Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

And I, for one, am quite thankful that it turned out the way that it did.

Posted by John Breen III at June 6, 2007 11:31 AM

This points to the obvious advantages of having a nation united in purpose and the problem with leaders who make stuff up to try to convince the people, who later realize they have been fooled and don't like it. It isn't surprising that when things go sour the media begins to filter events using the public eye.

As Robert Gates said very recently, “The press is not the enemy and to treat it as such is self-defeating.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-26-gates-naval-academy_N.htm

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 6, 2007 12:48 PM

...the problem with leaders who make stuff up to try to convince the people

Is this just a theoretical problem, or could you provide, you know, an example of this actually occurring?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 6, 2007 01:04 PM

Rand, the obvious exaggerations and presentation of "facts" leading up to the Iraq war would be an example. Here is Larry Wilkerson on the workings in the background:

Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift — not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy. This furtive process was camouflaged neatly by the dysfunction and inefficiency of the formal decision-making process, where decisions, if they were reached at all, had to wend their way through the bureaucracy, with its dissenters, obstructionists and “guardians of the turf.”
But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions and virtually ensured that the agencies charged with implementing them would not or could not execute them well.
Lawrence Wilkerson, The White House Cabal, The Los Angeles Times, October 25, 2005

If there was this lack of analysis and browbeating going on within the government itself, it should be obvious that what was presented to the public in the case for war was not made honestly.

The agenda was clearly ahead of the facts and now pretty much everyone knows that. Had everything worked out great no one would have paid attention but it didn't, which really is the only reason we know about it now.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 6, 2007 02:04 PM

Simberg loves these hypothetical How the media would have
behaved in 1943, things, because he despises the media.

It would be a real display of intellectual honesty if he wrote
how GWB would have run World War 2.

"US invades China, revenge for Asian attack on Pearl Harbor"

"Former RNC leader appointed head of Navy, president cites need
for good communication during wartime"

"Government slashes taxes, 1942 record deficit"

Posted by anonymous at June 6, 2007 02:16 PM

How would today's media report D-Day?

Here's how today's necrocons would have reported VE-Day:

National Review
5/8/1945

Truman Surrenders Europe
by Rand Simberg

We--which is to say, people other than me or anyone I know--have been fighting in the European theater for over two years now, in this the Global War on Tyranny. But now that America has defeated one of its enemies, and we stand poised on entering the final battle in Europe, the Truman administration has decided to cut and run.

With the Nazi regime annihilated, nothing but the Red Army stands between America and liberating all of Europe straight to the banks of the Volga, but the Truman administration and our erstwile allies in London have suddenly become squeamish when reason would suggest they should become bolder. After years of telling our boys they are fighting for freedom, and watching their comrades strive and die for it, they are now ordered to sit quietly beside the vodka-swilling drones of the Communist Empire and restrain their patriotic desire to continue the war until victorious. Mr. Truman, you are doing a grave disservice to these men and the dead, spitting on their heroism by forcing them to stop short of Moscow. And the attempts of liberals to suggest the troops would rather come home after this limited victory, while leaving the Commie scourge to follow us home, is an unforgivable insult to our brave soldiers.

But in the highly unlikely event the Soviets don't attack, even after being so clearly invited to do so by Truman's weakness, can we trust this administration not to simply hand back these countries to their own people? Can we trust Truman not to be naive enough to think democratic governments in these countries wouldn't simply elect Communists, and thereby throw away all our sacrifice for their freedom? With Stalinist insurgents and spies pervasive throughout Europe, and skilled in the art of sabotaging foreign governments, returning sovereign control to liberated countries would tantamount to surrender. We can only speculate on whether Truman deliberately wants the Soviet dictatorship to win, or whether he is just a fool.

There is no alternative but to continue the war unto ultimate victory, because otherwise the Soviets are guaranteed to invade Europe and the United States. The devastation that will follow on both sides may be grim, but I defy anyone to honestly say that these people would rather be alive than free, and if entire nations must be exterminated for freedom, then that is the price we must pay. Anything less would dishonor the sacrifices already made. Unfortunately, since no elected American president would ever be smart enough to understand these truths, I propose we overthrow the Constitution and install some maniac who will listen to our psychotic ideas and do what is necessary.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 6, 2007 03:08 PM

Sort of off topic...

As long as we are speculating on who would have said what, when, to whom, every June 6th it generally crosses my mind that if we had actually invaded Japan D-Day would probably have been religated to an interesting historical aside.

Possibly be refered to as the "Good Invasion".

Posted by Michael at June 6, 2007 03:53 PM

Brian, attributing that to Rand is poor form. For parody, the generally accepted method is to at the very least make a subtle change to the name (i.e. "Randy Samberg") or to make up a ficticious name, as with the various Smiths in the linked article.

Posted by Ed Minchau at June 6, 2007 04:27 PM

Well, what do you expect from a child, still in college?

One day, we can hope that he'll grow up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 6, 2007 04:47 PM

Wouldn't this type of story require actual investigative journalism? This scenario would be impossible, the MSM hasn't done any of that in decades.

Posted by Faceless Scribe at June 6, 2007 06:14 PM

Well, Rand, college students are not (for the most part) children. Young adults perhaps, but not children, any more than members of the military are children. And, seeing that page, it appears that Brian is in fact an "adult student". Nonetheless, he has a little to learn about parody, and I see no harm in providing him with some advice.

I do wonder though, to whom is he referring when he speaks of "necrocons"? It almost sounds like an elementary-school version of an ad hominem.

Posted by Ed Minchau at June 6, 2007 07:27 PM

Ed Minchau: Brian, attributing that to Rand is poor form. For parody, the generally accepted method is to at the very least make a subtle change to the name (i.e. "Randy Samberg") or to make up a ficticious name, as with the various Smiths in the linked article.

Thanks for the tip, I'll keep it in mind.

Rand: Well, what do you expect from a child, still in college?

While I'm flattered and amused you tried to look me up, I'm not the person in that link. Maybe the name "Swiderski" is unusual where you live, and you thought getting a hit on Google would be definitive, but I hate to crush your dreams like this--it's a ubiquitous Polish surname. BTW, I live in California, so perhaps that will help you narrow your intrepid search.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 6, 2007 07:38 PM

Must resist temptation...

Posted by Leland at June 6, 2007 08:53 PM

Leland: Must resist temptation...

I did a little digging of my own as to your identity...

http://www.boingboing.net/Picture%202-42.jpg

Deny it all you want, your denials only prove it's true.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 6, 2007 09:51 PM

I think BS has proved his worth or lack thereof with that last post.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 7, 2007 04:19 AM

Actually, anonymous idiot, it probably would've been "US invades Morocco, revenge for Asian attack on Pearl Harbor"

(I wonder if he'll get the irony? I doubt it)

Posted by Rick C at June 7, 2007 07:35 AM

There is an increasing amount of scholarship that says the Soviets won the war by themselves, albeit with our material support. By the time the invasion of Normandy occurred, the Germans had collapsed in the east and were rapidly retreating west. The most the invasion of Normandy did was preserve France, Western Germany and the BeNeLux countries as democracies. Even if the allies hadn't invaded France the Germans would have been defeated in about the same timeframe.

Posted by Jardinero1 at June 7, 2007 08:15 AM

By the time the invasion of Normandy occurred, the Germans had collapsed in the east and were rapidly retreating west.

At least partly because they had too many resources on the western front that couldn't be diverted to the east, and because we'd destroyed the German industrial infrastructure with the air campaign.

The most the invasion of Normandy did was preserve France, Western Germany and the BeNeLux countries as democracies.

That's worth a lot, and a major victory in itself, considering that the alternative would have made the Cold War much more difficult to wage. For instance, in addition to controlling the entire continent of Europe sans the British Isles, the Soviets would have gotten all of the rocket engineers, including von Braun, and not just the ones they did get.

Even if the allies hadn't invaded France the Germans would have been defeated in about the same timeframe.

Possibly, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't worth doing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 7, 2007 08:25 AM

Brian, attributing that to Rand is poor form.

Almost everything Brian does is poor form.

While I'm flattered and amused you tried to look me up

I didn't. That was Ed Wright.

Well, Rand, college students are not (for the most part) children.

Actually, many of them are in my book, if they don't have to work their way through and are being supported entirely by their parents. I think that for many, going to college is simply a prolonging of adolescence into the twenties, particularly judging by much of the writing in student newspapers. Not to mention Brian's petulant rebellious blathering regardless of when or if he graduated.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 7, 2007 08:38 AM

Rand: I didn't. That was Ed Wright.

And you believed him. There are 300 million people in this country, Walter Cronkite.

if they don't have to work their way through and are being supported entirely by their parents.

Then you agree George W. Bush is still a child?

I think that for many, going to college is simply a prolonging of adolescence into the twenties, particularly judging by much of the writing in student newspapers.

As opposed to blogging.

Not to mention Brian's petulant rebellious blathering regardless of when or if he graduated.

Believe me, if I had zero desire for privacy like the generation you thought I belong to, I would be throwing it in your face where and how I graduated. But fortunately for both of us, torturing your inferiority complex isn't one of my flagship ambitions.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 7, 2007 10:11 AM

BS: Deny it all you want, your denials only prove it's true.

Rand: Well, what do you expect from a child, still in college?

Indeed

Posted by Leland at June 7, 2007 10:11 AM

Then you agree George W. Bush is still a child?

No. This is a preposterously stupid non sequitur, even for you.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 7, 2007 10:19 AM

No. This is a preposterously stupid non sequitur, even for you.

Do you even know who George W. Bush is, or are you off in necrocon la-la land plotting the invasion of Switzerland? Unless you consider him a "self-made man" who worked his way through college and rose through the political ranks on personal merit, your stupid, bitter remark applies to him, and my joke is entirely appropriate. Your remark itself was a patent non sequitur, attempting to insult me through a group I don't belong to, and I made light of that fact--so grow a sense of humor before you chew off your own face.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 7, 2007 12:36 PM

I've no idea whether or not you're a spoiled college student, Brian, but it was certainly believable, because that's exactly how you behave.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 7, 2007 12:39 PM

I'm not joining this fray. It's just too easy to attack the usual trolls.

I would like to use my space here to say thanks to all who comment here who have helped preserve our country by their service to our country. Especially those who fought in WWII.

Posted by Steve at June 7, 2007 12:43 PM

I've no idea whether or not you're a spoiled college student, Brian

Nor is it relevant, but neither fact stopped you. Lack of age, education, and experience has never prevented you from quoting Rich Lowry as an authority on foreign policy; nor has the presence of all three ever held you back from wildly, spasmodically attacking people who disagree with you on any given subject. This was nothing but a feeble (and ironic) attempt to score points by bringing up things you don't otherwise care about, and it blew up in your face.

but it was certainly believable

Given what you believe, that's not exactly a hard threshold to cross.

because that's exactly how you behave.

This is how you think teenagers spend their time? You don't have to have been one recently to know this about them: If it isn't edible, smokeable, or f***able, it doesn't exist. The fact that no one under 40 ever comes here has probably distorted your perspective, Rand.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 7, 2007 03:30 PM

The fact that no one under 40 ever comes here has probably distorted your perspective, Rand.

Hey, Squidward is nothing if not consistent. Consistently wrong.

Posted by John Irving at June 7, 2007 04:21 PM

John: Hey, Squidward is nothing if not consistent. Consistently wrong.

Yes, rarely is indeed a consistent rate.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 7, 2007 05:01 PM

Please let the record show that at least one person "over 40" (years?) does come here. And posts comments, apparently.

Posted by MG at June 8, 2007 01:15 AM

I'm not joining this fray. It's just too easy to attack the usual trolls.

This forum doesn't need to import trolls - Rand fulfills that function quite admirably all by himself.

Posted by Anon Mouse at June 8, 2007 02:46 AM

You're lucky I turned 40, otherwise I'd argue!

Posted by Mac at June 8, 2007 05:48 AM

The fact that no one under 40 ever comes here has probably distorted your perspective

Yet another lie from BS.

Posted by Leland at June 8, 2007 05:59 AM

The one Rand doesn't answer is the comment about Bush still
being a child. Every business he started failed, He traded
Sammy Sosa away from Houston because he didn't like his soul,
He needed his daddy's help to become a politician.
He spent 20 years inside a bottle.

Rand hates thinking his patron is a drunk and a failure.
BTW It appears bush was roaring drunk at the G-8 summit

Posted by anonymous at June 8, 2007 11:43 AM

In case anyone wonders why their IQ is no longer being lowered by his idiocy, the above was Anonymous Moron's last post here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 8, 2007 11:54 AM

Mr. Anonymous,

What kind of intolerant bigot are you? Have you no compassion for those of us who have struggled with alcohol?

Your Bush Derangement Syndrome has no bounds. The only cure is for you to stop exhaling.

Good luck with that,

Posted by MG at June 8, 2007 12:05 PM

Yet another lie from BS.

It's called hyperbole, Leland. Don't worry, you'll understand when you're older.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 8, 2007 02:04 PM

He traded Sammy Sosa away from Houston because he didn't like his soul

Didn't know Sosa ever played for the Astros. Or that the President ever managed them. He must have been in disguise.

Posted by ech at June 8, 2007 03:05 PM

The fact that no one under 40 ever comes here has probably distorted your perspective, Rand.

Hunh. I've been dropping by since at least 2004, when I was 37.

I'm dubious. Can you cite this scholarship?

American and British strategic bombing stripped fighter support from the Eastern front, and drained material and manpower resources. The need to keep troops in the West against an invasion, the campaign in Africa against the Allies, Sicily, Italy ...

I'll allow that by the summer of 1944 the Germans were retreating in the East. But it was not just due to the heroic Red Army.

This is not to say that the Russians didn't have a man's job on the Eastern Front. They did and they took the majority of the losses on the Allied side in that war.

It is possible that with just material support from the West, Stalin could have won. I do not think that it would have happened in 1945, and it would have cost many more Russian soldiers than it did.

Posted by Brian at June 8, 2007 03:10 PM

ech,

Wrong beleaguered Texas baseball team. Dubya was a Managing Partner with the Texas Rangers.

The Rangers have been fully capable of questionable trades after Bush left. I remember seeing two ex-Rangers in the World Series - Ivan "Pudge" Rodriguez and Jose Canseco. And I think there were more.

As for Bush's entrepreneurial setbacks...I know on only one - Arbusto Energy, which eventually merged with Spectrum 7, which was eventually bought out by Harken Energy (which still exists). Arbusto suffered for the same reason lots of independent energy companies suffered: falling oil prices, which made the yet-to-be-tapped reserves too costly to develop profitably. (I lived in Corpus Christi for most of that decade, and remembered the oil Texas oil bidness slump oh so well.)

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 8, 2007 08:28 PM

Brian: "Can you cite this scholarship?"

That would be the "America has never done anything to benefit the world" scholarship.

For probably 30 years or so after WWII just about everyone on the planet, save those stuck behind the iron curtain, took it as a matter of fact that the United States was THE primary factor in the Allies victory over the Axis.

Slowly anti-establishment, anti-US, Vietnam War fueled hatred of anything American began to take hold. From that grew the revisionist history myth that the US didn't have such a big role in WWII after all. No, it was the glorious Soviets who stopped Hitler and in the end it was the glorious Soviets who brought the Japanese around too (the big bangs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inconsequential).

The facts speak for themselves. There is a reason the term "Arsenal of Democracy" was coined, because without US aid, and blood, the USSR would not have made it through the winter of 1941. One only has to note how close they came to being completely over ran to realize that if even half of US (as well as UK) aid were cut off the Soviets would not have pulled it off.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 8, 2007 09:05 PM

We can be thankful that Libya didn't discover its major oil reserves until 1959 (source). Mussolini must have been spinning in his grave on that occasion.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 9, 2007 08:27 PM

Of five german army groups, three were fighting in the Eastern front and two were in the Western front. On the surface that might appear as if the Soviets were carrying 60% of the war effort. That would be a mistake.

For one thing the Soviets were on the side of the Nazi's from the start of the war in 1939 until the invasion of Russia in 1941. Soviet materiel assistance to Germany was absolutely vital to German success in the early years of blitzkrieg. Soviet aid nullified the old British WWI tactic of a naval blockade which cripled Germany in WWI.

The second important factor to remember is the vital aid the British and Americans provided Russia to fight the German invasion. Soviet economic and military logistics would have collapsed without the western assistance of the rolling stock and trucks shipped to Russia.

The third important factor to remember is all the resources America and the British Empire diverted to fighting Japan. Because of the secret peace agreement between Japan and the Soviets, Russia was able to transfer west all their forces based in Siberia in time for the winter offensive against the German forces just outside Moscow, without any fear of Japan.

Posted by Brad at June 10, 2007 10:08 PM

Post a comment