Blog powered by Typepad

« All's well that ends well | Main | "A Shropshire Lad" by A. E. Housman »

Thursday, 13 July 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The only thing wrong with the UN is its location (NYC). It should be moved to either Baghdad or Damascus.

UGH, the UN. I would like US out of it and it out of US.

Your assessment seems fair.

In the '50's through '80's there were numerous roadside billboards in the "red" states reading: "Get US Out of the UN". They were sponsored by the far right John Birch Society:

It seems the more paranoid elements of the American right see the UN as part of a "one world" conspiracy to subvert our government's sovereignty. Evidently that would be a bad thing unless Trump were to hand the keys over to the Russians because, you know, at least they're not Democrats.

In fact the UN has performed many useful functions over the years and still does. I can't recommend a book, but the basics are online:

Any few "useful functions" they might perform is outweighed by their "peace keepers" raping local women and financial fraud of its bureaucrats. The UN is welcome to conduct its few efforts from a world capitol closer to the problem spots and without American money.

And to where should the US armed forces be relocated and how should they be financed?:

Humans are human, and the fog of war brings out the worst.

David wrote about the UN. Maybe the others will be another time. Don't clutter the subject.

In other words, you don't have an answer.

Hmm. That seems a somewhat casually delivered piece of ignorance that America's military commanders were dim witted. Marshall and Eisenhower and Bradley and Clarke and Patton and McCarthur and King and Fletcher and Spruance and and and were all dimwits were they. It's not hard to guess who came from the lower ranks. That is the classic non-com's opinion. It would grace an Austrian corporal.

I agree with PG (MacArthur, not McCarthur), albeit Marshall, Ike, and King (along with Nimitz) were "desk" commanders (not in the field or aboard ship). To this illustrious list, I would also add Hap Arnold and Curtis LeMay.

Back in 2013 SWMBO was an Australian delegate to a UN Convention in NYC. About 200 delegates from around the globe largely financed by the poor bloody taxpayer of their respective nations. I paid my own way to accompany SWMBO. Sum total of achievement for this gabfest[apart from a mountain of paper] can be defined as SFA.

Mind you a week in NYC as the "accompanying bimbo" allowed me to catch up with some old friends I hadn't seen for many years and conduct some deep and serious research into various "refreshment houses". The down side was standing around at "social gatherings" trying to be interested in people I had absolutely no connection with.

Shalom AD,

Does "accompanying bimbo" have a special Aussie connotation? According to Merriam-Webster, a "bimbo" is "an attractive but stupid woman".

Shalom TBH.

For Aussie use "accompanying bimbo" is just a term those in company at a social function with someone on business [private or government] use to describe themselves as they usually have little interest in the proceedings other than food/wine/beer.

Apart from the woman and attractive labels many would probably think I'd fit the criteria according to Merriam-Webster.

Fortunately SWMBO is retired and no longer required to attend useless gabfests.

Thanx for that, AD. Though I am retired and seldom use my "Dr." honorific, my own SWMBO just earned her Ph.D. and is just starting her career. So I have to address her as Dr. Trish (especially at home).

I think Bradley and Patton were relatively pretty stupid. The others I don't know but I imagine not. Dim witted I doubt very much.

I don't have a particularly high opinion of FDR, and most biographies of most people tend either to be hagiographies or hatchet jobs - this one of Duffer's would seem to tend to the former.

However it does seem entirely plausible that he should have had a more accurate strategic instinct than his generals - they would of course have been better prepared than he at the tactical and practical (eg. logistics) side, weapons systems, and so on but strategy on a global scale is a different skill/art/talent call it what you will.

THe UN. Like most good intentions it's gone to hell. It could be disbanded tomorrow and the world would be a better place.

It has been taken over by bleeding heart, cultural marxist, haters of western civilization.

Come on Donald, do the right thing and pull the US out. You know you want to!

I don't think you need to be right wing to detest the UN, just reasonably intelligent with a love and respect for your fellow men.

Lefties of course love it because its main purpose nowadays is to further their political ends; not in a positive sense like the old British labour party but in the sense of metrosexual transgendered frankfurt school derrida-esque cultural meltdown.

FDR thought government was the solution to all problems. Hence he expanded the reach of the US government and favoured an embryonic world government.
Whether and how much government is a force for good is still open to debate. But bear in mind Hitler, Stalin and May shared this view even though their view as to what a government should be doing was diametrically opposed to FDRs

Pat and Cuffers, you are on the right track. Governments are a necessary evil and like to sell themselves as doers of good which they aren't. If governments would stick to doing right they would mostly be better off. In an effort to right all wrongs, governments will demand more power and money for themselves and eventually become the center of most problems. Large governing bodies love nothing more than other large governing bodies. The more unaccountable and corrupt the better. And then these bodies begin to drift leftward into deeper lust for power.

Well done, chaps, a good discussion. To make clear, Hamilton describes the overwhelming desire of the American High Command, from Sec. of War Stimson down, to undertake a cross-channel invasion, first in 1942, then again in 1943. In retrospect, even to an ex-Corporal like me, that was madness and if there were any doubts then the utter catastrophe of the Canadian assault on Dieppe puts the matter beyond doubt. FDR was implacably opposed to the idea not least on the ultra-sensible grounds that the American military had no idea of how to fight the superlative Wehrmacht. By invading North Africa instead it provided a testing ground for all concerned to learn the arts of war without too much fear of huge German re-enforcements. Then, by 1944, the Americans would be battle-hardened.

Throughout 1942/3, the American High Command fought FDR over this issue but he prevailed - praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

My bad on the spelling error Henry. MacArthur had an ego of nearly Montyesque proportions but dimwitted? The hardest military operation to undertake is an opposed landing from the sea. And MacArthur successfully planned and conducted more of those than any other military commander in modern times. Right up to and including the landing at Inchon that completely reversed the nearly disastrous situation in the Korean unpleasantness. That was a masterful stroke.

We also have it on the authority of the German high command that they thought Patton the ablest of the Allied field commandeers. Which was why an extremely elaborate hoax was perpetrated on the Germans to convince them that Patton was in charge of an imaginary army poised to attack elsewhere than Normandy. Patton's pivot is response to the
Battle of the Bulge where his Third Army engaged in flank quite a lot of German divisions on the way to the relief of Bastogne should be sufficient to demonstrate he was not a dimwit.

Finally on the subject of our host's reference to Dieppe. There is a reason the assassination of Louis Mountbatten was treated by almost all Canadians with a resounding meh! He was the man who planned it. He was the man who assured the Canadian forces tasked to undertake it that they would have both air and naval gun support. And he was the man who supplied neither ensuring that this raid would be a total disaster. Post war revelations that the intent of this raid was merely to provide a distraction while an American Ranger force was tasked to capturing a nearby German radar installation( the state of the art of which was not known) have not enhanced Mountbatten's reputation. It rather looks like he did it on purpose. Next time you do something like this, use British troops.

PeterG, MacArthur was a poltroon! The Inchon landing was the brilliant exception to a dismal military record which included him taking back-handers in cash from the President of the Philippines before scuttling out of the country!

Mountbatten might have been dim but he wasn't corrupt. Also, the disaster speaks volumes on the abilities of the American High Command who persisted in trying to force FDR to invade across the channel in 1942 and 1943 despite what happened at Dieppe. I say again, FDR was right and they were hopelessly wrong!

David, David, David, ...

"... majority of his somewhat dim-witted military commanders."
Generals of the Army (5*) Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Bradley; Fleet Admirals (5*) King, Nimitz, Halsey, Leahy; General of the Air Force (5*) Arnold; Generals Clarke and Patton; Admirals Spruance and Fletcher; and Air Force General LeMay were the majority of the American military commanders of World War II. Not a single one of them was dimwitted.

Now take it back and admit to having slandered their memory.

It does seem a little odd that America could win a- previously referred to-"global war" against multiple enemies which began for us on December 8, 1941, with layers of "dim witted military commanders". I will concede some on Gen. MacArthur.

I don't know the then count or rank and status of the commanders Henry mentioned above, but I doubt all were in place on Dec. 8, 1941. Some who were in place were removed early in the war out of necessity. A peace time military command structure is not always the best for a war time military.

Ignore every single doggone one of of Bob's Wikipedia links.

This is the one that count$.

Rather like the Pari$ Climate Accord$ no?

Henry, I tremble, Sir, I tremble at the thought of crossing swords with you but alas, truth will out! Marshall was a supreme *administrator* but a strategic thinker he was not! Fortunately, FDR was! At the risk of repetition, Stimson, Marshall, Knox, King et al were all in favour of mounting an invasion of northern France in 1942!!!! When that was dropped they pressed for it in 1943. In either year the chances are that the result would have been calamitous. Both British and American field commanders were hopelessly inadequate when put up against German expertise and they needed the experience of a Mediterranean campaign to start learning the lessons. I say again, FDR recognised this but virtually none of his senior military did!

As for MacArthur, my views of him are summed up in two posts from 2012:

The other infamous example of MacArthur's ineptitude was the fact that his air force planes in the Philippines remained parked up in neat straight lines despite the news of the Pearl Harbour attack having reached him nearly ten hours before the Japs arrived overhead!


Your point is that we're being played for suckers because we cover a relatively larger share of the UN budget. Has it occurred to you that as the "world's policemen" we get the greatest advantage out of supporting the UN, or that what we pay is a relatively smaller percentage of our GDP? Do you believe Andorra, for example, should contribute an equal amount? Are you equally outraged that our defence budget is larger than the next 7 countries combined?


I weary of this kerfuffle, but I will just make one more remark -- You make a specific broad-brush disparaging remark using the specific words "majority" and "dim-witted" in reference to America's top level military commanders of World War II.

Which part of "majority not dim-witted" do you not understand?

Well yeah Bob actually I am "really miffed" over just about 90% of our defen$e (I'm worrying too Bob you're hanging around this crowd so much its adversely affecting your Noah Webster) procurement procedures/processes.

Just one "f'instance" would be the F-35. Given that all the wars we been in since Nam have been us against the "Primitives" we'd been fiscally better situated had we re-opened the A1-H (formerly the AD Skyraider) production line or, barring that, (our overly complicated dependence on *connectivity*) we coulda got some perfectly serviceable "off the shelfs."


Re, that *connectivity issue*:

The comments to this entry are closed.