war. But I hadn't heard of this Louisiana Purchase thingie before, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Seriously, though, I’ll stop being “obtusely pedantic” when you point to one historical source that suggests that the U.S. army (not navy) became a respected force as a result of its performance in the War of 1812. One source. I’m willing to believe there’s one out there. I’ll wait (and no, telling me an anecdote about your time in Zimbabwe curing polio and killing pirates doesn’t count as an historical source on the War of 1812).
"
Yeah, one major victory against a significant British force, after the war was over, when the bulk of the British military was busy fighting a much more formidable foe on another continent, doesn't inspire much confidence. I doubt it seriously affected the perception of the U.S. army, particularly since it was fought largely by irregulars: Lafitte's pirates, militia from 3 different states, and Native Americans. I've never seen anything to suggest that after the War of 1812, the American land forces were suddenly respected by anyone, except perhaps anyone thinking of trying to invade U.S. territory while fighting total war half a world away at the same time.
"
When it comes to humanitarian war (intervention is a nice way of making it sound more antiseptic), at best, you've got afootbridge problem; at worst, burning the forest to save the trees. Libya looks more and more like something in between those two, though it’s inching closer to forest-burning. Whatever massacre we prevented in Benghazi, we allowed something of at least similar scale to happen in Misrata through poor planning and execution. And the folks we’re backing have a nasty habit of offing the loyalists they capture, suggesting that whatever the “peace” looks like when this is over, it won’t be a pretty peace. Which civilians do we protect then?
The difference, I suppose, between liberal interventionists and liberal non-interventionists (and perhaps conservative ones too) is that the non-interventionists fully recognize that negatives like the ones we’re seeing in Libya are an inevitable part of intervention, not something that can be avoided if we just work hard enough and have noble intentions.
BlaiseP’s Law of Refugees: you may always know who is right and wrong in any given war by observing the footprints of the refugees: they run away from the bad guy toward the good guy.
This law fails to explain why refugees almost always run to other countries/regions not participating in the fighting. When they do run somewhere within the territories of the warning parties, they tend to run to the side that offers the most security (e.g., the side that’s doing the bombing, instead of the side that’s being bombed). Maybe the law should read, "You can always tell where there is no fighting or greater security by observing the footprint of refugees,” but that doesn’t sound as pithy and cool, just more accurate. Of course, sacrificing any semblance of verisimilitude for a clever-sounding turn of phrase is the Law of BlaiseP’s Blog Commenting, so whatever.
"
Not until the end of the war of 1812 did anyone take our nation seriously. What the Barbary Wars had done for our navy, the War of 1812 did for our Army. Where once it was a scraggly, ill-paid and ill-led bunch of state militias, it had become a unified force, capable of beating the British invaders on land.
Hehe...
The war did garner respect for the U.S. in Europe, but the bit about the army is chuckle-worthy.
On “Nostalgia & Freedom”
Yeah, that's insane. I don't usually use that word, but that is.
"
Yeah, one dimension.
Also, the Ryan plan? Seriously?
"
Except that you've tended to do little more than talk about your team with reference to the other. In fact, that's sort of what calling them teams is about.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.