Time for another hysterical rant I think... Europe never learns…
A few weeks ago I heard several commentators try to explain how the extremists of Le Pen's far right party in France would join up with the extremists of the French Communist party to elect a socialist, without admitting that nutty extremists are far closer together than the so-called differences between the so-called Left and Right really pretend.
It happened.
Surprising who exactly?
Even the Australian media operates under the delusion that our mainstream parties represent a left and a right option. With some particularly bad journalists coming to the ridiculous conclusion that Australia has an extreme right party!
(Actually we possibly do, but it is Bob Katter's party, not anything main stream. Just as the extreme left party is the remnants of Bob Browns theoretically green party, now starting to openly reveal its unrepentantly communist ideology. These are both simplistic nutter organisations for shallow thinkers, and have more in common with each others extremism than with any party attempting a balanced political platforms.)
By contrast the leader of one of Australia's major political parties is currently committed to soft socialism policies (and hard line pork barrelling), in the form of paid parental leave and taxpayer funded nannies for children.
This party is called the 'Liberal' party.
Unfortunately this party has moved almost as far from the principles of true liberalism as the so called 'Labor' party has moved from any interest in the average worker. In truth both parties are soft left parties, without much to separate their wishy washy social democratic viewpoints apart from a slight variety in the honesty with which they admit to their vote grabbing strategies.
One is a little biased to its modern 'big government, big business and big unions' deal, and the other, at least theoretically, to small traders against big government. But neither is very convincing even in that distinction.
In practical terms, the political spectrum is a circle. 12 o'clock is extreme libertarianism (possibly even anarchism, but in the correct 'government is fundamentally a bad and automatically corrupt idea' version, rather than in the popular fantasy of mad bombers) and 6 o'clock is extreme government control (which can be called either Communism or Fascism, more depending on how well designed their uniforms are than real differences in attitude to the worth of people or how they should be treated).
Australia's main political parties - Labor and Liberal - come in at about quarter to ten, and quarter past ten respectively on such a spectrum. So close together in so many ways, that the points of difference can only be considered hugely significant by the most rabid of the chattering classes. Both are so fixated on middle class welfare to buy votes, that genuine attempts to actually do something useful for their supposed 'natural' constituencies hardly get a look in.
The farce of a supposedly Liberal government massively expanding the public service while competing flat out in pork barrelling, is as absurd a concept as the supposedly Labor government working flat out to increase unemployment through over-regulation in the interest of the ever less relevant union power-brokers who hold their leashes. (Australian unions now only represent 18% of the workforce even though they enforce an effectively closed shop in many industries... mainly non traditional white collar public sector ones. If you go to the private sector, the percentage drops below 13%, and is only kept that high by thuggery in the building sector, and by the continued inclusion of everyone who never got around to resigning on their registers. That includes dead people.)
As for the minor parties, Greens at 7.30, but fast headed for the ideological 7. Katter at 4, and likely to pick up enough Hansonites to go further to the 'right' and move to at least 4.30.
The Australian National party could possibly claim to be perhaps the party of the middle right. Say 2.30. Their version of protectionism is based on farms rather than industry, which seems to be the distinction between left and right. Primary industry protectionism being apparently right wing, and manufacturing industry protectionism being apparently left wing. Apparently.
I have never really understood how one version of protectionism makes you right and the other left, any more than I understand how racism about keeping out cheap labour makes you left (the White Australia policy being a Labor party invention and policy no matter how much they try to pretend it wasn't), and racism about stopping foreigners buying farms makes you right.
(As a side issue, the Nationalists preference for protectionism is further towards 6 than even the Labor party, making the Liberals seem unlikely partners. But the Labor party would never stoop to seeking voters amongst the primary industry classes when the 'workers' in Australia's inner cities are so numerically dominant as to make this unnecessary. The Nationals are forced into partnership with the Liberals despite the fact that they are much further from Liberal preferences on protectionism than Labor ones.)
My confusion on this fantasy of left and right possibly goes back to my Uni days of studying who voted for the Nazi's. The full name of the party being National Socialist Workers Party. The Nationalist part was real enough to classify as right wing, but the Socialist Workers part was equally real, and would usually be considered fairly left wing, if not for the fact that they could be written off as right wing due to their supposed voting base.
In truth the success of the Nazi's was because of the breadth of their appeal. They offered something for everyone. They promised to increase protectionism, increase exports, and increase industrial production, for the 'left' city workers... and they delivered (at the cost of a military buildup and eventual war, but they did deliver). They promised protectionism and increased exports and production for the 'right' wing farmers... and delivered. They promised increased bureaucracy and civil works programs to the 'right' white collar classes and 'left' civil services, and delivered everything from autobahns to frontier fortifications. They promised increased orders of heavy industry, from tanks to warships, to the 'right' wing bankers and industrialists, and delivered. They promised increased nationalism and eventual revenge for Versailles to the conservatives and nationalists, and delivered. They promised economic stimulus to the middle classes, both left and right!
As far as I can see, the difference between the Communists and Fascists was more that the Communists limited their over simplistic appeal to factory workers only, while Fascists stretched their over simplistic appeal to anyone they could suck into their crude and simplistic world view. (And the Fascists had much better tailors...)
They both had a cretinously unlikely 'them and us' storylines but the fascist version had a much wider appeal. Communist 'us' was the factory workers, and 'them' other Germans. Nazi 'us' was Germans, and 'them' non Germans (and Jews).
Guess which version could garner more votes?
The main apparent reason for calling the Fascists right wing rather than left appears to be that their most vicious conflict was with the Communists, so people like to pretend they were some sort of opposites. Given that historically the most vicious conflicts are between the parties competing for the same segment of the electorate, this is most unlikely.
The truth is that parties at 5.30 and 6.30 will be far more violently in conflict with each other for relatively like minded voters other than parties that are at 11.30 or 12.30, which would really be the opposite end of the political spectrum from their viewpoints.
People like Fascists and Communists are both pursuing people who think that the worlds problems can be solved by letting the government organise everything. They are much closer together than people who are genuinely at the opposite end of the spectrum, and who think that more individual freedom and less government interference is appropriate.
The Australian version is watching the Labor party losing ground to the Greens amongst the nuttier end of the left, and the Nationals losing ground to the Hansonites and Katterites at the nuttier end of the right. The fact is that both nuttier ends believe that all their problems can be solved by government protectionism and regulation and financial subsidies.
(In fact the Labor party is the natural home of racism, or at least xenophobia, in Australia's cities, just as the Nationals fit the bill in the country, so Labor loses at least as many votes to the 'right' wing extremists as the Nationals and Liberals. But this is not something the newly political correct Labor party wishes to admit to its new middle class base of chattering drones. As has been said repeatedly, the ALP has moved from representing the cream of the working class, to the dregs of the middle class.)
In truth the more extreme elements are just a step further away from individual rights than the major parties with their vast welfare programs, but the distinction takes the division from the mere foolishness of the unthinking swillers at the troughs of the major parties, to the genuinely frothing at the mouth idealism of those stupid enough to think they have discovered a major truth. A truth so obvious that anyone who does not agree is probably not even just blind, but in an organised conspiracy against what obviously is the only possible good and proper form of behavior.
(I met one of my teenage piano students soon after he went on to University. He was campaigning for some idealistic cause with all the self righteous passion of unthinking ignorance. I managed to quietly fob him off without commenting that 'anyone who is not socialist at 20 doesn't have a heart, and anyone who is still a socialist at 40 doesn't have a brain'. To my own self righteous perspective, those without brains include both Communists and Fascists.)
Meanwhile the debate in Europe is between those who believe the lies they have voted for these past 50 years (that the government can provide unlimited support on credit), and those who recognise this is crap and will inevitably lead to disaster. The latter are more towards the middle (or at least between 10 and 2), and the former nearer to 6 (or at least between 4 and 8).
Some of the bottom dwellers are calling themselves Communists, and some Fascists, but they are fighting for a base of protectionist xenophobes who think they are owed a living by their government.
Unfortunately the European Socialist parties who have dug this hole in the first place (from about 9 on the clock), are scrambling away from the more centralist position reality was almost forcing on them - in an attempt to hang on to their lower elements - while the supposedly right parties are heading away from the centre to satisfy the racists they are in danger of losing (see Sarkozy for one).
Unfortunately extremism is always more likely to attract the ignorant and unthinking in a democracy, when things go wrong with the comfortable lies they have always voted for. Their choice comes to admitting that they have been cretins, or striking out against whoever they can think of to blame. Foreigners, capitalists, Jews, whatever.
It would be nice to think that steadily improved education over the last century would leave an electorate less susceptible to stupidity. Unfortunately this has two problems.
First, a genuine liberal education where people might learn minor elements of social behaviour such as ethics and history has been thrown out by 'progressives' concerned with producing a technocratic labor force instead. (Consider the Communist desire for 'useful idiots' or the Nazi preference to train people to accept the 'big lie'?)
Second, and perhaps more important, the expansion of the voting classes from those who qualify through contribution - military service or property or contribution to taxes or whatever - to any idiot who reaches a certain age regardless of their uselessness, has led to a 'rights' fantasy where voters think the government owes them a living. These pathetic drones have been the unprincipled voters that irresponsible politicians have trained into useless leeches for generations.
(I am not just talking about the unemployed, and certainly not those who can't work. As Heinlein pointed out, any useless drain on the public purse, from civil servant to university lecturer to High Court judge, can always get a useful job and work for a genuinely productive living. Such unthinking chattering class drones are possibly more dangerous than the genuinely ignorant who just fall into stupid behavior. Many of the chatterers spend a lifetime trying to justify the patently ridiculous things they parrot. As a single recent example, Australia had a 'love media' of incompetent, often government subsidized, journalists who have argued in recent years that 1 - previous governments control f immigration was ethically evil; 2 - that getting rid of any reasonable controls would not lead to disaster; 3 - that the subsequent disaster was not the fault of the stupid changes in policies; 4 - that changing g policies back would not solve the problem; and eventually 5 - that the only solution is far more radical policies, and that anyone who defends the less offensive policies they previously poo-pooed must be ethically evil! These hypocrites genuinely believer that they are the moral voice of reason!!)
I do not have great hopes for the future of Europe. As the 'Union' starts to fracture into the self interest that has only been kept at bay by the promise of unlimited gravy subsidised by stupid Germans, those same Germans are starting to work out that this third attempt to conquor Europe in a century might be almost as painful as the last two.
The penalty for the overly socialist leaning governments impossible promises is economic chaos, and the reward is likely to be the revenge of the ignorant voters who fly to more and more extreme parties to avoid admitting that their own stupidity is to blame for their problems. Better, in their limited imaginations, to assume some horrible conspiracy.
Yet stupid and ignorant voters are not limited to Europe. If things get worse in democracies, so will the decisions of the modern voters.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Rating General Lucian Truscott (Jr)
One of the most experienced American Generals of the Second World War, Lucian Truscott had the rare advantage of commanding units of several sizes in actions of various durations and intensity as he built up the experience necessary to be an effective army commander.
Despite having been a school teacher up until becoming a ’90 day wonder’ officer in the Great War, he became one of the best practitioners of the military arts that the United States has ever produced. A particularly impressive achievement given that he spent the entire First World War in a training camp in the Uited States, and had no combat experience at all when he was first sent to the European Theatre of Operations in 1942. From a position as a newly promoted Colonel, he had been chosen to head a group of officers who would get some combat experience to pass on to other officers, through the process of working with the new British Commando units.
Truscott had spent much of the interwar period in the cavalry, and in the cavalry staff school, so he was bewildered as to why anybody would have thought him appropriate to run a group that would learn to specialise in Amphibious Operations. But he had an unexpected advantage. He had become a devotee of the prestige game of the American officer corps, Polo, and was considered one of the army’s foremost practitioners. The reason for his selectioin became a bit more clear when Eisenhower briefed him on working with Lord Louis Mountbatten’s Combined Operations Command, and then asked “Did you know that Lord Louis wrote a book on Polo?”
Such are the vagaries of decision making, which gave a man who had spent most of his military career in training or staff duties (or commanding the ceremonial detachment at Arlington cemetery), the first active combat command for American ground forces in the European Theatre.
In many ways he was the ideal candidate. He was a natural gruff soldier, far more intent on getting things done effeciently, than on being a posing media hungry prima-donna like Patton or Clarke. He certainly lacked the indecisiveness and incompetence that bedevilled so many of his contemporaries like Fredendall and Dawley and Lucas. He was a serious practitioner of the military arts, without thinking that ‘map skills’ or being a skilled football coach was adequate preparation for leading troops in combat, like Bradley and Eisenhower. And he never, ever treated his soldiers or officers with the contempt that was so much a part of MacArthur’s personality.
His experience began with learingn Commando tactics, and then training American officers and men in commando operations. From this the cavalry man came to the conclusion that the standards of fitness and movement required by US infantry in general were unsuitable for modern warfare. From there on his troops were required to perform to the standards similar to the Roman Legions in covering ground, and his standard speed of advance became referred to in the army as the ‘Truscott Trott’.
He became the first senior American officer in Europe to observe amphibious warfare combat techniques, when he accompanied the Dieppe raid. (An operation that, although unsuccessfu, he always felt taught lessons vital to all later amphibious operations…)
It was to stand him in good stead, because from that point on he was the man at the pointy end for the American invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy (twice) and France.
Off Casablanca, he came face to face with a potentially much greater disaster than Dieppe. As a Brigadier General his small invasion force was still supposedly in communication silence when a force of four French warships – his biographer (H. Paul Jeffers - Command of Honor) claims cruisers, but then quotes Truscott as giving a name (the Lorraine) of a Battleship that was under British control in Alexandria at the time – cruised slowly through the vulnerable invasion craft, and even signalled a warning that the troops on shore were aware the Americans were coming. Had these warships been interested in fighting, Truscott’s war would have ended right there.
The remainder of the operation introduced him to the issues of command and control of invasion forces, and no doubt left him very grateful that he was only facing a very half hearted French effort rather than the German professionals. Every problem of communication and supply that were to bedevill later operations were given a trial run. His comments on the effectiveness of naval support… they withdrew “halfway to South America”… were particularly bitter.
As a result of his success, Truscott was made a Major General, which meant that, as an equal/potential competitor, Patton would not be willing to have him in his command any more. Patton suggested his choices were to return to the US, or go to Algiers and try to get another job from Ike. Naturally he chose the second.
Eisenhower initially appointd him as a deputy commander, to set up a forward headquarters near the front where Ike could try and get the Americans and French to co-operate with the British on a new attack. But even as he started to get organised, Rommell decided to give the Americans a lesson in how offensives (or at least limitd spoiling operations) should be done, at Kasserine Pass. So Truscott’s most important task for Eisenhower during this period was to report that Fredendall should be relieved, preferably by Patton.
By the time Patton arrived, Truscott was off to take over 3rd Division, and prepare it for the invasion of Sicily. He trained the division most thouroughly for the operation, and fortunately they faced little serious opposition. Nonetheless Truscott led them at a pace, and with an effeciency, that left even the armoured division in his wake. His infantry division produced the outstanding performance of the Sicily campaign.
As a result he got to lead 3rd division again in the hard fought Salerno landing, and later in the breakout to Cassino, and then again in the desperate Anzio landings. He did comment that naval suppport was clearly improving with every invasioin experience, but that did nothing to make up for command problems on the ground. Things went so wrong at Anzio that Truscott was appointed to relieve the commander of VIth Corps (a US army formation that often included British or allied units), and spent months rebuilding the units before the eventual breakout. (Where he apparently attempted to inform General Alexander when Clarke re-routed the forces – meant to cut off the German Xth armies escape – against Alexander’s specific orders. Clarke managed to prevent this, but Truscott was clearly appalled by Clarke’s pursuit of vainglory, particularly at the cost of stupid military decisions.)
After rest and refit, he led VI Corps again in Dragoon - the invasion of Southern France – and here he was finally satisfied with the excellent co-operation and skill of the (Royal) Navy. (Though he was never entirely satisfied with tactical air support from his own air-force.) Fortunately by this time the Germans had already had orders to try and escape France if possible, so he finally had a chance to experience proper maneouvre warfare, without the need for a grinding and bloody breakout first.
From there he was called back to command 5th Army in Italy when Clarke was put in charge of the Allied Army Group. It was with mixed feelings that he reported back. He clearly didn’t want to lose the energetic sweep of th French camapign to be tied bak to the slow slog of the Italian one, and he now had to suffer repeated show pony performances while Clarke attempted to milk the media. On the other hand he was in charge of the most international of ‘American’ forces. (7th ‘American’ Army in France had consisted of 2 American and 8 French divisions, but that only made it a minority ‘American’ force. 5th ‘American’ Army in Italy almost always had more British and allied troops in it than American, a constant problem to Clarke whose attempt to avoid having any British troops at all enter Rome was the final straw for many of the foreign officers serving under him.)
Truscott was the ideal man to make a polyglot force work. British, South African, Polish, Italian, Brazilian and other troops were all equally acceptable to him. He worked hard with all of them, and did his best to help the units that were failing. (When the US 92nd ‘Black’ division repeatedly failed, he worked to reduce its weaknesses, and eventually rebuilt it by combining the best troops from the division in a single Regiment, and importing the Nisei (Japanese) regiment, and troops collected from anti-aircraft commands, to make it a tougher proposition.) He was reportedly respected and appreciated by all who served under him. (A more complete contrast to Clarke could not be imagined, and the morale of the whole Army must have benefitted enormously.)
After the final breakthrough and collapse of the Germans, he had a second chance at maneouvre warfare, and again performed well with his mixed command. The German surrender saw an Army Commander at the height of his powers. (And one who had overcome his reluctance at having to command Corps leaders who were senior to him, and fully justified the confidence of his superiors.) In fact when the failing Patton had to be replaced for political (and possibly sanity) reasons after the end of the war, Truscott was dragged back from an administrative command to take over 3rd Army and command the occupation forces in his part of Germany. Naturally he was a vastly superor choice for such a peacetime/administrative role in an occupied country than the unfortunate Patton. (Who died as the result of an accident soon after.)
After the war he was invalided out with a heart condition, but was soon recalled to head the Army studies on amphibious warfare. An excellent responsibility for the army's leading amphibious practitioner.
A second period of retirement was then cut off when he was appointed to run the new CIA operations in Europe, and later became deputy head of the CIA, in charge of such things as spying and coups (though apparently he objected to assassination).
The last is little reported, and there is scant information about his actual activities, but it does go to demonstrate his flexibility and trustworthiness. Two vital characteristics in a profession of arms that was often noted for inflexible dinosaurs (several of whom Truscott had replaced during his war career).
So how do we assess Lucien Truscott?
Frankly he was one of the, if not the, best American generals of the war. (Possibly of any of the Allied generals.) This was partly due to his outstanding natural abilities and willingness to be flexible and learn: and partly due to being in the right place at the right time.
It would be unfair to sugest that this was pure luck. He made it to Mountbatten’s command only partly on the amusing note of being a fellow Polo player. He was also obviously in the short list before this may have swung it in his favour.
From there he simply had he slow and careful build up of experience that so many other generals never got. He saw amphibious action going wrong (Dieppe), before being given a chance to make one that could have gone wrong turn out somewhat better (Morocco). He than got to observe how much tougher the Germans were (Kasserine), before leading a somewhat more successful invasion (Sicily) with troops that he actually got to train to his standards. He then had the luck to mainly face Italians, so that the 3rd division could become a well oiled machine before going head to head with serious German opposition in his third (Salerno) and fourth (Anzio) invasions. By the time he went into his fifth invasion and breakout (France), he was completley ready to achieve excellent results even with less experienced troops. (The fact that the navy was ready to do it right too, and the Germans already on the run, didn’t hurt.) Finally he led an army in the smashing and pursuit of the last remnants of serious German opposition in Italy. Even his post war command of an army of occupation in Germany must have been made incomparably easier by his experience leading the most polyglot army in the US inventory.
In fact a more perfect training regime for the production of a good solid and experienced general could hardly have been imagined. He led battalioins, regiments, divisions, corps and armies in combat, interspersed with staff duties where he mixed with the Allies highest commanders (a useful addition that few other generals came close to), and observed his seniors mistakes. Virtually no other major American commander had half the practice and experience he did.
It is not unfair to suggest that many other generals who failed might have done much better had they gone through his experiences on the way to commanding large units.
On the other hand much of his success also comes down to him. He was a really solid trainer and commander, from Truscott’s Trott to his detailed rehearsals for invasions. Despite having to repeatedly take over from officers who had failed in one way or another (Lucas - twice, Fredendall, Clarke, even Patton), he had phenomenal success, and always rebuilt the morale and fighting integrity of the units. He got on with soldiers regardless of race or nationality, and was certainly one of the top ‘Allied’ generals in the way he treated, and was responded to, by his troops.
In fact, as an all round performer, Lucian Truscott (Jr) was certainly one of the top ten generals on the Allied side, and possibly the best American general of the war.
Despite having been a school teacher up until becoming a ’90 day wonder’ officer in the Great War, he became one of the best practitioners of the military arts that the United States has ever produced. A particularly impressive achievement given that he spent the entire First World War in a training camp in the Uited States, and had no combat experience at all when he was first sent to the European Theatre of Operations in 1942. From a position as a newly promoted Colonel, he had been chosen to head a group of officers who would get some combat experience to pass on to other officers, through the process of working with the new British Commando units.
Truscott had spent much of the interwar period in the cavalry, and in the cavalry staff school, so he was bewildered as to why anybody would have thought him appropriate to run a group that would learn to specialise in Amphibious Operations. But he had an unexpected advantage. He had become a devotee of the prestige game of the American officer corps, Polo, and was considered one of the army’s foremost practitioners. The reason for his selectioin became a bit more clear when Eisenhower briefed him on working with Lord Louis Mountbatten’s Combined Operations Command, and then asked “Did you know that Lord Louis wrote a book on Polo?”
Such are the vagaries of decision making, which gave a man who had spent most of his military career in training or staff duties (or commanding the ceremonial detachment at Arlington cemetery), the first active combat command for American ground forces in the European Theatre.
In many ways he was the ideal candidate. He was a natural gruff soldier, far more intent on getting things done effeciently, than on being a posing media hungry prima-donna like Patton or Clarke. He certainly lacked the indecisiveness and incompetence that bedevilled so many of his contemporaries like Fredendall and Dawley and Lucas. He was a serious practitioner of the military arts, without thinking that ‘map skills’ or being a skilled football coach was adequate preparation for leading troops in combat, like Bradley and Eisenhower. And he never, ever treated his soldiers or officers with the contempt that was so much a part of MacArthur’s personality.
His experience began with learingn Commando tactics, and then training American officers and men in commando operations. From this the cavalry man came to the conclusion that the standards of fitness and movement required by US infantry in general were unsuitable for modern warfare. From there on his troops were required to perform to the standards similar to the Roman Legions in covering ground, and his standard speed of advance became referred to in the army as the ‘Truscott Trott’.
He became the first senior American officer in Europe to observe amphibious warfare combat techniques, when he accompanied the Dieppe raid. (An operation that, although unsuccessfu, he always felt taught lessons vital to all later amphibious operations…)
It was to stand him in good stead, because from that point on he was the man at the pointy end for the American invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy (twice) and France.
Off Casablanca, he came face to face with a potentially much greater disaster than Dieppe. As a Brigadier General his small invasion force was still supposedly in communication silence when a force of four French warships – his biographer (H. Paul Jeffers - Command of Honor) claims cruisers, but then quotes Truscott as giving a name (the Lorraine) of a Battleship that was under British control in Alexandria at the time – cruised slowly through the vulnerable invasion craft, and even signalled a warning that the troops on shore were aware the Americans were coming. Had these warships been interested in fighting, Truscott’s war would have ended right there.
The remainder of the operation introduced him to the issues of command and control of invasion forces, and no doubt left him very grateful that he was only facing a very half hearted French effort rather than the German professionals. Every problem of communication and supply that were to bedevill later operations were given a trial run. His comments on the effectiveness of naval support… they withdrew “halfway to South America”… were particularly bitter.
As a result of his success, Truscott was made a Major General, which meant that, as an equal/potential competitor, Patton would not be willing to have him in his command any more. Patton suggested his choices were to return to the US, or go to Algiers and try to get another job from Ike. Naturally he chose the second.
Eisenhower initially appointd him as a deputy commander, to set up a forward headquarters near the front where Ike could try and get the Americans and French to co-operate with the British on a new attack. But even as he started to get organised, Rommell decided to give the Americans a lesson in how offensives (or at least limitd spoiling operations) should be done, at Kasserine Pass. So Truscott’s most important task for Eisenhower during this period was to report that Fredendall should be relieved, preferably by Patton.
By the time Patton arrived, Truscott was off to take over 3rd Division, and prepare it for the invasion of Sicily. He trained the division most thouroughly for the operation, and fortunately they faced little serious opposition. Nonetheless Truscott led them at a pace, and with an effeciency, that left even the armoured division in his wake. His infantry division produced the outstanding performance of the Sicily campaign.
As a result he got to lead 3rd division again in the hard fought Salerno landing, and later in the breakout to Cassino, and then again in the desperate Anzio landings. He did comment that naval suppport was clearly improving with every invasioin experience, but that did nothing to make up for command problems on the ground. Things went so wrong at Anzio that Truscott was appointed to relieve the commander of VIth Corps (a US army formation that often included British or allied units), and spent months rebuilding the units before the eventual breakout. (Where he apparently attempted to inform General Alexander when Clarke re-routed the forces – meant to cut off the German Xth armies escape – against Alexander’s specific orders. Clarke managed to prevent this, but Truscott was clearly appalled by Clarke’s pursuit of vainglory, particularly at the cost of stupid military decisions.)
After rest and refit, he led VI Corps again in Dragoon - the invasion of Southern France – and here he was finally satisfied with the excellent co-operation and skill of the (Royal) Navy. (Though he was never entirely satisfied with tactical air support from his own air-force.) Fortunately by this time the Germans had already had orders to try and escape France if possible, so he finally had a chance to experience proper maneouvre warfare, without the need for a grinding and bloody breakout first.
From there he was called back to command 5th Army in Italy when Clarke was put in charge of the Allied Army Group. It was with mixed feelings that he reported back. He clearly didn’t want to lose the energetic sweep of th French camapign to be tied bak to the slow slog of the Italian one, and he now had to suffer repeated show pony performances while Clarke attempted to milk the media. On the other hand he was in charge of the most international of ‘American’ forces. (7th ‘American’ Army in France had consisted of 2 American and 8 French divisions, but that only made it a minority ‘American’ force. 5th ‘American’ Army in Italy almost always had more British and allied troops in it than American, a constant problem to Clarke whose attempt to avoid having any British troops at all enter Rome was the final straw for many of the foreign officers serving under him.)
Truscott was the ideal man to make a polyglot force work. British, South African, Polish, Italian, Brazilian and other troops were all equally acceptable to him. He worked hard with all of them, and did his best to help the units that were failing. (When the US 92nd ‘Black’ division repeatedly failed, he worked to reduce its weaknesses, and eventually rebuilt it by combining the best troops from the division in a single Regiment, and importing the Nisei (Japanese) regiment, and troops collected from anti-aircraft commands, to make it a tougher proposition.) He was reportedly respected and appreciated by all who served under him. (A more complete contrast to Clarke could not be imagined, and the morale of the whole Army must have benefitted enormously.)
After the final breakthrough and collapse of the Germans, he had a second chance at maneouvre warfare, and again performed well with his mixed command. The German surrender saw an Army Commander at the height of his powers. (And one who had overcome his reluctance at having to command Corps leaders who were senior to him, and fully justified the confidence of his superiors.) In fact when the failing Patton had to be replaced for political (and possibly sanity) reasons after the end of the war, Truscott was dragged back from an administrative command to take over 3rd Army and command the occupation forces in his part of Germany. Naturally he was a vastly superor choice for such a peacetime/administrative role in an occupied country than the unfortunate Patton. (Who died as the result of an accident soon after.)
After the war he was invalided out with a heart condition, but was soon recalled to head the Army studies on amphibious warfare. An excellent responsibility for the army's leading amphibious practitioner.
A second period of retirement was then cut off when he was appointed to run the new CIA operations in Europe, and later became deputy head of the CIA, in charge of such things as spying and coups (though apparently he objected to assassination).
The last is little reported, and there is scant information about his actual activities, but it does go to demonstrate his flexibility and trustworthiness. Two vital characteristics in a profession of arms that was often noted for inflexible dinosaurs (several of whom Truscott had replaced during his war career).
So how do we assess Lucien Truscott?
Frankly he was one of the, if not the, best American generals of the war. (Possibly of any of the Allied generals.) This was partly due to his outstanding natural abilities and willingness to be flexible and learn: and partly due to being in the right place at the right time.
It would be unfair to sugest that this was pure luck. He made it to Mountbatten’s command only partly on the amusing note of being a fellow Polo player. He was also obviously in the short list before this may have swung it in his favour.
From there he simply had he slow and careful build up of experience that so many other generals never got. He saw amphibious action going wrong (Dieppe), before being given a chance to make one that could have gone wrong turn out somewhat better (Morocco). He than got to observe how much tougher the Germans were (Kasserine), before leading a somewhat more successful invasion (Sicily) with troops that he actually got to train to his standards. He then had the luck to mainly face Italians, so that the 3rd division could become a well oiled machine before going head to head with serious German opposition in his third (Salerno) and fourth (Anzio) invasions. By the time he went into his fifth invasion and breakout (France), he was completley ready to achieve excellent results even with less experienced troops. (The fact that the navy was ready to do it right too, and the Germans already on the run, didn’t hurt.) Finally he led an army in the smashing and pursuit of the last remnants of serious German opposition in Italy. Even his post war command of an army of occupation in Germany must have been made incomparably easier by his experience leading the most polyglot army in the US inventory.
In fact a more perfect training regime for the production of a good solid and experienced general could hardly have been imagined. He led battalioins, regiments, divisions, corps and armies in combat, interspersed with staff duties where he mixed with the Allies highest commanders (a useful addition that few other generals came close to), and observed his seniors mistakes. Virtually no other major American commander had half the practice and experience he did.
It is not unfair to suggest that many other generals who failed might have done much better had they gone through his experiences on the way to commanding large units.
On the other hand much of his success also comes down to him. He was a really solid trainer and commander, from Truscott’s Trott to his detailed rehearsals for invasions. Despite having to repeatedly take over from officers who had failed in one way or another (Lucas - twice, Fredendall, Clarke, even Patton), he had phenomenal success, and always rebuilt the morale and fighting integrity of the units. He got on with soldiers regardless of race or nationality, and was certainly one of the top ‘Allied’ generals in the way he treated, and was responded to, by his troops.
In fact, as an all round performer, Lucian Truscott (Jr) was certainly one of the top ten generals on the Allied side, and possibly the best American general of the war.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Primogeniture (or concentrated inheritance): the making of the modern world
Equal inheritance amongst children has been one of the most destructive patterns in human history.
At it’s simplest level, a farming family may live comfortably and easily support four to six children on something in the order of ten acres. But if that ten acres is divided into four plots of 2.5 acres, it will no longer support a family of six. Nonetheless two surviving children in the next generation are enough to reduce the arable land per family to an acre or so, which is below subsistence for the next generation, particularly if more than one child survives. This situation has driven much of the third world into perpetual poverty, and has had baleful effects in modern countires such as France. (Where the 1792 Revolutionary State’s policy of equal inheritance amongst children has entrenched a peasant farming economy that shocked British Tommies in the Great War, and remains a constant economic and political drain on the economy of the European Union even now). Napoleon dismantled many of the social ‘reforms’ of the revolutionary state, but chose to leave this one intact.
On a larger scale the effects are most easily visualised amongst the great land holders and kings. Charlemagne united much of Europe, including what we now call France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland and the Low Countries, under one kingdom. A kingdom that ran reasonably smoothly and remarkably effeciently., and which triggered a minor Renaissance of literacy and government services. Unfortunately that kingdom was soon split between his three grandsons (into roughly France, Germany, and ‘the middle bits’), each of whom had multiple children of their own. Within a few generations the entire system had collapsed back into a hodge-podge of territories constantly in conflict with each other. The Dark Ages returned with a vengeance, as Danes and Norsemen (Vikings) and other marauders gleefully moved in to pick over the remains.
The problem was largely solved in Europe by the introduction of the system of primogeniture, which theoretically implies that the oldest son inherits the families property, and dispenses only minor inheritances for other sons, and sometimes doweries for daughters. (The doweries could be quite substantial of course. When Eleanore of Aquitaine divorced her French husband and took an English one instead, she moved enough of France into Norman/English control to greatly expand a conflict between the two nations that would last for centuries.)
The most recognised explanation of the system is the original folk story of Puss in Boots. The oldest son inherited the mill, the middle son the mules, and the youngest son a cat. The more recognisable version is the medieval truism that the oldest son inherits the estate, the middle son goes into the church (often for those from influential families to become an important abbot or powerful bishop magnate in his own right), and the younger son becomes a military adventurer… (see the vast majority of crusaders and conquistadores).
In terms of great landholders and kings, primogeniture meant that careful managers steadily increased their holdings, and, if careful investors, their wealth. The resulting estates became the foundations of most of the modern nation states of Europe. The French were particularly impressed that a fairly second string noble family called the Capetians, who started as fairly minor nobles, managed to ruthlessly pursue concentrated inheritance to the point of making their family Kings of France, and then France the eventual greatest power in Europe.
[As an aside, it might be interesting to note that traditionally the better great families have invested in the living standards of their communities, and the original great industrial magnates were equally keen to build idealised estates for their workers – though of course that didn’t last for long with the bourgeoise that followed. These families were also the founders of all the great hospitals and universities and charities. But the idealistic imposition of death duties on the ‘rich’ by jealous ‘socialists’ in many coutries stopped that pretty much cold. Only places that do not have death duties, like the United States, have maintained high levels of philanthropy by the great families… from the Rockefellers and Carnegies to the Gates and Buffets.]
What has not proved to be a good thing, is election. The traditional Germanic tribal pattern of electing a replacement King after the death of the previous incumbent led to endless squabbles and feuds between competing families, and almost inevitably led to exactly the drain on resources and defections of provinces that were trying to be avoided. Similarly an overfond father choosing an incompetent or obnoxious favourite son has traditionally led to poor results, not least for the chosen incompetent. (The story of William Rufus being ‘accidentally’ shot on a hunting trip being a pretty clear example.)
The Saxon version of inheritance was half and half. The Witan elected a candidiate, but it had to be one eligible to inherit through the royal line. In the tenth century only 3 out of 8 Saxon kings succeeded their fathers. (For a continuing version of nobles and officials appointed by previous monarchs getting together to elect the next one, see the Papacy.)
But considering the system of primogeniture to be always in favour of the 'eldest son' is still an oversimplification. In fact the orignial Norman version, although it theoretically specified eldest sons, was far more practical. Of the first 9 monarchs of Norman England, only 1 was direct from father to eldest son. William I was succeeded by his third son William II (Rufus), who was succeeded by his brother Henry I, who was succeeded by his nephew Stephen (because his daughter Matilda was considered unfit). Stephen was succeeded by his second cousin Henry II, grandson of Henry I. The seventh Plantagenet (and first eldest son), was Richard I, who was succeeded by his brother John (who was so bad that the nobles crowned a French prince as the next king), before the throne was returned to John’s easily controlled infant son Henry III.
The key therefore is not inheritance by an eldest son, but the principle of concentrated inheritance regardless of who is chosen. In fact for many great families, kingdoms and empires throughout history, the ideal has been to choose the best candidate for inheritance, either from amongst immediate relatives, or by adoption into the family. (A point reinforced by the fact that the only direct primogeniture on the above list led to the dynastically disastrous Richard, who once claimed he would sell London if he could find a buyer.)
Just to emphasise that I am not being entirely Eurocentric here, the Japanese families were masters of concentrated inheritance, as were most of the great imperial dynasty’s of history. (One of the great dynastic mistakes that could be exampled was when Charles V of the Hapsburgs split the Spanish and overseas territories from the Austrian/Italian lands. It might have worked, except that he reflexively gave his favourite son a continental part – his favourite territories of the Netherlands – as a disfucntional annex to the overseas bits, rather than leaving it with his brothers part, the logical Austrian bits that were also in the Holy Roman Empire. The resulting mess sapped both empires fatally.)
Almost every modern nation state established prior to the First World War (and that is still the vast majority of all stable states), has been built on the principle of concentrated inheritance. Even radically Republican ones such as the United States started as assemblies of colonies that evolved under a hereditary monarchy. In fact the only obvious thing uniting the 13 colonies was their relationship with, and eventual opposition to, the English crown. Otherwise it is hard to imagine how such a disparate group could have been brought to combine! Russia, China, Japan, most of the Asian and South American nations, and certainly most of the island groups, can all trace their origins to such an approach.
The post Great War states also have a suprising correlation. Even in Africa and the Middle East, where European powers largely established states by drawing lines on the map, the ‘nations’ established came from what had been accumulated by the colonial powers – usually monarchies or empires – in the first place, and were almost always established as independent on the basis of tribal groups that could be in some way combined under a reasonable facsimile of a monarch with some claim to traditional loyalty through the region. The greatest exceptions were places like Iraq – where the British lumped three unrelated groups forced together by the Turks under a dubious imported royal house – and Liberia, which the Americans created as an imperial exercise for dumped ex slaves in a fit of idealistic romanticism. (And before anyone gets too romantic about Liberia, it, like most other Republics – and in mimicry of its founders – has been subject to dictatorship, multiple civil wars, and hundreds of thousands of deaths.)
Post World War Two, some different conglomorations were attempted… or so it might appear. India was a group of British crown colonies and dependencies – almost all established by monarchies of some sort – combined with the ‘Independent Principalities’ which were also under the hereditary protection of the British Empire… Hmmm. Botswana, the closest thing to a successful Republic of the last century, was pretty much a single tribal group under a hereditary ruling family (who now take turns calling themselves ‘Presidents’).
The curent passion for devolution is interesting. Nations are moving into ‘federations’ – such as the European Union or the more fanciful ‘Arab League’, at the same time that Yugoslavia splits into separate ethnic states, and Scotland mutters about independence from Britain.
They can do this because international stability has reached a point where states don’t need to be big to survive. But the inevitable result of smaller and weaker states is much less capactiy to deal with issues like famine, or collapse of vital industries by reliance on disparate parts of the economy. Too many of the modern states are ‘all our eggs in one basket’ cases (often known quite quickly just as basketcases.) Scotland for instance, will look pretty stupid if it splits from English tax subsidy in the assumption that it can rely on North Sea Oil, only to have the (let’s face it different ethnic group) Shetlands split from Scotland to keep the oil for itself.
Bigger is not always better. The Roman and British (and French and even American) Empires eventually started calving off separate states as soon as they could stand on their own, because that is far more sensible and cost efective than trying to run everything centrally. (And far more likelly to avoid revolts by the colonies who have recognised the problems of over-centralisation and lack of regional control.. did I mention the 13 colonies?) The process is particularly attractive if international stability suggests that independence can be granted to disparate groups without them being immediately conquored by rapacious neighbours. (See the unseemly haste with which post war British taxpayers abandoned only half established states in Africa well before their social development or infrastructure was really ready to stand on its own.)
States need to big big enough to survive and prosper in the context of their period, but flexible enough to ‘calve’ into smaller states if that helps. It is notable that the really big ‘republics’ like the United States and the Soviet Union and China have more trouble with devolution than the monarchies. (The American Civil War being an example at lest comparable with the fall of the Soviet union, and the Chinese attitude to Tibet and Taiwan showing interesting potential.) India was perhaps fortunate that Pakistan and Bangladesh ‘escaped’ a forced union… the conflicts have been bad enough without an American style civil war.
Concentrated inheritance has been the making of successful states, and a stable international system for the modern world. But the counter-balancing principle of devolution of estates to pass on non vital elements to other siblings has also proved useful in allowing states who understand the principles to devolve govrnment. Britain has been the most succesful proponent of this. (A Commonwealth of 54 nations containing a quarter of the world’s area and a third of its population that gets together regularly to play sporting challenges – and sometimes to discipline errant members – is a considerably more impressive achievement than the relative farce we call the United Nations.) But France, and even the United States have managed something similar, although on a much smaller scale. (The independence of the Philippines after 40 years of revolts could be compared to the American War of Independence for instance… certainly a third of the local population was pro, a third anti, and a third disinterested, in each struggle.)
The principles of primogeniture could be said to have had an unequalled effect on the shape of the world we see today.
At it’s simplest level, a farming family may live comfortably and easily support four to six children on something in the order of ten acres. But if that ten acres is divided into four plots of 2.5 acres, it will no longer support a family of six. Nonetheless two surviving children in the next generation are enough to reduce the arable land per family to an acre or so, which is below subsistence for the next generation, particularly if more than one child survives. This situation has driven much of the third world into perpetual poverty, and has had baleful effects in modern countires such as France. (Where the 1792 Revolutionary State’s policy of equal inheritance amongst children has entrenched a peasant farming economy that shocked British Tommies in the Great War, and remains a constant economic and political drain on the economy of the European Union even now). Napoleon dismantled many of the social ‘reforms’ of the revolutionary state, but chose to leave this one intact.
On a larger scale the effects are most easily visualised amongst the great land holders and kings. Charlemagne united much of Europe, including what we now call France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland and the Low Countries, under one kingdom. A kingdom that ran reasonably smoothly and remarkably effeciently., and which triggered a minor Renaissance of literacy and government services. Unfortunately that kingdom was soon split between his three grandsons (into roughly France, Germany, and ‘the middle bits’), each of whom had multiple children of their own. Within a few generations the entire system had collapsed back into a hodge-podge of territories constantly in conflict with each other. The Dark Ages returned with a vengeance, as Danes and Norsemen (Vikings) and other marauders gleefully moved in to pick over the remains.
The problem was largely solved in Europe by the introduction of the system of primogeniture, which theoretically implies that the oldest son inherits the families property, and dispenses only minor inheritances for other sons, and sometimes doweries for daughters. (The doweries could be quite substantial of course. When Eleanore of Aquitaine divorced her French husband and took an English one instead, she moved enough of France into Norman/English control to greatly expand a conflict between the two nations that would last for centuries.)
The most recognised explanation of the system is the original folk story of Puss in Boots. The oldest son inherited the mill, the middle son the mules, and the youngest son a cat. The more recognisable version is the medieval truism that the oldest son inherits the estate, the middle son goes into the church (often for those from influential families to become an important abbot or powerful bishop magnate in his own right), and the younger son becomes a military adventurer… (see the vast majority of crusaders and conquistadores).
In terms of great landholders and kings, primogeniture meant that careful managers steadily increased their holdings, and, if careful investors, their wealth. The resulting estates became the foundations of most of the modern nation states of Europe. The French were particularly impressed that a fairly second string noble family called the Capetians, who started as fairly minor nobles, managed to ruthlessly pursue concentrated inheritance to the point of making their family Kings of France, and then France the eventual greatest power in Europe.
[As an aside, it might be interesting to note that traditionally the better great families have invested in the living standards of their communities, and the original great industrial magnates were equally keen to build idealised estates for their workers – though of course that didn’t last for long with the bourgeoise that followed. These families were also the founders of all the great hospitals and universities and charities. But the idealistic imposition of death duties on the ‘rich’ by jealous ‘socialists’ in many coutries stopped that pretty much cold. Only places that do not have death duties, like the United States, have maintained high levels of philanthropy by the great families… from the Rockefellers and Carnegies to the Gates and Buffets.]
What has not proved to be a good thing, is election. The traditional Germanic tribal pattern of electing a replacement King after the death of the previous incumbent led to endless squabbles and feuds between competing families, and almost inevitably led to exactly the drain on resources and defections of provinces that were trying to be avoided. Similarly an overfond father choosing an incompetent or obnoxious favourite son has traditionally led to poor results, not least for the chosen incompetent. (The story of William Rufus being ‘accidentally’ shot on a hunting trip being a pretty clear example.)
The Saxon version of inheritance was half and half. The Witan elected a candidiate, but it had to be one eligible to inherit through the royal line. In the tenth century only 3 out of 8 Saxon kings succeeded their fathers. (For a continuing version of nobles and officials appointed by previous monarchs getting together to elect the next one, see the Papacy.)
But considering the system of primogeniture to be always in favour of the 'eldest son' is still an oversimplification. In fact the orignial Norman version, although it theoretically specified eldest sons, was far more practical. Of the first 9 monarchs of Norman England, only 1 was direct from father to eldest son. William I was succeeded by his third son William II (Rufus), who was succeeded by his brother Henry I, who was succeeded by his nephew Stephen (because his daughter Matilda was considered unfit). Stephen was succeeded by his second cousin Henry II, grandson of Henry I. The seventh Plantagenet (and first eldest son), was Richard I, who was succeeded by his brother John (who was so bad that the nobles crowned a French prince as the next king), before the throne was returned to John’s easily controlled infant son Henry III.
The key therefore is not inheritance by an eldest son, but the principle of concentrated inheritance regardless of who is chosen. In fact for many great families, kingdoms and empires throughout history, the ideal has been to choose the best candidate for inheritance, either from amongst immediate relatives, or by adoption into the family. (A point reinforced by the fact that the only direct primogeniture on the above list led to the dynastically disastrous Richard, who once claimed he would sell London if he could find a buyer.)
Just to emphasise that I am not being entirely Eurocentric here, the Japanese families were masters of concentrated inheritance, as were most of the great imperial dynasty’s of history. (One of the great dynastic mistakes that could be exampled was when Charles V of the Hapsburgs split the Spanish and overseas territories from the Austrian/Italian lands. It might have worked, except that he reflexively gave his favourite son a continental part – his favourite territories of the Netherlands – as a disfucntional annex to the overseas bits, rather than leaving it with his brothers part, the logical Austrian bits that were also in the Holy Roman Empire. The resulting mess sapped both empires fatally.)
Almost every modern nation state established prior to the First World War (and that is still the vast majority of all stable states), has been built on the principle of concentrated inheritance. Even radically Republican ones such as the United States started as assemblies of colonies that evolved under a hereditary monarchy. In fact the only obvious thing uniting the 13 colonies was their relationship with, and eventual opposition to, the English crown. Otherwise it is hard to imagine how such a disparate group could have been brought to combine! Russia, China, Japan, most of the Asian and South American nations, and certainly most of the island groups, can all trace their origins to such an approach.
The post Great War states also have a suprising correlation. Even in Africa and the Middle East, where European powers largely established states by drawing lines on the map, the ‘nations’ established came from what had been accumulated by the colonial powers – usually monarchies or empires – in the first place, and were almost always established as independent on the basis of tribal groups that could be in some way combined under a reasonable facsimile of a monarch with some claim to traditional loyalty through the region. The greatest exceptions were places like Iraq – where the British lumped three unrelated groups forced together by the Turks under a dubious imported royal house – and Liberia, which the Americans created as an imperial exercise for dumped ex slaves in a fit of idealistic romanticism. (And before anyone gets too romantic about Liberia, it, like most other Republics – and in mimicry of its founders – has been subject to dictatorship, multiple civil wars, and hundreds of thousands of deaths.)
Post World War Two, some different conglomorations were attempted… or so it might appear. India was a group of British crown colonies and dependencies – almost all established by monarchies of some sort – combined with the ‘Independent Principalities’ which were also under the hereditary protection of the British Empire… Hmmm. Botswana, the closest thing to a successful Republic of the last century, was pretty much a single tribal group under a hereditary ruling family (who now take turns calling themselves ‘Presidents’).
The curent passion for devolution is interesting. Nations are moving into ‘federations’ – such as the European Union or the more fanciful ‘Arab League’, at the same time that Yugoslavia splits into separate ethnic states, and Scotland mutters about independence from Britain.
They can do this because international stability has reached a point where states don’t need to be big to survive. But the inevitable result of smaller and weaker states is much less capactiy to deal with issues like famine, or collapse of vital industries by reliance on disparate parts of the economy. Too many of the modern states are ‘all our eggs in one basket’ cases (often known quite quickly just as basketcases.) Scotland for instance, will look pretty stupid if it splits from English tax subsidy in the assumption that it can rely on North Sea Oil, only to have the (let’s face it different ethnic group) Shetlands split from Scotland to keep the oil for itself.
Bigger is not always better. The Roman and British (and French and even American) Empires eventually started calving off separate states as soon as they could stand on their own, because that is far more sensible and cost efective than trying to run everything centrally. (And far more likelly to avoid revolts by the colonies who have recognised the problems of over-centralisation and lack of regional control.. did I mention the 13 colonies?) The process is particularly attractive if international stability suggests that independence can be granted to disparate groups without them being immediately conquored by rapacious neighbours. (See the unseemly haste with which post war British taxpayers abandoned only half established states in Africa well before their social development or infrastructure was really ready to stand on its own.)
States need to big big enough to survive and prosper in the context of their period, but flexible enough to ‘calve’ into smaller states if that helps. It is notable that the really big ‘republics’ like the United States and the Soviet Union and China have more trouble with devolution than the monarchies. (The American Civil War being an example at lest comparable with the fall of the Soviet union, and the Chinese attitude to Tibet and Taiwan showing interesting potential.) India was perhaps fortunate that Pakistan and Bangladesh ‘escaped’ a forced union… the conflicts have been bad enough without an American style civil war.
Concentrated inheritance has been the making of successful states, and a stable international system for the modern world. But the counter-balancing principle of devolution of estates to pass on non vital elements to other siblings has also proved useful in allowing states who understand the principles to devolve govrnment. Britain has been the most succesful proponent of this. (A Commonwealth of 54 nations containing a quarter of the world’s area and a third of its population that gets together regularly to play sporting challenges – and sometimes to discipline errant members – is a considerably more impressive achievement than the relative farce we call the United Nations.) But France, and even the United States have managed something similar, although on a much smaller scale. (The independence of the Philippines after 40 years of revolts could be compared to the American War of Independence for instance… certainly a third of the local population was pro, a third anti, and a third disinterested, in each struggle.)
The principles of primogeniture could be said to have had an unequalled effect on the shape of the world we see today.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Dangers of self deception - American racism in WW2
At the risk of this being taken as another anti-American rant, I want to make another comment on the self delusion in their history.
(Though I will pause to note that I recently wrote that Americans have the worst written and perceived history in the Western world, which viewpoint i have had to revise recently after looking at some more French history. Lets just say the two fight for worst place.)
In 1942 Roosevelt lectured Churchill about granting immediate independence to India. He was of course contentedly ignorant of what effect setting off a civil war between hundreds of millions of Hindu's, Muslim;s, Sikh's, Independent Principalities, etc: might have on the Allies losing World War Two.
Churchill, being a polite, as well as somewhat more intelligent and knowledgeable, world player, contented himself with pointing out that of all the nations in the world with armies in the millions, only one was entirely composed of volunteers not conscripts. India was the only nation with a completely voluntary military, and deserved respect for that fact that it raised the largest all volunteer force in history.
He did not go on to point out that India was at the same stage in the Independence process as the Philippines, and way ahead of Puerto Rico and various other American imperial possessions.
But what he might have pointed out, had he been impressed enough by Roosevelt's ignorance to think it worthwhile, was the complete hypocrisy of the American position. Particularly that of the American military.
There is an episode of The West Wing, where the military's representatives are arguing with the White House staff about why it is not possible to acknowledge gays in the armed forces. The Chief of Staff wanders through and amusedly asks if they have used such and such half a dozen excuses as to why it would be a bad idea. When they ask how he knew, he laughs and says they are the same excuses used against him when he first joined. He is of course black.
The racism in the British or French or Russian or even German forces during World War Two was at least tempered by officers regularly commanding units of different races and nationalities. In fact in the British and French army, it was practically impossible to progress without time spent working in the colonies or with native troops at some time. Racism was there, but tempered by some small elements of knowledge of reality.
Americans however were different. (Though in fact service in teh Philippines or Panama was also important to the careers of many officers!) Racism in their forces was almost completely untempered by any version of reality. Whereas the Royal Navy had had Asian or Jamaican sailors for centuries (in fact it had been some black Jamaican frigate captains in the RN that had caused much of the outrage by American financial/piracy interests in the 1770's): the USN was still trying to keep blacks off its battleships in WW2 because of their 'poor eyesight'.
Whereas the British army in WW2 was composed of dozens of races - including Indians, Jews, Poles, East and West Africans, Jamaicans, Burmese, Kerens, Sikhs, Ghurkha's, etc, etc. The American army was violently opposed to letting black troops into front line units... until manpower shortages in France caused the more progressive generals like - God help us - Patton, to overcome the resistance of men like Bradley and Bedell-Smith.
(The attempts that were made with Japanese American units in Italy were actually quite successful. But I suppose Americans had worked out the Japs could be tough opponents by 1943? The attempt at an American black division - the 92nd - was less successful, but its incredible failure - it actually had to be rescued on occassions from attacks or counter-attacks by Italian troops! - was probably more to do with the way the higher command and its senior officers treated it, and failed to train it, than with any inadequacy of basic personnel.)
But the cincher on the argument could have been taken from the American black non-combat units in Australia. 1942 saw the mutiny by the black troops in the US 96th Engineers - a labour battalion in Queensland. 600 of them went on the rampage, hosing down their (white) officers tents with machine gun fire, and then many escaping into the Australian outback for weeks or months. They were furious about institutional racism, and apparently the mutiny was spiked by the death of a black Sergeant, supposedly at the hands of a white officer.
The future President Lyndon Johnson, then a junior Congressman, investigated while in Australia and produced a report (or more probably plagiarised it from the work of Robert Sherrod, a journalist for Time and Life magazines). The whole incident was hushed up, and Johnson felt it should be kept that way. It is almost by accident that the report resurfaced from Johnson's archives recently.
Now this is not to say that terrible things did not happen in many nations backyards. Particularly during the stress of major wars. Mutinies and violent repression of them are part and parcel of modern industrial scale war.
The point I am making here is that American 'holier than thou' attitudes, particularly during WW2, were shrouded in ignorance and self delusion.
Having said that, I will point out that a holier than thou attitude is just a sign of national immaturity. Every major nation I can think of has gone through it, from the Ancient Greeks and Romans to modern Russia and Iran. (China has almost never not had a 'holier than thou' attitude, and Japan has often been a close second.)
Unfortunately the Americans were still in the worst stages of theirs when events thrust them into the international limelight. Wilson's ridiculously idealistic 14 points - a major cause of WW2, and Roosevelt's 'Independence for India now', while still running a 'I can work with Stalin' line - major causes of the Cold War and the drop into dictatorship and penury for much of the third world after WW2 - are just samples of how unhelpful such an attitude is for 'statesmen'.
I would happily give samples of many other nations holier than thou attitudes, but in this case it is more fun to point out that most of the people now lecturing the Americans from a holier than thou perspective (say the Europeans for instance), are using exactly the same language, and often with the same self delusional self righteousness, as American used 50 or 100 years ago (towards the Europeans for instance).
PS: Just to be clear. Racism is stupid. And that includes affirmative action, or cultural relativism, or any other sort of hypocrisy... People are people and virtually any person of any race has strengths and weaknesses and information or ignorance that defines them, and what they can do. But that's for another post.
(Though I will pause to note that I recently wrote that Americans have the worst written and perceived history in the Western world, which viewpoint i have had to revise recently after looking at some more French history. Lets just say the two fight for worst place.)
In 1942 Roosevelt lectured Churchill about granting immediate independence to India. He was of course contentedly ignorant of what effect setting off a civil war between hundreds of millions of Hindu's, Muslim;s, Sikh's, Independent Principalities, etc: might have on the Allies losing World War Two.
Churchill, being a polite, as well as somewhat more intelligent and knowledgeable, world player, contented himself with pointing out that of all the nations in the world with armies in the millions, only one was entirely composed of volunteers not conscripts. India was the only nation with a completely voluntary military, and deserved respect for that fact that it raised the largest all volunteer force in history.
He did not go on to point out that India was at the same stage in the Independence process as the Philippines, and way ahead of Puerto Rico and various other American imperial possessions.
But what he might have pointed out, had he been impressed enough by Roosevelt's ignorance to think it worthwhile, was the complete hypocrisy of the American position. Particularly that of the American military.
There is an episode of The West Wing, where the military's representatives are arguing with the White House staff about why it is not possible to acknowledge gays in the armed forces. The Chief of Staff wanders through and amusedly asks if they have used such and such half a dozen excuses as to why it would be a bad idea. When they ask how he knew, he laughs and says they are the same excuses used against him when he first joined. He is of course black.
The racism in the British or French or Russian or even German forces during World War Two was at least tempered by officers regularly commanding units of different races and nationalities. In fact in the British and French army, it was practically impossible to progress without time spent working in the colonies or with native troops at some time. Racism was there, but tempered by some small elements of knowledge of reality.
Americans however were different. (Though in fact service in teh Philippines or Panama was also important to the careers of many officers!) Racism in their forces was almost completely untempered by any version of reality. Whereas the Royal Navy had had Asian or Jamaican sailors for centuries (in fact it had been some black Jamaican frigate captains in the RN that had caused much of the outrage by American financial/piracy interests in the 1770's): the USN was still trying to keep blacks off its battleships in WW2 because of their 'poor eyesight'.
Whereas the British army in WW2 was composed of dozens of races - including Indians, Jews, Poles, East and West Africans, Jamaicans, Burmese, Kerens, Sikhs, Ghurkha's, etc, etc. The American army was violently opposed to letting black troops into front line units... until manpower shortages in France caused the more progressive generals like - God help us - Patton, to overcome the resistance of men like Bradley and Bedell-Smith.
(The attempts that were made with Japanese American units in Italy were actually quite successful. But I suppose Americans had worked out the Japs could be tough opponents by 1943? The attempt at an American black division - the 92nd - was less successful, but its incredible failure - it actually had to be rescued on occassions from attacks or counter-attacks by Italian troops! - was probably more to do with the way the higher command and its senior officers treated it, and failed to train it, than with any inadequacy of basic personnel.)
But the cincher on the argument could have been taken from the American black non-combat units in Australia. 1942 saw the mutiny by the black troops in the US 96th Engineers - a labour battalion in Queensland. 600 of them went on the rampage, hosing down their (white) officers tents with machine gun fire, and then many escaping into the Australian outback for weeks or months. They were furious about institutional racism, and apparently the mutiny was spiked by the death of a black Sergeant, supposedly at the hands of a white officer.
The future President Lyndon Johnson, then a junior Congressman, investigated while in Australia and produced a report (or more probably plagiarised it from the work of Robert Sherrod, a journalist for Time and Life magazines). The whole incident was hushed up, and Johnson felt it should be kept that way. It is almost by accident that the report resurfaced from Johnson's archives recently.
Now this is not to say that terrible things did not happen in many nations backyards. Particularly during the stress of major wars. Mutinies and violent repression of them are part and parcel of modern industrial scale war.
The point I am making here is that American 'holier than thou' attitudes, particularly during WW2, were shrouded in ignorance and self delusion.
Having said that, I will point out that a holier than thou attitude is just a sign of national immaturity. Every major nation I can think of has gone through it, from the Ancient Greeks and Romans to modern Russia and Iran. (China has almost never not had a 'holier than thou' attitude, and Japan has often been a close second.)
Unfortunately the Americans were still in the worst stages of theirs when events thrust them into the international limelight. Wilson's ridiculously idealistic 14 points - a major cause of WW2, and Roosevelt's 'Independence for India now', while still running a 'I can work with Stalin' line - major causes of the Cold War and the drop into dictatorship and penury for much of the third world after WW2 - are just samples of how unhelpful such an attitude is for 'statesmen'.
I would happily give samples of many other nations holier than thou attitudes, but in this case it is more fun to point out that most of the people now lecturing the Americans from a holier than thou perspective (say the Europeans for instance), are using exactly the same language, and often with the same self delusional self righteousness, as American used 50 or 100 years ago (towards the Europeans for instance).
PS: Just to be clear. Racism is stupid. And that includes affirmative action, or cultural relativism, or any other sort of hypocrisy... People are people and virtually any person of any race has strengths and weaknesses and information or ignorance that defines them, and what they can do. But that's for another post.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
A few comments on my recent publications
Some of my publications have been getting a bit of international press recently.
Here are a few:
First from the editor of The Dorchester Review, a new Canadian publication that picked up and ran one of my prior publications in Quadrant...
Dear Mr. Davies,
You might be interested in your new-found notoriety among Canadian readers:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/31/david-frum-amateur-historians-to-the-rescue/
and for background:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/07/01/david-frum-setting-canadian-history-right-in-an-exciting-new-journal/
Very best wishes,
Chris Champion
Contributing Editor - Dorchester Review
(The David Frum who is commenting is a Canadian/American commentator who worked as an aide/speechwriter for Geroge W Bush. His recommendatioin could be considred a double edged sword... In fact he wrote the Axis of Evil speech. Though he personally claimed to preferred to call it the 'Axis of Hatred'... Hmm.)
I followed the original book review with a 6,000 word article, also in Quadrant, on the warped historiography of the Singapore Debacle. I couldn't get it published in any academic magazine 20 years ago, but in the last year I have managed 7 publications in Austrlaia and overseas on the topic... An idea whose time has (belatedly ) come?
Meanwhile, in a complete reversal of normality, an Australian reviewer has picked up one of my overseas publications to comment on...
http://australianwargamer.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/why-did-barbarossa-fail/
ATO magazine commissioned 15,000 words on Opertion Barbarossa (not one of my specialty areas), on the basis of articles they read on this blog. they said thy wanted a fresh interpretation, and were inspired by my Oversimplification: the numbers fallacy post.
(This Barbarossa article was copyrighted to the small distribution and subscription only ATO magazine for 12 months, which is now expired... anyone know a new publisher who might be interested? Apparently some people like it!)
Here are a few:
First from the editor of The Dorchester Review, a new Canadian publication that picked up and ran one of my prior publications in Quadrant...
Dear Mr. Davies,
You might be interested in your new-found notoriety among Canadian readers:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/31/david-frum-amateur-historians-to-the-rescue/
and for background:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/07/01/david-frum-setting-canadian-history-right-in-an-exciting-new-journal/
Very best wishes,
Chris Champion
Contributing Editor - Dorchester Review
(The David Frum who is commenting is a Canadian/American commentator who worked as an aide/speechwriter for Geroge W Bush. His recommendatioin could be considred a double edged sword... In fact he wrote the Axis of Evil speech. Though he personally claimed to preferred to call it the 'Axis of Hatred'... Hmm.)
I followed the original book review with a 6,000 word article, also in Quadrant, on the warped historiography of the Singapore Debacle. I couldn't get it published in any academic magazine 20 years ago, but in the last year I have managed 7 publications in Austrlaia and overseas on the topic... An idea whose time has (belatedly ) come?
Meanwhile, in a complete reversal of normality, an Australian reviewer has picked up one of my overseas publications to comment on...
http://australianwargamer.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/why-did-barbarossa-fail/
ATO magazine commissioned 15,000 words on Opertion Barbarossa (not one of my specialty areas), on the basis of articles they read on this blog. they said thy wanted a fresh interpretation, and were inspired by my Oversimplification: the numbers fallacy post.
(This Barbarossa article was copyrighted to the small distribution and subscription only ATO magazine for 12 months, which is now expired... anyone know a new publisher who might be interested? Apparently some people like it!)
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Hypocrisy 2 - naval disasters and feminism
The entertaining thing about the tragedy of the misguided Mediterranean cruise liner, is watching or listening to commentators turn themselves in knots trying to justify their perspectives on right and wrong.
So the crew abandoned before helping the passengers. Almost certainly wrong.
Did they do so because: a) they are bastards; b) they are slimy wogs who can't face things with a proper stiff upper lip; c) they are products of a modern world where no one is expected to know what a stiff upper lip is (yes the Titanic comparison was playing big on the whole issue of women and children first and men, particularly the captain, going down with the ship); or d) underpaid and under-appreciated workers who know full well their value and pecking order in relation to both the no doubt corrupt company and the average insufferable passenger, and therefore were fully justified in not considering their duties went to the point of sacrificing themselves for people who only treated them with contempt? Or was it just so fast that everyone panicked?
I would suspect all of those had a certain effect, but I wouldn't be willing to argue which individuals (passengers as well as crew) were effected by which.
But the fascinating thing is that the more it was discussed, the more the outraged commentators found themselves cast as ridiculous old fogies. And wasn't it a shock to the self righteous commenteriat that anyone could see the self contradictions in their perspectives?
My favourite bit was the 'women and children first' part. As countless bloggers pointed out, why in a world of supposed equality should women go first? Children, yes. Perhaps mothers escorting the children as some sort of preference (though in this day of stay at home fathers that is possibly a bit sexist),. But certainly not young healthy women before elderly and infirm of either sex?
One of the young men who phoned in rightly commented that if he was ever sitting on public transport, and a middle aged woman and an elderly man approached, he would offer the elderly man a seat first. Then a pregnant woman, then an older person of any description... amazing to hear such a young sounding living fossil.
The radio commentators were simply stuck on 'women first'. They acknowledged that although they had campaigned for equality for years, their own ingrained upbringing would insist they offer a woman a place first. It was quite sweet listening to them try and explain their reversion to ingrained prejudice, and the confusion they felt as they admitted it was politically incorrect, but nonetheless felt as though it should still be the right thing to do.
Hypocrisy is as often for good motives as for bad. In fact the worst and most dangerous hypocrisy is the self righteously 'but I am doing it for other people's best interests' kind. But the issue is self contradiction. (And I will give these two the credit of acknowledging they were being self contradictory...).
As I listened to two male baby boomer's – who have spent a large part of their careers castigating other baby boomers for hypocrisy – struggle to explain themselves even to each other, I reflected again on the inadequacy of logical thinking that most modern people apply to matters of morality. They talk of doing the right thing, and all they really mean is applying the prejudice that was ingrained with as a child, or that is currently fashionable (or in this case trying to balance the two).
They missed completely the sensible comment from the younger man, and from several women who rang up. They believe in equality, and will fight for it, but they accept disadvantage, and are willing to work to overcome that. They just don't know how to say that that is what they mean.
In practical terms what they seemed to mean was that in a modern age of equality, the hierarchy should be disadvantage. Buggar the idea of all women before all men. That is just prejudice. How about the physically disadvantaged like children and elderly - of either sex - before fit adults - of either sex. Then, if you want to be finicky, how about the mid 20's male with severe asthma ahead of the mid 50's female who swims 100 laps a day?
Interestingly this approach is far closer to the Titanic example than most commentators seemed to realise. The rich, powerful, important, and often elderly and infirm, men, who stayed aboard the Titanic, had an ingrained sense of not only disadvantage, but also of noblisse oblige. Noblity, real nobility (which already meant very little by that time) existed for centuries on the idea that priviledge involved sacrifice... in battle, or on a sinking ship.
[Nobility, on the English model, is quite separate to Arisotocracy, which, on the French model which the Americans seem to have adopted, has devolved into priviledge without responsibility. The insistence of the old French aristocracy on maintaining their rights regardless of not having many responsibilities anymore, is what led to the French Revolution. The Americans adopted this perspective to help explain their betrayal of oaths of loyalty during their revolutionary war, but then seemed to ingrain into their culture the concept that all priviledge was without responsibility. Which actually fights with their equally recognisable tendency towards charity by the wealthy in America... Or at least by the old fashioned wealthy. fortunately Bill Gates and others are old fashioned. But Americans as a rule seem have a hard time understanding nobility except in Holywood features about dog's.]
A medieval knight's deal with his peasants was that he would be priviledged, as long as he was willing to die to protect them. A king or nobles justification for priviledge was that they served. (Modern politicians make the same promises, but don't seem to suffer or take many risks for their vast returns. Given the choice between Prince Andrew coming from a family that expected him to use his helicopter to distract guided missiles from his aircraft carrier during the Falklands War, and expected Prince Harry to serve in the front line in Afghanistan: and President Clinton coming from a family who rigged things to keep him safe in the National Guard during the Vietnam war, you have to think seriously about which tradition might be valuable...)
Civilisation is built on morality. Many people can behave in a morale way without being able to explain it, and many people who drone on endlessly about rights couldn't recognise moral behavior if they were hit in the face with it. The two media commentators in this post fit the former, and the so called Feminists (who aren't really) in the previous post fit the latter.
Unfortunately modern children are being harangued with the misunderstood and misapplied crap of the latter all through school.
Fortunately, most generations want to rebel against the previous.
Any rebellion against the impossible hodge podge of misconception and self deception that makes up what is 'politically correct' at the moment can only be for the good.
So the crew abandoned before helping the passengers. Almost certainly wrong.
Did they do so because: a) they are bastards; b) they are slimy wogs who can't face things with a proper stiff upper lip; c) they are products of a modern world where no one is expected to know what a stiff upper lip is (yes the Titanic comparison was playing big on the whole issue of women and children first and men, particularly the captain, going down with the ship); or d) underpaid and under-appreciated workers who know full well their value and pecking order in relation to both the no doubt corrupt company and the average insufferable passenger, and therefore were fully justified in not considering their duties went to the point of sacrificing themselves for people who only treated them with contempt? Or was it just so fast that everyone panicked?
I would suspect all of those had a certain effect, but I wouldn't be willing to argue which individuals (passengers as well as crew) were effected by which.
But the fascinating thing is that the more it was discussed, the more the outraged commentators found themselves cast as ridiculous old fogies. And wasn't it a shock to the self righteous commenteriat that anyone could see the self contradictions in their perspectives?
My favourite bit was the 'women and children first' part. As countless bloggers pointed out, why in a world of supposed equality should women go first? Children, yes. Perhaps mothers escorting the children as some sort of preference (though in this day of stay at home fathers that is possibly a bit sexist),. But certainly not young healthy women before elderly and infirm of either sex?
One of the young men who phoned in rightly commented that if he was ever sitting on public transport, and a middle aged woman and an elderly man approached, he would offer the elderly man a seat first. Then a pregnant woman, then an older person of any description... amazing to hear such a young sounding living fossil.
The radio commentators were simply stuck on 'women first'. They acknowledged that although they had campaigned for equality for years, their own ingrained upbringing would insist they offer a woman a place first. It was quite sweet listening to them try and explain their reversion to ingrained prejudice, and the confusion they felt as they admitted it was politically incorrect, but nonetheless felt as though it should still be the right thing to do.
Hypocrisy is as often for good motives as for bad. In fact the worst and most dangerous hypocrisy is the self righteously 'but I am doing it for other people's best interests' kind. But the issue is self contradiction. (And I will give these two the credit of acknowledging they were being self contradictory...).
As I listened to two male baby boomer's – who have spent a large part of their careers castigating other baby boomers for hypocrisy – struggle to explain themselves even to each other, I reflected again on the inadequacy of logical thinking that most modern people apply to matters of morality. They talk of doing the right thing, and all they really mean is applying the prejudice that was ingrained with as a child, or that is currently fashionable (or in this case trying to balance the two).
They missed completely the sensible comment from the younger man, and from several women who rang up. They believe in equality, and will fight for it, but they accept disadvantage, and are willing to work to overcome that. They just don't know how to say that that is what they mean.
In practical terms what they seemed to mean was that in a modern age of equality, the hierarchy should be disadvantage. Buggar the idea of all women before all men. That is just prejudice. How about the physically disadvantaged like children and elderly - of either sex - before fit adults - of either sex. Then, if you want to be finicky, how about the mid 20's male with severe asthma ahead of the mid 50's female who swims 100 laps a day?
Interestingly this approach is far closer to the Titanic example than most commentators seemed to realise. The rich, powerful, important, and often elderly and infirm, men, who stayed aboard the Titanic, had an ingrained sense of not only disadvantage, but also of noblisse oblige. Noblity, real nobility (which already meant very little by that time) existed for centuries on the idea that priviledge involved sacrifice... in battle, or on a sinking ship.
[Nobility, on the English model, is quite separate to Arisotocracy, which, on the French model which the Americans seem to have adopted, has devolved into priviledge without responsibility. The insistence of the old French aristocracy on maintaining their rights regardless of not having many responsibilities anymore, is what led to the French Revolution. The Americans adopted this perspective to help explain their betrayal of oaths of loyalty during their revolutionary war, but then seemed to ingrain into their culture the concept that all priviledge was without responsibility. Which actually fights with their equally recognisable tendency towards charity by the wealthy in America... Or at least by the old fashioned wealthy. fortunately Bill Gates and others are old fashioned. But Americans as a rule seem have a hard time understanding nobility except in Holywood features about dog's.]
A medieval knight's deal with his peasants was that he would be priviledged, as long as he was willing to die to protect them. A king or nobles justification for priviledge was that they served. (Modern politicians make the same promises, but don't seem to suffer or take many risks for their vast returns. Given the choice between Prince Andrew coming from a family that expected him to use his helicopter to distract guided missiles from his aircraft carrier during the Falklands War, and expected Prince Harry to serve in the front line in Afghanistan: and President Clinton coming from a family who rigged things to keep him safe in the National Guard during the Vietnam war, you have to think seriously about which tradition might be valuable...)
Civilisation is built on morality. Many people can behave in a morale way without being able to explain it, and many people who drone on endlessly about rights couldn't recognise moral behavior if they were hit in the face with it. The two media commentators in this post fit the former, and the so called Feminists (who aren't really) in the previous post fit the latter.
Unfortunately modern children are being harangued with the misunderstood and misapplied crap of the latter all through school.
Fortunately, most generations want to rebel against the previous.
Any rebellion against the impossible hodge podge of misconception and self deception that makes up what is 'politically correct' at the moment can only be for the good.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Hypocrisy… the ultimate test of political value
(Another rant I am afraid... enjoy)
I have got more than a little sick of self righteously high minded pratts preaching about the nobility of their ideas, and then failing to admit that they only hold those ideas when convenient to their politics. This sort of hyprocrisy is, to me, the worst possible failing of any politician, or idealist or idealogue of any sort.
Not acknowledging it is a clear statement that the person is an unprincipled shit, out only for what they can get.
Not recognising that there is any hypocrisy, is the sign of being too stupid to be trusted to run a church cake stall, let alone have a say in any policy on anything that might ruin people’s lives. (Sorry, forgot. Church cake stalls are illegal in the Victorian nanny state… OH&S issues and public liability now making baking a cake for privatye sale a criminal enterprise unless your kitchen passes health department guidelines, and your cake is plastic sealed and labelled with a complete list of ingredients, their origins, and the name, address and shoe size of the person who baked it…. Alright the shoe size is an exaggeration, but you get the point.)
Unhappily, the vast majority of modern politicians, journalists, lobbyists, and lawyers, are screaming hypocrites. Professionally. In fact they could not do their jobs unless they can either ignore the truth, or not recognise it in the first place.
There was a fabulous example quoted on the radio today. A few years ago a police car entered the men’s ceremonial area of a remote Australian Aboriginal tribe, with… a woman in it! Now the media had a field day with the ‘disrespect’ element of this, because of course cultural relativism argues that such a thing was disrespectful. But to do so the media happily quoted an Aboriginal elder who stated that, had the female been Aboriginal, she would have automatically been killed.
The fact that they quoted this was not a problem. It is a true reflection of Aboriginal culture. It was a true statement by the elder concerned. It was accepted by all who new the facts as a statement of reality. And, most importantly I suppose, it fitted the argument of how ‘disrespectful’ the female police officer was being to Aboriginal culture.
The problem is of course, that the statement that Aborigines reserve the right to murder women who are Australian citizens, was not remarked upon by anyone in the media. Not one single member of the press who commented on it that day thought it was a problem. (Others did later of course.) Not even the many hard line Feminists who had raged against the white ‘oppression’ of Aboroiginal culture seemed to think that it was a problem. Apparently, Aborigines are allowed to oppress women as much as they like in the eyes of an Australian Feminist, because Aborigines – also being victims of white male oppression – clearly have the right to hang on to a culture that oppresses women. In fact any attempt to stop them doing so must be racist.
Now I realise that the self avowed ‘left’ in politics has to find, or invent, causes to rage about to get people who are young enough or stupid enough motivated. (I frankly agree with the old joke that if you are not Socialist when you are 20 you have no heart – we know people’s rationalty is not fully developed until 24 or 25 – and that people who are still socialist at 40 have no brain.) But that does not excuse hypocrisy.
If you genuinely believe (as I do) that women are equal, and deserve equal rights, then you believe it for all women, in any culture. Not just for the ones who will vote for that, and not excluding the ones for whom you can get more mileage from denying those rights in the name of another supposedly honourable cause.
The reason that a police car was on the ‘men’s reservation’ in the first place, was because Australian police have the unfortunate task of trying to protect Aboriginal women from Aboriginal men despite the efforts of our Socialists and Feminists and lawyers and judges to keep them properly subjugated in the name of cultural relativity.
A court case at a similar time was about a 13 year old aboriginal girl who had been raped by a 50 year old aboriginal man. The judge was presented with serious arguments that the case be thrown out because the girl had been promised to the man as a bride by her family. (In fact her grandmother assisted with the rape!) Sad to say the cultural relativists have such a sway over the Australian legal system that the judge initially delivered a sentence of only a few weeks, explaining that the case fit more within ‘traditional cultural law’ than in modern Australian law.
Or, in other words, Australian female citizens should have no protectioin from murder or rape if that happens to fit the cultural practices of the primitive uneducated hunter gatherer tribe from which they come. (And why are they uneducated? Because the cultural relatavists have forced the missions and schools to stay away from the ‘purity’ of aboriginal tribal life… for their own good of course.)
Presumably this same approach will soon be available throughout Australia to Muslims in favour of female circumcision or honor killing, to New Guineans who would like to hang on to tribal cannabalism, and to Indians in favour of Suti. As long as they only practice it on members of their own tribes of course. It has to be culturally relative!
Hypocrisy in applying standards only where and when convenient – preferably to your own political advantage – is unforgivable. More, it is uncivilised. In fact it is one of the clearest signs of people working to undermine anything that could be called civilisation… again, usually for their own political advantage.
The only real test of a person’s political trustworthiness is whether they can recognise, and reject, hypocrisy. Those that recognise it, but take advantage of it, are scum. Those who fail to recognise it, are simply beneath contempt.
What a pity so many of them hold high office.
I have got more than a little sick of self righteously high minded pratts preaching about the nobility of their ideas, and then failing to admit that they only hold those ideas when convenient to their politics. This sort of hyprocrisy is, to me, the worst possible failing of any politician, or idealist or idealogue of any sort.
Not acknowledging it is a clear statement that the person is an unprincipled shit, out only for what they can get.
Not recognising that there is any hypocrisy, is the sign of being too stupid to be trusted to run a church cake stall, let alone have a say in any policy on anything that might ruin people’s lives. (Sorry, forgot. Church cake stalls are illegal in the Victorian nanny state… OH&S issues and public liability now making baking a cake for privatye sale a criminal enterprise unless your kitchen passes health department guidelines, and your cake is plastic sealed and labelled with a complete list of ingredients, their origins, and the name, address and shoe size of the person who baked it…. Alright the shoe size is an exaggeration, but you get the point.)
Unhappily, the vast majority of modern politicians, journalists, lobbyists, and lawyers, are screaming hypocrites. Professionally. In fact they could not do their jobs unless they can either ignore the truth, or not recognise it in the first place.
There was a fabulous example quoted on the radio today. A few years ago a police car entered the men’s ceremonial area of a remote Australian Aboriginal tribe, with… a woman in it! Now the media had a field day with the ‘disrespect’ element of this, because of course cultural relativism argues that such a thing was disrespectful. But to do so the media happily quoted an Aboriginal elder who stated that, had the female been Aboriginal, she would have automatically been killed.
The fact that they quoted this was not a problem. It is a true reflection of Aboriginal culture. It was a true statement by the elder concerned. It was accepted by all who new the facts as a statement of reality. And, most importantly I suppose, it fitted the argument of how ‘disrespectful’ the female police officer was being to Aboriginal culture.
The problem is of course, that the statement that Aborigines reserve the right to murder women who are Australian citizens, was not remarked upon by anyone in the media. Not one single member of the press who commented on it that day thought it was a problem. (Others did later of course.) Not even the many hard line Feminists who had raged against the white ‘oppression’ of Aboroiginal culture seemed to think that it was a problem. Apparently, Aborigines are allowed to oppress women as much as they like in the eyes of an Australian Feminist, because Aborigines – also being victims of white male oppression – clearly have the right to hang on to a culture that oppresses women. In fact any attempt to stop them doing so must be racist.
Now I realise that the self avowed ‘left’ in politics has to find, or invent, causes to rage about to get people who are young enough or stupid enough motivated. (I frankly agree with the old joke that if you are not Socialist when you are 20 you have no heart – we know people’s rationalty is not fully developed until 24 or 25 – and that people who are still socialist at 40 have no brain.) But that does not excuse hypocrisy.
If you genuinely believe (as I do) that women are equal, and deserve equal rights, then you believe it for all women, in any culture. Not just for the ones who will vote for that, and not excluding the ones for whom you can get more mileage from denying those rights in the name of another supposedly honourable cause.
The reason that a police car was on the ‘men’s reservation’ in the first place, was because Australian police have the unfortunate task of trying to protect Aboriginal women from Aboriginal men despite the efforts of our Socialists and Feminists and lawyers and judges to keep them properly subjugated in the name of cultural relativity.
A court case at a similar time was about a 13 year old aboriginal girl who had been raped by a 50 year old aboriginal man. The judge was presented with serious arguments that the case be thrown out because the girl had been promised to the man as a bride by her family. (In fact her grandmother assisted with the rape!) Sad to say the cultural relativists have such a sway over the Australian legal system that the judge initially delivered a sentence of only a few weeks, explaining that the case fit more within ‘traditional cultural law’ than in modern Australian law.
Or, in other words, Australian female citizens should have no protectioin from murder or rape if that happens to fit the cultural practices of the primitive uneducated hunter gatherer tribe from which they come. (And why are they uneducated? Because the cultural relatavists have forced the missions and schools to stay away from the ‘purity’ of aboriginal tribal life… for their own good of course.)
Presumably this same approach will soon be available throughout Australia to Muslims in favour of female circumcision or honor killing, to New Guineans who would like to hang on to tribal cannabalism, and to Indians in favour of Suti. As long as they only practice it on members of their own tribes of course. It has to be culturally relative!
Hypocrisy in applying standards only where and when convenient – preferably to your own political advantage – is unforgivable. More, it is uncivilised. In fact it is one of the clearest signs of people working to undermine anything that could be called civilisation… again, usually for their own political advantage.
The only real test of a person’s political trustworthiness is whether they can recognise, and reject, hypocrisy. Those that recognise it, but take advantage of it, are scum. Those who fail to recognise it, are simply beneath contempt.
What a pity so many of them hold high office.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)