Veterans’ Day / Armistice Day
CAP has the day off for Veterans’ Day, as does much of Washington DC though not, as best I can tell, the non-DC private sector economy.
I sort of wish we called our November 11 observance Armistice Day like they do in other countries.
Something that I think is missing from American political culture is the thing that in Europe is taken to be the lesson of World War One, namely that a war can be bad for reasons other than it being lost. France and Britain were ultimately victorious in the war, but it was ruinous nonetheless. What was needed from the political leadership of the time was a way to avoid the war, not a way to win it. In America, though, evaluation of military endeavors is ruthlessly governed by considerations of efficacy. To lose a war, like in Vietnam, is a bad thing. But there seems to be a growing conventional wisdom that the surge has somehow redeemed Iraq and that the only thing we’re allowed to talk about with regard to Afghanistan is whether we can or will “win.”
84 Responses to “Veterans’ Day / Armistice Day”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 11th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Matt,
Isn’t it better to be a tribute to all veterans? America showed up late to WWI and was involved in combat for a mere 6 months. It means so much more over there. Here we have so many veterans because we have so many recent wars.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Looks like they’ll be off to the malt shop afterwards!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:12 am
What was needed from the political leadership of the time was a way to avoid the war, not a way to win it.
The problem is the correct policy response to WWI was the exact opposite of the correct policy response to WWII.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Britain, France, and the US “won” the First World War in the sense that the other side asked for an armistice. Subsequently, Germany was saddled with ruinous reparations which contributed to the economic collapse in that country. However, the real lesson of the end of the First World War is that the failure of the allies to demand unconditional surrender and the occupation of Germany was a mistake of monumental proportions. Because there was an armistice instead of a surrender, Hitler and the Nazi Party were plausibly able to make the claim that the German Army won the war on the battlefield but that victory was thrown away by the traitors back in Berlin. That claim, of course, was utter crap as the German Army was in full retreat at the time. Britain and the US did not make the same mistake at the end of WW 2 and the result is that the Germans learned their lesson and have not caused trouble since. Had the allies done the same thing at the end of the First World War, it may be quite plausibly argued that the Second World War could have been avoided.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Matt is forgetting that to the militarists who conduct US foreign policy and populate the salons of Washington, World War One never happened and war is costless, life-affirming, and glorious.
The problem is the correct policy response to WWI was the exact opposite of the correct policy response to WWII.
Mmmm, no. The correct policy response to both was an international order based on securing the blessings of peace and free commerce. When Europeans actually got the chance to choose their own governments, those governments suddenly found an interest in providing those things rather than in recurrent negative-sum wars.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:20 am
“The problem is the correct policy response to WWI was the exact opposite of the correct policy response to WWII.”
True. The problem with the American political class, though, is that is perpetually 1938, every tinpot dictator sitting on an oil field is Hitler, and the only acknowledgment that World War One happened is the fact the we call the other war World War Two.
Furthermore, the scenario of nations being pulled into an unnecessary and mutually destructive war is far, far more common than incidents where a ruthless, expansionist enemy can only be deterred by force.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:22 am
SLC – Today, at least, I think the real lesson of WW1 is that as a race we are capable of unconditional stupidity. Look at July 1, 916 at Somme, when at least 26,000 soldiers died (in one day) and at least twice that number were wounded.
1 out of every 10 Canadian males was killed or wounded in the “Great War”. The rate was higher in England, France and Germany. And why? Because the last gasp of dictators wanted to realign some borders. Pure stupidity.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Actually, when I was a child it was called Armistice Day here. It was changed to Veterans’ Day in 1954, basically in response to a campaign to broaden the observance to honor all veterans. Basically, coupling a celebration of service with a meditation on its futility is a tough sell.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:23 am
look at the area behind the tomb now
November 11th, 2009 at 10:26 am
When Europeans actually got the chance to choose their own governments, those governments suddenly found an interest in providing those things rather than in recurrent negative-sum wars.
France and the UK were democracies before even WWI, and so was Germany before WWII.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Isn’t it better to be a tribute to all veterans? America showed up late to WWI and was involved in combat for a mere 6 months. It means so much more over there. Here we have so many veterans because we have so many recent wars.
The difference is between celebrating the end of war and celebrating soldiers. You can’t have “Veterans Day” without veterans, and if soldiers are good and brave then wars must be necessary too. It would be nice, considering all the holidays that celebrate war, that we could also have a few that celebrate peace.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:37 am
” . . . the surge has somehow redeemed Iraq . . . ”
Let’s check back on the 10th anniversary of our invasion and see how that bit of CW is holding up.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:38 am
To this day, watching the solemn ceremonies in London and Paris is a sober reminder of the tremendous cost of WWI. I’m still moved by it. Our version of it here even on our Memorial Day pales in comparison.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Looks like they’ll be off to the malt shop afterwards!
It took me a little bit to realize that it wasn’t a contemporary picture since the enlisted Navy dress uniform, unlike other service’s dress uniforms, hasn’t changed since 1943 when the picture was taken.
Sixty six years later, sailors in their crackerjacks look exactly the same.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:40 am
…the only thing we’re allowed to talk about with regard to Afghanistan is whether we can or will “win.”
What a silly comment! Here is Yglesias saying what he wants, often without much basis in fact, and getting paid for it. Who is depriving him of free speech? Why doesn’t he have the courage to say what he is supposedly forbidden to say?
November 11th, 2009 at 10:41 am
“Something that I think is missing from American political culture is the thing that in Europe is taken to be the lesson of World War One, namely that a war can be bad for reasons other than it being lost.”
I believe that whole WWII thing precludes saying that Europe learned any sort of lesson from WWI.
I’d like to think I’m aware of all internet traditions, but is there a term for the “you really didn’t think this out” post that is one of the hallmarks of regular blogging?
Mike
November 11th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I agree with you that wars can be bad even if you don’t lose, but I would say most of what you are talking about above is semantics. If “winning” the war isn’t the appropriate goal, then you haven’t properly defined “winning.”
I think a more important point is that “winning” isn’t the same thing as defeating your opponent. We defeated the Iraqi army and Saddam Hussein, but it will take a lot more than that for Iraq to ultimately be considered a victory for the U.S.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:52 am
I am trying to track down the correct wording and source for a WWI or WWII quote along the following lines:
Can anyone help me out?
November 11th, 2009 at 10:55 am
“Something that I think is missing from American political culture is the thing that in Europe is taken to be the lesson of World War One, namely that a war can be bad for reasons other than it being lost.” – MY
Europe learned that lesson so well after WWI that they went and had another war twenty years later that was vastly more destructive and killed several times more people than WWI. ‘Armistice Day’ as a vague political statement is utterly and completely pointless. You might as well call it ‘Post Modern Day.’
War is part of the human condition. Right wingers have their wars and leftist liberals have theirs. Wars are always being started and fought by someone for some reason. You can’t have peace without an army – and a good one at that -and it’s an idiotic fantasy to pretend you can.
Veterans Day is a celebration of the sacrifice made by veterans. For liberal leftists, war is an abstract concept they don’t like (at least when a Republican started it). For veterans, war is a reality they were and are forced against their will to deal with. Veterans deserve our unconditional respect and gratitude.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:10 am
No doubt there are analogues in Europe, but we do sometimes seem to have the edge when it comes to shallow, ahistorical jingoism these days. It wasn’t always so. There are moving portraits of the sadness of war–WW I as it happens– in Fitzgerald’s ‘Tender is the Night’ and Hemingway’s ‘A Farewell to Arms’. Robert Lowell’s poem, in a distinctively America voice, ‘For the Union Dead’ is one of the most haunting evocations of the sadness even of just wars.
For the Union Dead
by Robert Lowell
“Relinquunt Omnia Servare Rem Publicam.”
The old South Boston Aquarium stands
in a Sahara of snow now. Its broken windows are boarded.
The bronze weathervane cod has lost half its scales.
The airy tanks are dry.
Once my nose crawled like a snail on the glass;
my hand tingled
to burst the bubbles
drifting from the noses of the cowed, compliant fish.
My hand draws back. I often sigh still
for the dark downward and vegetating kingdom
of the fish and reptile. One morning last March,
I pressed against the new barbed and galvanized
fence on the Boston Common. Behind their cage,
yellow dinosaur steamshovels were grunting
as they cropped up tons of mush and grass
to gouge their underworld garage.
Parking spaces luxuriate like civic
sandpiles in the heart of Boston.
A girdle of orange, Puritan-pumpkin colored girders
braces the tingling Statehouse,
shaking over the excavations, as it faces Colonel Shaw
and his bell-cheeked Negro infantry
on St. Gaudens’ shaking Civil War relief,
propped by a plank splint against the garage’s earthquake.
Two months after marching through Boston,
half the regiment was dead;
at the dedication,
William James could almost hear the bronze Negroes breathe.
Their monument sticks like a fishbone
in the city’s throat.
Its Colonel is as lean
as a compass-needle.
He has an angry wrenlike vigilance,
a greyhound’s gentle tautness;
he seems to wince at pleasure,
and suffocate for privacy.
He is out of bounds now. He rejoices in man’s lovely,
peculiar power to choose life and die–
when he leads his black soldiers to death,
he cannot bend his back.
On a thousand small town New England greens,
the old white churches hold their air
of sparse, sincere rebellion; frayed flags
quilt the graveyards of the Grand Army of the Republic.
The stone statues of the abstract Union Soldier
grow slimmer and younger each year–
wasp-waisted, they doze over muskets
and muse through their sideburns . . .
Shaw’s father wanted no monument
except the ditch,
where his son’s body was thrown
and lost with his “niggers.”
The ditch is nearer.
There are no statues for the last war here;
on Boylston Street, a commercial photograph
shows Hiroshima boiling
over a Mosler Safe, the “Rock of Ages”
that survived the blast. Space is nearer.
When I crouch to my television set,
the drained faces of Negro school-children rise like balloons.
Colonel Shaw
is riding on his bubble,
he waits
for the blessèd break.
The Aquarium is gone. Everywhere,
giant finned cars nose forward like fish;
a savage servility
slides by on grease.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Clearly only a few people actually studied the Great War other than as the prequel to Dubya Dubya Eye Eye.
Aside from the US, which entered the Great War at a very late date, it was fought by: Monarchy (Britain)-Democracy (France)-Monarchy (Russia) against Monarchy (Germany)-Monarchy (Italy)-Monarchy (Austria) over the actions of a Serbian monarchists assassinating a monarch.
After the war, Britain, Russia, Germany, Italy, and Austria had strong democratic movements to differing degrees of success. The lesson learned was, “modern war sucks and we shouldn’t fight it for the benefit of the upper class.” Bear in mind that this was the first war with machine guns and rapid transit.
World War Two wasn’t a mistake made by the people of these countries. The mistake of WW2 was allowing monarchs to take over again in Italy and Germany; they proceeded to invade the new democracies, which were hesitant to fight because war sucks.
The lesson there isn’t “always be ready in case you’re invaded”, it’s “don’t let monarchists take over”. We mistakenly learned #1.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:12 am
“However, the real lesson of the end of the First World War is that the failure of the allies to demand unconditional surrender and the occupation of Germany was a mistake of monumental proportions.”
Absolutely 100% wrong. There is zero evidence an unconditional surrender would have been accepted without thousands of more deaths for all involved. Instead, the real lesson was that by extracting ruinous reparations the Allies and prohibiting the Axis powers from negotiating the Armistice, they created even greater horrors 20 years later.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I lived in France for a few years. Every town has a memorial to those that died in WWI and WWII. I was in a town that had about 3,000 people. There were about 200 – 250 dead soldiers listed. This town is not exceptional in any way, i.e. particularly patriotic. The comparable casualty rate in current US population terms would be 22 – 27.5 million dead. That is the reason Europe has a very different perspective on using military force after WWI and WWII.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Great post. If WWI was the war to end all awars WWII seems to have been the war to start all wars. At least it seems to have been used to justify every single futile war in my life time.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 am
I believe that whole WWII thing precludes saying that Europe learned any sort of lesson from WWI.
Because, as we all know so well, nobody from Britain or France ever tried to do anything to avoid World War Two, such as engage in diplomatic negotiations with Italy or Germany. The immediate declaration of war against Germany in response to its invasion of the Rhineland, and the immediate full-scale assault on Italy in the earliest stages of its 1935 conquest of Ethiopia, clearly indicate that those warmongering British and French fools weren’t interested in even attempting diplomacy, in the form of, say, some kind of diplomatic Agreement. They so clearly hadn’t learned anything, and just gleefully dove straight into war!
November 11th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Mr. Y is absolutely correct here.
Without WWI, there might not have been a Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or WWII.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I don’t believe that the end of WWII would have worked out as well if the Allies had insisted on the same sort of reparations that were called for at the end of WWI. Don’t be a sore winner would be a good lesson to take from WWI.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Veteran’s Day is a good and important day, but Armistice Day is not really the same thing.
Among some figures I found for casualties by country (via PBS):
Russia: 9,150,000 (76% casualty rate, and a major contributing factor to revolutionary fervor)
Britain (+colonies): 3,190,235
France; 6,160,800
Romania: 535,706
Germany: 7,142,558
Austro-Hungarian Forces: 7,020,000 (90% casualty rate. 90!)
USA: 323,018 (7% casualty rate)
Grand total: 37,466,904, a rate of 57%.
So, uh, needless to say there is a bit of a different perspective.
I always have believed that the French generals in 1940, having been pushed back so far so fast, staring down the prospect of 10,000,000 dead, the destruction of entire cities, just couldn’t face losing another generation.
Anyhow, thanks vets. I appreciate you.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Veterans deserve our unconditional respect and gratitude.
Sorry, no. No subgroup of human beings deserves our unconditional respect and gratitude above and beyond the respect and gratitude we grant to every human being.
As for “War is part of the human condition”: it’s a condition that doesn’t effect serfs nearly so potently as the people who stand to gain lootz. I might agree the desire to gain lootz is quite human. But needs can be satisfied in many ways. Perhaps eventually this particular human need will be satisfied by racking up mad gold in World of Warcraft, not in the mass human casualty of world war.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Re: The mistake of WW2 was allowing monarchs to take over again in Italy and Germany;
Huh?
Germany wasn’t a monarchy in the 1930s-1940s period. Italy was, technically, but it was a constitutional monarchy in which real power resided with the Prime Minister Mussolini.
Indeed, many conservatives and traditionalists have made the case, since then, that it was precisely the decline of order, tradition, and monarchy that made possible the rise of the new tyrannies in Germany and Russia. Larison in particular is fond of speaking in this vein. It’s not the whole truth, but there is certainly an aspect of truth in it- medieval society couldn’t have produced a Hitler any more then it could have produced a Paul Farmer.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:28 am
‘Armistice Day’ as a vague political statement is utterly and completely pointless. You might as well call it ‘Post Modern Day.’
You might as well call it ‘Strawman Day’. See #23.
Veterans Day is a celebration of the sacrifice made by veterans.
In the US, it’s a holiday that doesn’t really explain why it’s in the calendar, given the existence of BBQ Season Begins Day and its closeness to Gather Outside Wal-Mart Eve; as a result, it has a tendency to become Generic Rah-Rah-Troops Day.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:32 am
To #18 — the quote about the boxing ring comes from “All Quiet on the Western Front” and is included (obviously) in the book but also in the Lewis Milestone film. Over the years, my students have liked talking about that line.
Also, from what I can see the Brits have taken to calling Armistice Day “Rembrance Day”. I too like Armistice Day. My grandad was a WWI vet and this war has intrigued me for decades. Americans just don’t get it.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:33 am
“the only thing we’re allowed to talk about with regard to Afghanistan is whether we can or will “win.””
Matt, the right always defines by skillful reification what we all ought to think about the world.
I’m impressed by your erudition and logic. But you have a habit of accepting what is already the reification of the possible, and then shifting by the smallest degree to the left, and calling that a “liberal” position.
It’s not too surprising that you prefer wrt Afhanistan “counter-terrorism” or mere bribery, rather than the madness of COIN. No doubt if the right re-reified the war as “kill all fighting Pashtun males” you’d scuttle to defend the new “liberal” policy of COIN.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Oops – Remembrance Day (I can — usually — spell)
November 11th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Re weinerdog43
I would agree with Mr. weinerdog43 that a demand for unconditional surrender by the allies in WW 1 would have led to additional casualties. However, IMHO, one has to weigh those additional casualties against the slaughter of WW 2. If my assertion that unconditional surrender in WW 1 would have avoided the rise of Hitler and thence WW 2, then I think that the arithmetic is strongly in its favor. The proof is that unconditional surrender in WW 2 has led to peaceful Germany and Japan subsequently.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am
For those who claim that because Germany was a democracy before WWII democracy has nothing to do with the lack of world wars three, four, etc, I will point out that when democracies face an authoritarian “enemy” they can often be persuaded to adopt militaristic postures themselves. The same is not true when all of the relevant players are democracies.
As for Hector, it’s true that medieval society would not have produced a Hitler, but it most certainly would have and did produce numerous Stalins, Maos, Mussolinis, etc, namely power-hungry individuals who didn’t see anything wrong with a little rape and pillage when the opportunity presented itself. The fact that the middle ages did not feature large empires with the capacity to bring about death and destruction at the hands of the state on such a massive scale as the twentieth century is explained by the pre-existing fragmentation of power that characterized medieval politics.
What you call a breakdown of order I call the coalescence of unified power from a system that appeared orderly only because each individual conflict was smaller, but overall constituted a society that was more violent if anything.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Europe learned that lesson so well after WWI that they went and had another war twenty years later that was vastly more destructive and killed several times more people than WWI. ‘Armistice Day’ as a vague political statement is utterly and completely pointless. You might as well call it ‘Post Modern Day.’
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. First, Germany, the country that unilaterally started WWII, never celebrated Armistice Day, and thus is not applicable to this “lesson.” Second, the failure of the Allies was not in having taken the wrong lesson, but in the failure of political institutions like the League of Nations. You may recall that after WWII those issues were resolved satisfactorily (with the UN and with NATO), and despite the tensions of the Cold War, there has not been a major international shooting war in Europe in 65 years.* So even though WWI did not end all war, the lesson only became stronger as a result of the failures.
*With the possible exception of unpleasant events in the former Yugoslavia, if you want to argue about it.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:46 am
the only thing we’re allowed to talk about with regard to Afghanistan is whether we can or will “win.”
Well, at least people are in fact talking about Afghanistan now. You yourself could have said something anytime over the last eight years; it’s solely your choice that you have entered the conversation just this past summer – after the current Adminstration had already made some important decisions.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:47 am
No SLC I think the critical difference between post WWI and post WWII is in the way the victors treated the losers.
And of course post WWII we had the Soviet Bear to drive the former Axis powers into the arms of the democracies.
Even Leftist France never wanted to become a Stalinist state.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Clarice,
Your second para applies to me as well, except both my granddads were WW1 vets, on opposing sides.
Dammit, I hate war.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I’d forgotten the the tomb of the unknown soldier includes an endorsement of the god concept. Sickening.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Isn’t it better to be a tribute to all veterans? America showed up late to WWI and was involved in combat for a mere 6 months. It means so much more over there. Here we have so many veterans because we have so many recent wars.
The Great War, however, was undeniably the most significantly and tragic war of the last 200 years, if not more. The Second World War might have cost more American lives, but its visceral horror and shock never quite reached the level experienced by people in 1914-1919. The Great War was the war that broke the illusion of a peaceful, modern, Western civilization.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:53 am
In effect, the Great War ended the whole illusion of perpetual progress, and completely changed our way of thinking about the world.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:53 am
The upshot being that what we needed in 2001 was a way to avoid war in Afghanistan? I suppose preventing 9/11 might have been a way to do that…
November 11th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Re Miles
Actually, the real cause of WW 1 was the insistence of the Kaiser in building a fleet to challenge the British fleet on the high seas. Bismarck opposed this strategy and warned the Kaiser of the folly of it and was canned for his efforts. The great dreadnaught race resulted in driving Britain and France, the ancient rivals, together in an alliance. Had the Kaiser listened to Bismarck, Great Britain would not have allied with France and the latter would not have considered challenging German hegemony on the Continent without British support. The precedence for this view is that France did not intervene on the Confederate side of the Civil War because the British would not support such intervention.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:58 am
The upshot being that what we needed in 2001 was a way to avoid war in Afghanistan? I suppose preventing 9/11 might have been a way to do that…
Or, minus that (thanks in part to Bush’s lack of interest in Islamist terrorism), perhaps not overreacting, thinking that a good war or two can solve all problems?
November 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
SLC is peddling a crock of shit, not worthy of a lengthy counter-argument except to refer anyone interested in the truth to J.M. Keynes’ book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace,” which gives a completely accurate account of the negotiations at Versailles and the nature of the “peace” settlement and an entirely correct prediction of the following twenty-five years of European history. He didn’t quite use the phrase “gas chamber,” but he comes close.
Keynes was writing BEFORE this all happened. SLC is writing sixty years after it ended. And yet there are still people running around who think the problem with the first part of the century was that Germany was treated too leniently and that altogether more cruelty and destruction at the beginning would have somehow prevented the endless flood of those things over the course of the century.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I think all this is of a piece with Zhou en Lai’s famous reply to a question about the meaning of the French Revolution — “It’s too soon to tell.”
November 11th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Just a week after the tragic events at Fort Hood and the Political Correctness snake crawls out of its slim pit again. PC is the refuge of cowards and the tool of Anti American Liberals. American Veterans died in Europe helping them defend their Countries, and prevent the same happening here.We use this day to honer their sacrifice’s not Europe’s freedom.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
There is not a single democracy in the world, they are all oligarchies. Switzerland probably comes the closest to a democracy, and they haven’t fought a war for a couple of hundred years now.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“Because, as we all know so well, nobody from Britain or France ever tried to do anything to avoid World War Two, such as engage in diplomatic negotiations with Italy or Germany.”
I think the fact that those efforts not only didn’t work but couldn’t possibly have worked demonstrate how little those folks actually learned from WWI.
Mike
November 11th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
ajw93 – you left out the Ottoman Empire from your casualty totals – at least 700,000 military casualties and over 4 million civilian by most estimates. That wasn’t a footnote either – remember Gallipoli and the Armenian genocide? A major policy aim for Imperial Russia in the war was to retake Constantinople for the Orthodox Christians. And of course one of the most disastrous effects of WWI was the collapse of the Ottoman empire with its attendant ethnic cleansings and the creation of the basket case we call the modern Middle East.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Rock,
What is your god damn problem?
Stop insulting what you don’t undertand and stop your damn dumb ass not-an-american hate.
As if there is a disagreement between us vets and Europes freedom … damn ignorant self centered american bigot.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
On my way to a Remembrance Day ceremony in a few minutes and yes, it is different in America than in other countries. I just finished watching the Ottawa ceremony. It was certainly not a victory celebration, although most of the veterans were from wars that were won by the Canadian side.
Having lived in both Canada and the US I’ve noticed a distinct difference between the way both countries honor their veterans. I can’t describe it exactly but Matt is onto something when he says “a war can be bad for reasons other than it being lost”. It’s an obvious, but sometimes overlooked point.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
honer their sacrifice’s
Hone their sacrifice’s what?
Sacrifice has a “not Europe’s freedom?”
What is a “not Europe’s freedom”?
Why are we honing it?
I’m genuinely curious.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Moron. The political leadership of 1938 did everything they could to avoid WWII, even allowing Nazi Germany to enslave and engulf a whole country. Guess what happened, moron. It didn’t work. It wasn’t enough for Hitler. He wanted more. He always wanted more. He couldn’t be appeased, no matter how much the morons of 1938 wanted to think so. Eventually, even they figured out that appeasement doesn’t work.
There are still tyrannical regimes that want more. They will always want more. Appeasing them encourages them to always want more. It doesn’t mean that we have to get into a shooting war, as we saw with how Reagan ended up winning the Cold War for America and free peoples everywhere, despite Yglesias’ idiotic post about the fall of the Berlin Wall the other day. But Reagan did away with appeasing the Soviets and the country went away. That is the lesson. Not anything being taught by pantywaist leftists like Yglesias.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
We use this day to honer their sacrifice’s not Europe’s freedom.
Actually, no. Veterans’ Day is meant to be for the ones who came back. Perhaps you were too busy lighting your grill on Memorial Day to remember that.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
That is the lesson.
Also, Neville Chamberlain. Bingo!
November 11th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Re Marshall @ # 47
Mr. Marshall appears to have a reading comprehension problem. I never said or implied that Germany was treated too leniently after WW 1. I would also point out that Mr. Keynes was obviously unacquainted with the aftermath of WW 2 when he wrote the article to which Mr. Marshall refers. I would agree that the reparations demanded of Germany after WW 1 were onerous and led to the economic collapse. I would point out, however, that the damage done to Germany by the allied strategic bombing campaign and the Soviet take no prisoners approach was far more damaging then the reparations.
However, Hitlers’ main theme was the stab in the back lie that I mentioned. I would argue that taking away that propaganda could very well have precluded Hitlers’ obtaining power in Germany and thus WW 2 being avoided.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Matt this is PCness run amok.
First of all they no longer call this ‘Armistice Day’ in England and Canada, instead it is Remembrance Day or Poppy Day and it is not focused on the onset of piece but the stoppage of killing. The implication that the rest of the world celebrates this as some sort of International Peace Day is ludicrous in light of actual ceremonials observed. The Poppy is not a symbol of World Peace, instead it is a direct memorial of the killing fields of Northern France and Belgium and explicitly drawn from the poem ‘In Flanders Field’ which was written in 1915, i.e. three years before the Armistice itself:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
— Lt.-Col. John McCrae (1872 – 1918)
If you want to make some political point hijack some other god-damn holiday and let the war dead sleep.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
‘Armistice Day’ as a vague political statement is utterly and completely pointless. You might as well call it ‘Post Modern Day.’
No – it means precisely 11:11 on November 11, when the war that killed more than 9 million soldiers and 7 million civilians was ended by an armistice.
A war where many towns and villages lost most of their men aged between 18 and 25, as the entire industrial might of Europe was devoted to mass slaughter for no real purpose which the soldiers in the mud of the trenches could ever discern.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
‘The implication that the rest of the world celebrates this as some sort of International Peace Day is ludicrous in light of actual ceremonials observed.’
I see that your experience of Germany is quite limited, then. And most of the world could care less – WWI was a very European affair, after all, even if the dead in East Africa was likely over 300,000.
It is true that the term ‘Armistice Day’ has been supplanted almost universally. But then, only 3 WWI veterans (as of July 2009) are still alive, so what may have been the most stupidly fought war in human history is about to forever fade from living memory.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
KenZ Says:
November 11th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I lived in France for a few years. Every town has a memorial to those that died in WWI and WWII. I was in a town that had about 3,000 people. There were about 200 – 250 dead soldiers listed. This town is not exceptional in any way, i.e. particularly patriotic. The comparable casualty rate in current US population terms would be 22 – 27.5 million dead. That is the reason Europe has a very different perspective on using military force after WWI and WWII
===========================================================
Most courthouse squares in the eastern US have similar statues/memorials to Civil War dead. Everyone today forgets that Memorial Day is the US Civil War equivalent of Armistice Day. About 625,000 war dead (and uncounted tens of thousands of civilian dead) out of a population of 31.5 million.
It took us 50 years to unlearn that lesson and jump into WW I
November 11th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
@60 Bruce Webb.
Thanks for In Flanders Fields, but I’m baffled at your take on Matt’s point. There are alternative to arm-chair blood and guts heroics of our present day war cheerleaders other than caricatural love and flowers peacenickery.
By the way, Charles Ives’ setting of In Flanders Fields is masterly.
Another piece of poetry, a verse from Lawrence Binyon that one sees in Britain, is worth citing
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
As Bruce Webb said, it is called Remembrance Day in Canada and has been as long as I remember, and I am 47. (I have never heard it referred to as ‘Poppy Day’ and hope I never do.)
Not_scottbot, I can assure you that Remembrance Day in Canada at least, is far from fading from living memory. In fact for the last decade or so, the ‘celebrations’ if you can call them that, have become larger and more significant to the general public. In Canada, the fact that fewer and fewer veterans of the World Wars are left each year, has brought an increased sense of urgency and poignancy to the day. The significance of Remembrance Day in Canada is growing, not fading, and I’m confident it will continue for many a year.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Afghanistan = Vietnam
November 11th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
The poppy is actually an exhortation to avenge your comrades and keep killing. It’s as if people forget to read the poem to the end.
Also I see SteveAR is still peddling the tiresome myth that “The political leadership of 1938 did everything they could to avoid WWII, even allowing Nazi Germany to enslave and engulf a whole country.” The myth that will not die. Of course the reality is that England and France were desperately rearming and buying time all through 1938, i.e. preparing for war, not avoiding it. It worked too, in a sense – the allied relative advantage in materiel over Germany by 1940 was much greater than it had been in 1938, and yet they still got their asses kicked. The real policy mistake was allowing Germany to reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936, the “sell out” of Czechoslovakia was probably the only realistic option open to Chamberlain at the time.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
And yes, both Flanders Fields (written by a Canadian), and the Lawrence Binyon verse are always recited at Remembrance Day ceremonies.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Reagan ended up winning the Cold War
Sure, in the sense that sitting back while your opponent implodes while your successor is in office can be considered “winning.”
November 11th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“I’d forgotten the the tomb of the unknown soldier includes an endorsement of the god concept. Sickening.”
I’m an atheist, but I think you’re overreacting here. You don’t have to believe in a god to get the idea that nothing on this earth knows the fate of this person, which is quite moving. Every mention of God doesn’t have to be objectionable.
As for “In Flanders Fields,” I’ll go with Paul Fussell here:
“We finally see—and with a shock—what the last six lines really are: they are a propaganda argument—words like vicious and stupid would not seem to go too far—against a negotiated piece…”
November 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
As other have noted, it is Remembrance Day in Canada. I like this name as it conjures up the need to remember not just the horror of war but also the sacrifices of those who served. It is both pro-service and anti-war. I think we get the blend right.
Have a look at today’s ceremony from Ottawa. Skip the first 20 minutes but watch the next 40.
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/ID=1326966994
November 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
For Northern Observer (a posseble Salad Shooter) Ah yes the typical Alinsky rules for Radicals at work. Hateful, spiteful, and vulgar. Should make any wanta be droid feel satisfied. Did you get a tingle up your leg after your, safe in your room rage?
November 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Re vanya @ 67
Not to hijack this thread but I cannot allow Mr. vanyas’ comment to go unchallenged. This is the typical apologists for Chamberlain type of comment and is totally without foundation. The fact is that the relative strengths of Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia in 1938 vis a vis Germany was much greater then the relative strengths of Britain, France, and Poland vis a vis Germany in 1939. Germany made better use of the time period between Munich and the invasion of Poland then did Britain and France, particularly relative to the buildup of armored units.
1. At the time of Munich, the Panzer divisions that won the battle of France barely existed.
2. Czechoslovakia had the most modern armaments industry in Europe in 1938 (e.g. the Skoda works). By selling out the Czechs, Chamberlain handed that industry over to Germany and shot himself in the foot.
3. The mountains of Czechoslovakia provided far better defensive positions then the plains of Poland.
4. At the time of Munich, Hitler still had opposition from within the German General Staff which was planning a coup. By appeasing Hitler, Chamberlain pulled the rug out from under the plotters. By the invasion of Poland, the General Staff had been cleansed of opposition to Hitler.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
So, NPR is really underlining the difference between Armistice Day, celebrating the end of a war, and Veterans’ Day, celebrating the people in the war.
When celebrating Veterans’ Day, invariably everybody says “thank you, soldiers, for the very important things you’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Now that is political correctness run amok.
I’m sorry. Nobody is doing anything important in Iraq and Afghanistan except leaving. It’s very brave of soldiers to have gone, but both wars were and are criminally stupid ventures that have had a hugely deleterious effect on the world.
Thank you for being brave. You deserve our support. We’re sorry that Bush made a huge mistake, and you had to suffer for it.
(That oughtta piss off the right-wingers!)
November 11th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
SLC, you’re not making a very rigorous argument. Much of your argument is simply hindsight so even if one accepts everything you say about Hitler’s success in rearming, that doesn’t mean Chamberlain could have known that the Germans would be that efficient. You are also ignoring the fact that most of the RAF was built in in the late 1930s – and airpower was Britain’s main asset. The success of Britain’s rearmament in the late 1930s is often underplayed. You should read Adam Tooze on the subject – he uses actual facts and figures.
The Panzer divisions didn’t win the battle of France, they weren’t even used correctly thanks to conservative generals like Halder. Hence Dunkirk.
Furthermore, the point of declaring war wasn’t to stop Hitler invading France, it was to stop Hitler in the East. If the allies in 1938 did not have sufficient materiel and men to invade Germany they would just look impotent (as they did, in fact, in 1939). You don’t think that would have made Hitler look good to his general staff? Hitler wanted war in 1938.
And some of your arguments are silly – so what if the mountains of Czechoslovakia make better defensive positions – how were the British and French supposed to get there? The Czechs were never prepared to fight by themselves – don’t forget there was a large German population in Bohemia in those days and the Slovaks were not particularly loyal. The Czechs wouldn’t have lasted more than a week and the Skoda plant would have been in German hands on day two anyway.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
@vanya – Mea culpa, I didn’t actually mean to do that. I think our points reinforce each other, in fact. Thanks for bringing it out.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
[...] a comment » Jim Henley, Matt Yglesias, John Quiggin, Jacob [...]
November 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Re vanya
The Panzer divisions didn’t win the battle of France, they weren’t even used correctly thanks to conservative generals like Halder
This comment is so entirely full of shit that one hardly knows how to begin. For starters, The BEF and the remnants of the French Army got to Dunkirk ahead of the Panzers because Hitler, not Halder, called a 48 hour halt in their advance because his attention was diverted by a pin prick attack on the German flank by a small tank force led by Charles DeGaulle. The panzers were the spearhead of the breakout from the Ardennes via Sedan which trapped the mobile British and French forces in Belgium where they had advanced, anticipating a replay of the WW 1 Schlieffen Plan and were entirely the reason for the German victory. Unarmored and unmotorized infantry divisions could not possibly have obtained the same result. Try reading General Fullers’, “A Military History of the Western World, Volume 3.”
The Czechs wouldn’t have lasted more than a week and the Skoda plant would have been in German hands on day two anyway.
Given the fact that the Czech Army was heavily motorized and well supplied with tanks while the German Army was still mostly unmotorized infantry and even horsed cavalry units in 1938, this is about as likely as the shrimps learning to whistle. The German General Staff thought differently and had concluded that the German forces available at the time of Munich would not stand a chance against a British/French/Czech combination and was hence appalled at Hitlers’ recklessness.
And some of your arguments are silly – so what if the mountains of Czechoslovakia make better defensive positions – how were the British and French supposed to get there?
More stupidity on the part of Mr. vanya. Given what, IMHO, would have been a stalemate on the Czech front, Britain and France could have attacked from the West, forcing the German Army to redeploy forces there. This would have led to a two front war, something that appalled the German General Staff. I suggest, “A History of the German General Staff,” by historian Walter Goerlitz for some bedtime reading for Mr. vanya before he shows his incredible ignorance further.
You are also ignoring the fact that most of the RAF was built in in the late 1930s – and airpower was Britain’s main asset.
Mr vanya makes the same mistake that all Chamberlain apologists make, assuming that Britain would have been fighting alone against Germany in 1938. In fact, the French armored forces, not to mention the Czech armored forces were much stronger then the German counterparts were at that time. Even in 1940, the French armored force was nearly equal to the German counterpart. The difference was that the French high command and most of the French field commanders were totally incompetent. The only competent general they had, who understood the proper use of tanks, was Charles DeGaulle who was only a brigadier at the time. Again, Mr vanya would find the perusal of General Fullers’ book most enlightening (byd the way, General Fuller wrote the book on the proper use of tanks). The Germans, on the other hand, had some of the most competent commanders in the history of warfare (e.g. Guderian, Rommel, von Manstein, etc.). As Napoleon once said, the men are nothing, the Man is everything.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Again SLC, your arguments make no sense in the real world. No one with a lick of common sense thinks the Czechs stood a chance. All of Eastern Bohemia would have been German within 24 hours, given that most of the population was German and enthusiastically supported Hitler. Slovakia was unreliable, especially the Hungarian minority areas. And then look at a map – Bohemia and Moravia were surrounded on 3 sides by Germany with no outlet. The idea of the Czechs fighting Germany to a standstill is beyond laughable.
Then you even admit the French generals were incompentent – again paper forces are not an army. The will to victory is not enough. The British and French were in no way prepared to fight in 1938. As I said before, the real lack of courage by the West was in 1936 and the lack of preparation all through the 1930s. The West did vacillate in the face of the Nazi threat – but Munich is a poor symbol for appeasement because by that point it was too late.
Think of it this way – an alternative scenario where the UK and France stand up to Hitler in 1936 sends history off in a completely different direction. A scenario where the UK and France declare war on Hitler in 1938 changes almost nothing, just pushes the timeline up a year. Hitler still takes Bohemia, probably takes advantage of the political chaos that would have ensued in France. The wildcard is the USSR, if you believe that the Allies could have made a pact with the devil and brought Stalin in, maybe Hitler could have been stopped in 1938, but at great cost to Eastern Europe.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Or, minus that (thanks in part to Bush’s lack of interest in Islamist terrorism), perhaps not overreacting, thinking that a good war or two can solve all problems?
I supported the overthrow of the Taliban government and rue that we took resources from consolidating that victory to overthrow a government uninvolved in attacking us. I know Matt supported the invasion of Afghanistan as well. That makes his talk now about being forced to speak only about winning or losing in Afghanistan and simplistic musings about ‘avoiding’ wars essentially unserious. Is he going to spend his whole career in punditry supporting invasions and then supporting withdrawal under fire from the resulting occupations (which are part of the bargain unless you are Donald Rumsfeld)?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Re vanya
Then you even admit the French generals were incompentent – again paper forces are not an army. The will to victory is not enough. The British and French were in no way prepared to fight in 1938. As I said before, the real lack of courage by the West was in 1936 and the lack of preparation all through the 1930s. The West did vacillate in the face of the Nazi threat – but Munich is a poor symbol for appeasement because by that point it was too late.
The German army was also totally unprepared to fight a war in 1938 as the German General Staff concluded. Read Prof. Goerlitz’ book and stop making stupid claims. It is always dangerous to ignore events on the other side of the hill.
Again SLC, your arguments make no sense in the real world. No one with a lick of common sense thinks the Czechs stood a chance. All of Eastern Bohemia would have been German within 24 hours, given that most of the population was German and enthusiastically supported Hitler. Slovakia was unreliable, especially the Hungarian minority areas. And then look at a map – Bohemia and Moravia were surrounded on 3 sides by Germany with no outlet. The idea of the Czechs fighting Germany to a standstill is beyond laughable.
According to Prof. Goerlitz, the German General staff thought otherwise. I suggest that Mr. vanya stop counting divisions and consider that the only forces in WW 2 that had any offensive value were the armored forces. The Czech Army in 1938 was much better equipped in that regard then was the German Army. Even the French Army was better equipped in that regard then was the German Army. By 1940, the pendulum had swung the other way (by the way, a rather high percentage of the tanks the Panzers used in the 1940 offensive were either manufactured in Czechoslovakia or based on Czech designs). By selling out Czechoslovakia without a shot being fired, Chamberlain provided much of the wherewithal for the German armed forces to defeat the Franco-British armies in 1940.
Of course, all of this is pure counterfactual history. Since it didn’t happen, we cannot say with 100% certainty what the result would have been. Just as we can’t say with 100% certainty what would have happened at Waterloo if Napoleon had sent in the Imperial Guard against the British defense on Mont St. Jean at 4:00 in the afternoon instead of delaying the assault until 6:00 (most military historians think that Napoleon would have won the battle if he had done so). However, the result of a 1938 war could hardly have been worse then what happened in 1940.
By the way, it is far from certain that war would have been the result of Chamberlain standing up to Hitler at Munich. Several historians believe that Hitler was bluffing and in any case, a coup d’etat against him was being planned by high ranking officers in the General Staff whose opinion of the Czech Army was rather higher them Mr. vanyas. A very plausible argument could be made that a Chamberlain ultimatum to Hitler would have resulted in such a coup. Again, we will never know for certain because Chamberlain chose appeasement.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
SLC, you are a neocon apologist.
Unconditional surrender was completely idiotic under the fact situation of WW1. One of the biggest reasons the US is mired in its current situation is retarded thinking like unconditional surrender in a guerrilla war like Af-Pak.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I tried to read all the posts but gave up. I think Campesino at 63 knew what he was talking about. Here’s the deal:
Memorial Day is an American specific holiday created after the Civil War to honor war dead. Armistice Day is the same thing but Europeans celebrate it. It changed in the U.S. because we already had and Armistice Day (or Remembrance Day) in our own native Memorial Day. Memorial Day is about people who sacrifice their life for country, while Veterans Day is about people who serve their country in the military, generally about people who served abroad but not always. The two holidays largely represent the distinction that the U.S. military encountered after WWI- from being an ad hoc force to projecting power for the sake of liberty.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:25 am
“the only forces in WW 2 that had any offensive value were the armored forces”
That’s simply not true. Look at what really happened in Poland – tanks were a sideshow. The same is true of France and the initial invasion of Russia. You need to read more than one biased source, SLC. The German infantry was always the main shock force. As John Mosier has shown the Germans did not use armored spearheads to inflict panic on Allied rear areas. Instead, they used a broad-front strategy, attacking in many different places at the same time, overwhelming the defenses and making it so they couldn’t react. And in any case, the German inability to invade France in 1938 is not the issue, the issue is France’s inability to invade Germany, which you have already conceded even if you’re pretending not to. The Allies wargamed a German invading Czechoslovakia scenario and consistently showed quick German victory. Your emphasis on numbers of tanks and refusal to consider the ethnic and political makeup of the country demonstrates a stubborn refusal to deal with messy realities, you’d make an awful military leader.
I suggest you broaden your reading – read Adam Tooze on the Nazi economy, read John Mosier on German battle strategy. These are both writers who have done real research and looked at facts, not just regurgitated newsreels and the myths generals create around themselves. You’re thinking on WWII is at least 20 years out of date.