Monday, May 14, 2018

Setting the Tone at the Top

There has been much gnashing of teeth and clutching of pearls.  The din of spoons banging on highchairs is deafening.  The left is suffering from a collective case of the vapors.  They have donned their pink hats and are baying at the moon. The cause?  White House special assistant Kelly Sadler reportedly said in response to McCain’s opposition to Gina Haspel nomination to head the CIA, “It doesn’t matter, he’s dying anyway.”  For this her face must be smashed with he jackboot of tolerance.  There is no mention of her children or perhaps an elderly parent she is caring for.  She is a deplorable and must be terminated.  Once she is gone the media can go on to the next deplorable.  

Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to confirm or deny reports stating, “I'm not going to validate a leak.”  A reporter for The Hill has suggested that a public apology by the White House would probably settle the controversy.  Experience has shown that groveling is always the best solution.  Business Insider has reported that Sanders and other senior members of the press team were more disturbed by the leak than what Sadler had said.  This is understandable.  Someone on their team leaked information obviously damaging to the administration.  This individual is certain to leak in the future and those leaks could possibly be far more damaging. 

Sadler’s remark has given the media and their allies an opportunity to display their moral superiority.  Mitt Romney said "John McCain makes America great. Those who mock such greatness only humiliate themselves and their silent accomplices.”  Lindsey Graham asserted “I wish the White House would apologize for disgusting joke about John McCain.  Sen Flake tweeted, “There are no words.”  Former Secretary of State Kerry responded that he and McCain learned some "four letter" words while serving in the Navy that could be applied to McCain's critics.  It should be noted that Kerry served in Vietnam and speaks French.

The attempt will be made to hold President responsible for Sadler’s remarks.  After all, according to Reuters reporter Jeff Mason, Trump sets “a tone at the top.”  Have other presidents been held responsible for remarks made by their staff.?  We have the example of President Obama who claimed, “In my first term, I sang Al Green; in my second term, I’m going with Young Jeezy.”  Young Jeezy is known for his performance of the rap classic and all time favorite “My Nigga.”  Perhaps President Obama set a tone that allowed his subordinates to display a lack of class.  This may be the case with Patrick Gaspard, a close advisor to the President.

Patrick Gaspard has had a long and distinguished career.  He was Associate Personnel Director of President-elect Obama's transition team and National Political Director of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.  He served as the Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs from January 2009 to 2011.  He served as the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee from 2011 to 2013.  From 2013 until 2016 he served as United States Ambassador to South Africa.  In 2018 he was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree by Columbia University although he had not earned an undergraduate degree.  While DNC Executive Director, Gaspard, tweeted in a profane about the Obamacare decision of the Supreme Court. The Blaze claims it has the actual tweet: Take that motherfuckers!  This tweet was removed and is possibly no longer available on the internet.  His tweet,

“It’s constitutional. Bitches” remains.  Gaspard left is position after the election and tweeted, “I left my posting shortly after the election a year ago, and have not stopped criticizing the vulgarity of this current occupant of the White House.”

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Additions to MP third edition - Soviet Order No. 270

Much has been made of the enormous casualties the Soviet Union suffered in the war. Figures range from 20 million to 25 million.  However, there has not been a breakdown of how many Soviet citizens were killed by the Soviets themselves.  Perhaps it is impossible to obtain an accurate estimate.  This is an embarrassment that few people would be interested in.  One of the factors that was responsible for these deaths was: Order of the Supreme Command of the Red Army on August 16, 1941, No. 270; "On the responsibility of the military for surrender and leaving weapons to the enemy."  This order reads in part:

Can we put up with in the Red Army cowards, deserters who surrender themselves to the enemy as prisoners or their craven superiors, who at the first hitch on the front tear off their insignia and desert to the rear?  Cowards and deserters must be destroyed.  That commanders and political officers who, during combat tear off their insignia and desert to the rear or surrender to the enemy, be considered malicious deserters whose families are subject to arrest as a family, for violation of an oath and betrayal of their homeland. All higher commanders and commissars are required to shoot on the spot any such deserters from among command personnel.  Every soldier is obliged, regardless of his or her position, to demand that their superiors, if part of their unit is surrounded, to fight to the end, to break through, and if a superior or a unit of the Red Army – instead of organizing resistance to the enemy – prefers to become a prisoner they should be destroyed by all means possible on land and air, and their families deprived of public benefits and assistance.

One of the consequences of this order was described by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann in his book, In Deadly Combat: 

When the Russians successfully landed in Feodosia. the capture of one particular camp, holding five thousand prisoners, appeared to be imminent.  Rather than face liberation by their Soviet comrades, the prisoners requested permission to march to the German lines at Simferopol, and this movement was conducted without the necessity of employing guards to prevent escapes.  It is likely that they were fully aware of the treatment they would receive at the hands of the Soviets for having surrendered to the German army. 1

1In Deadly Combat, Gottlob Herbert Bidermann, University Press of Kansas. 2000. p. 121.

Friday, May 4, 2018

Response to Spike Hampson’s article “A Reality Check for Those Who Deplore the Nuking of Japan” published in American Thinker

(For some reason this comment was not suitable for publication.)

The conventional account of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is thoroughly installed in the American psyche.  Only one person dared to question the bombing and he was called “a freaking idiot.”  The bombing is justified because “civilians support combatants” and therefore are legitimate targets.  It was mentioned that bombing had an impact on morale.  Did the German bombing of London lower the morale of the British?  It is quite possible that bombing civilians was counterproductive.  There have been numerous international agreements designed to protect civilians.  The Nuremberg trials also condemned attacks on civilians.

The nuclear bombing was not a radical deviation from U.S. policy.  Many cities suffered many more casualties from conventional attacks.  The fire bombing of Dresden is given as a example.  The number of fatalities is given as 135,000.  I have seen estimates of 20,000 to 500,000.  No-one knows.  Many bodies were reduced to ash.  The choice of casualty numbers reveals where a person stands on bombing civilians.  The British Lindemann Plan targeted women and children.  Still it is odd to say, “The Japanese were lucky to be nuked by America,” or call it “a merciful act for it save enormous numbers on both sides.”

The Japanese fought with fanatical determination.  It is pointed out that even after the bombing many in the Japanese leadership wanted to continue the war.  Much of this was the result of a culture that valued “death before dishonor.”  Some of this was the result of government propaganda.  “Women jumped off of cliffs while holding onto their babies to avoid capture by US troops.”  Was this propaganda correct?  Cossack women threw their infants into the Elba rather than surrender them to the Soviets.  How would Americans respond in a situation where they knew if they were defeated their wives and daughters would be sold into prostitution?  The Japanese were well aware, through press reports, of conditions in defeated Germany.

The Left has rewritten history with the intention of portraying America as evil.  They have carefully concealed their role in some of the most evil acts of the 20th century.  From the beginning they have done their best to conceal the crimes of the Soviet Union and Red China.  Their role in forming U.S. foreign policy cannot be exaggerated.  They were responsible for U.S. involvement in the slave trade and genocide in postwar Europe.  The idea of “unconditional surrender” did not “pop” into FDR’s head at Casablanca.  It was devised by a committee composed of Soviet agents.  The conventional account gives only two alternatives: nuclear bombing or continuing the war resulting in millions of casualties.  A third alternative could have been a negotiated peace where Japan was allowed to retain power in Korea and even Manchuria.  Of course the Soviets and the Left would not be happy with this.