June 6, 2004, D-Day Reflections
On the 60th anniversary of the event, this week's visit to the People's Daily gives us this handy, somewhat different analysis of D-Day. (Surprise, surprise, at least so far, People's Daily has not mentioned the passing of former President Ronald Reagan, who, among other things, suggested at one time that the United States walk out of the United Nations for recognizing the PRC over Taiwan... the PRC's mouthpiece will eventually acknowledge his passing, I'm sure. Of course, there is a further sadness-- Reagan's passing at this particular moment will, unfortunately, detract attention from what may well be the last major D-Day commemmoration where significant numbers of participants are still alive-- not to take away from either him, or them, but that's the way it is.)
Anyway, the People's Daily piece suggests, for example, that D-Day may have been unnecessary-- by 1944, the German army was falling apart anyway, and endeavors at sowing dissension within the German high command may have turned them around to have the Third Reich implode, without the high Allied casualties incurred on D-Day (or in later campaigns, like Battle of the Bulge, I suppose). Of course, D-Day was a huge gamble: had it failed, the Soviet Red Army was beginning to break down the Germans on the Eastern front, and would easily have been in a position to occupy most of Europe by the end of the war. But the most interesting analysis is at the tactical level.
What I found most compelling is the observation that British troops, although positioned so that they took even heavier resistance at Normandy than did American forces, suffered fewer casualties, because they were far better coordinated. In other words-- the British thought ahead more about just how to move things around, once they actually reached the battlefield, and were set up in better ways to get it done-- result: fewer casualties. Fast forward sixty years to Iraq, where a far smaller British force in Basra has, even per capita, taken fewer casualties than its American counterparts (at least I THINK so), and one might ask if the same thing is going on?
We Americans are big on this high tech shit-- but have we ever stopped to ask the questions of whether we have a command structure-- the HUMAN ELEMENT-- that is flexible enough to adjust to actual field conditions in a way to more effectively do the job, while getting less people killed? I wonder... As we ponder the supreme sacrifice made by so many at Normandy at Omaha and Utah beaches (and throughout the world during The Big One), and of course, the supreme sacrifice being made by so many now, maybe this is the time to ask questions like this?
Or is that just me?
Comments
I haven't read the article you reference, but just talking out of my butt, it would seem to me that once you're in the military you become, for all practical purposes, cannon fodder, expendable material for your superiors'best hopes and plans for advancement. So I would be surprised if such plans included great consideration for human life. Humanitarians probably do not last long in military high command. There may be some Colin Powell-esque reluctance to get into an unnecessary battle to begin with; but once you're in and fighting, they pretty much look at you as you doing what you have to do.
Problem is, if you work in an office and you know the stupid decisions your boss makes are going to influence you negatively, well, you can always change jobs. If your boss is your military commander, you're gonna get killed.
Now, thing is, I would be surprised if the English military was any different, so I can't account for the difference in lives saved in the comparisons you make above. However, it could easily be ascribed to sheer luck. Military plans--what's the old saying? "No plan ever survived the first few minutes of battle." From what I've observed, this is mostly true--there's a huge element of luck in battles (however you want to deconstruct what "luck" is). The thing to do would be to look at possible counter-example cases where the British did all of the planning they did so well and yet still got their asses kicked. How about--was it the Battle of Dunkirk? in which the Germans pretty much overran the British, who only escaped because their citizenry grabbed anything that could float, sailed across the channel and saved them. (Talk about heroism!)
Anyway, now I am starting to ramble. But I will say that comparisons of Iraq to WWII are suspect, for the obvious reasons, but also because people, the common citizenry, were different then too, I believe, because hardship and destruction were a little bit easier to imagine back then, a little more common in their reality. Now I'm really starting to ramble so I'll shut up.
Posted by defib at June 6, 2004 09:49 AM
defib--
My point had to do with what I considered the same element in both conflicts (not that I am in any sense equating the conflicts-- in fact, I have mocked the comparison). But the common element seems to me to be the absurd simultaneous American faith in the high tech gadget (at that time, it was those flat boats, paratrooping, etc.; now its GPS, stealth bombers, etc.) and LACK of faith in the individual human being. Yes-- a soldier is typically a pawn in a game played by his commanders, to be sure. BUT...
James Bond aside, I think the British just don't HAVE the same degree of tech goodies we have, and while big, its military industrial complex is a small shadow of ours; in short, the British HAVE to rely more on the human element than we do. (Also, lest we forget, its royalty, for a variety of reasons, feel duty bound to serve-- OUR elite often feels duty bound to DODGE SERVICE.)
There certainly are military men and women who read this blog from time to time; I'd kind of know their thoughts on this-- because both of us may be missing something fundamental. Or maybe just I am...
Posted by the talking dog at June 6, 2004 09:59 AM
I kind of WANT to know the thoughts of our military or ex-military readers on this; damned Sunday mornings...
Posted by the talking dog at June 6, 2004 10:00 AM
Shout one out for Prez Ron R
Took on the mofuggin' USSR
Made Gorby his bitch; Nancy was his ho
Not too bad for having Alzheimers since eighty-fo.
Posted by N1B at June 6, 2004 01:49 PM
Well, your theory certainly could be right, and if you want more evidence to support your claim, take a look at the way the former USSR and China transact military campaigns. Centered on cannon-fodder type thinking, if I recall correctly.
Of course, something this complex probably can't be summed up in a simple cause-effect type relationship--you'd have to study the various cultural, um, themes, to understand the phenomenon. You might want to speak in terms of culture and cultural priorities. For instance, what would be interesting to look at would be whether societies who rely on the human element more than technology have some sort of cultural differences--social narratives, if you will--that somehow tell a story to the people of how this sort of warfare is "better" and/or "right." I would guess that terms and phrases such as "honor" and "for the good of the whole" would be bandied about quite a bit during conflict--an "ethos of sacrifice" would
need to be constructed.
I haven't thought in these terms since college. You're my head hurt.
Posted by defib at June 6, 2004 03:14 PM
also, it occurred to me that the British in Basra have had fewer casualities because perhaps there are far fewer British troops in Iraq than U.S. troops. On the other hand, there are more British in the Basra region than U.S.--or is that really true? Do we really know that the kill rate is lower among British soldiers? We'd have to be talking in percentages.
I have read that the British soldiers in Iraq have been fairly horrified by our attitude and methods, so perhaps there is a cultural difference in attitudes toward warfare. Who knows. These are big, broad issues which resist simple summation.
Posted by defib at June 6, 2004 03:19 PM
For the British, we could go back hundreds of years of professional families-- often the nobility has had members in it for generations. Sure-- plenty of cannon fodder there-- but plenty of upper class too. Compare and contrast here. Sure-- we have similar families here-- but usually, they make their way to service academies and the officer corps.
Another military that tends not to take so many casualties despite often being engaged in dangerous action: the Israelis-- a nation with universal military service-- indeed, most of its major politicians have been general officers.
I wonder, if the presence of members of what would otherwise be social elites in the military (at all levels) effects the attitudes towards throwing people mindlessly at death (think Gallipoli-- the British seemed to have less problem throwing, say, a bunch of colonials at Turkish guns; or for that matter, the fact that Scotsmen are often the Brits' cannon fodder of choice (as if there are meaningful racial differences between the two).
We may be on to something here. I wonder if anyone has done serious research on this that supports these theories.
Posted by the talking dog at June 6, 2004 04:01 PM
Yo, yo, yo, TD.
Ain't never been mo cannon fodder than the brothers.
And you only find the brothers here.
Aight?
Posted by N1B at June 6, 2004 04:41 PM
It's luck. Subtact Omaha and the casualties on Utah are not so much different from the British and Canadans.
So either the American guys on Omaha had bad luck or the Germans had good luck.
On the other hand I would agree that had D-Day never happened the rest of the century would have been very different because the Soviets would have been wetting their toes on the Riviera. They had already beaten the Germans. On the other hand they didn't want to continue to take the kind of casualties they had been taking up to that point. They wanted a second front to take the pressure off.
Had Stalin been smart enough to look ahead to beyond the end of the war and stopped crying for the second front who knows what kind of a world we would be living in now.
Posted by lawguy at June 7, 2004 08:47 PM
I am in a moral quandry.
My friend searches for http://cheating.any1in.us/cyber-detective.html cyber detective on google to screen potential roommates.
He found any1in.us , but did not visit.
I, on the other hand, searched for http://detectives.any1in.us/foster.html foster and found any1in.us.
I went there and found that http://www.any1in.us/signs-of-cheating.html signs of cheating were easier to find than on google.
Should I tell him that his potential roommate is a http://detectives.any1in.us/search-now.html search now ?
Posted by V. Dombrosky at July 8, 2004 12:37 AM
interesting web site...
Posted by exploit software at July 28, 2004 10:21 PM
Your site was very helpful to me. Thank you.
Posted by reality porn reviews at July 30, 2004 03:55 AM
interesting web site...
Posted by gay twink at August 3, 2004 08:14 AM
your page is inspirational
Posted by kinky stories at August 7, 2004 08:28 AM
4571 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by Viagra at August 7, 2004 07:47 PM
1406 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
Posted by texas holdem online at August 9, 2004 08:33 PM
713 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com
Posted by cialis at August 10, 2004 01:20 PM
225 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com
Posted by online poker at August 10, 2004 10:07 PM
Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz
http://www.888-on-net.biz
Posted by online casino at August 14, 2004 02:13 AM
6238 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com
Posted by Viagra at August 14, 2004 02:45 PM
8425 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by online poker at August 15, 2004 11:54 PM
4384 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by blackjack at August 17, 2004 12:35 PM
7237 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is
Krankenversicherung private and dont forget
Krankenversicherung gesetzlich and then again there is always beer
Posted by Krankenversicherung private at August 17, 2004 05:31 PM
1940 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto
Posted by debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 04:27 AM
7629
http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for
Adult DVD And Adult DVDS And Adult videos Thanks and dont forget Check out the diecast model
cars at http://www.diecastdot.com
Posted by Adult DVDS at August 19, 2004 08:53 PM
Posted by viagra uk at Friday 20 August 2004 10:58:09 for http://www.viaga-viagra.greatnow.com
Posted by viagra uk at August 20, 2004 04:58 AM
272 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~
Posted by blackjack at August 24, 2004 02:04 AM
996 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)
Posted by blackjack at August 25, 2004 01:50 PM
6883 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow
Posted by online texas hold em at August 25, 2004 10:49 PM
8489 Look at http://oncas.tramadol-web.com/
its the hizzy for online casino action any where!
Posted by online casino at August 27, 2004 10:27 PM