David, I enjoyed this piece. I need to find some copies of Fussell's works and read more deeply. As a member of the armed forces for the last 24 years I have strong opinions on this topic and they are aligned with Fussell's. There are a lot of folks out there talking about a lot of things they don't know much at all about. Even in my own case, aside from one terrible summer in Iraq, I spent most of my career on submarines and ships so I don't feel as qualified to discuss certain aspects as those of my compatriots who were continually on the front lines. I have a son in college and he frequently tells me of the nonsense he observes on campus. But it isn't much different from the nonsense I hear at the local coffee shop from folks who have never left the confines of the tri-county area. Ignorance is everywhere and often filled with confidence.
Thanks for the comment. Having never served, I count myself as one of the people lacking the experience to opine. But that does not stop me from having immense gratitude and admiration for those who have, like yourself.
It seems that most of the commentary on such matters suffers from a bias for excessive sophistication. The horrific matters under discussion arise from a single easily identified source.
Violent men. A small fraction of humanity.
The overwhelming lack of interest in this simple fact reveals our real relationship with war. We say we want peace, but what we really value is the status quo.
Violence is a feature of testosterone. Unless you want to change the chemistry of a human male you will have Violence. Remember there is value in what men bring into the world. Safety, stability, strength to name a few. Ying and Yang, right and wrong,black and white live side by side. One without the other leads to dystopia.
Hi Linda, thanks for your reply. Changing the chemistry of males is an interesting idea. Perhaps that will become possible. I'd like to learn more about that.
Yes, there is value that men bring in to the world, agree of course. But saying that isn't enough. We should be asking, does that value justify all the violence, suffering, and expense that men generate? Should we ask the citizens of Gaza?
What is it about the male gender that is so incredibly important that it justifies the unspeakable violence inflicted upon the innocent all over the world? A tiny number of men can impregnate vast numbers of women, so most men at least are biologically unnecessary. So that's not the necessary value.
I'll stop here because there are 14 pages of such discussion at the link above for anyone who might be interested.
Let's remember that this is not about all men. "All" of a group, any group, is never true. Proportionally, the men behind all this violence (and who says it is only men?) are a miniscule segment of the population -- statistically insignificant, in fact. So, prescribing some way of fixing men makes no sense. Hold all men and women to account is what is necessary.
Hi Josh, agree of course that not all men are violent, indeed, most are not.
However....
To my knowledge, no society in human history has figured out how to keep the peaceful men while getting rid of the violent men.
1) Thus, to have any men is to have violent men.
2) And to have violent men is to have unspeakable suffering of the innocent, at a huge financial cost.
3) And to give violent men ever more, ever more powerful tools, at what seems an accelerating rate, is a recipe for civilization collapse. The status quo is unsustainable.
Your goal of holding all men and women to account sounds reasonable, except for this... That's never worked. No philosophy, ideology, religion, system of law, social sanctions, etc has ever delivered us from violent men.
If we're serious about peace, we could start by discarding everything that hasn't worked for thousands of years. Was it Einstein who claimed that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of insanity?
Phil, I'll grant that a perfect world is not possible and hope you can agree to that.
1) Sure, but it is also to have peaceful men and brilliant scientists and philanthropists and carpenters and..... Hence, this is a truly meaningless argument. Men cannot be eliminated and as long as some men exist, some will be violent. Can we change the nature of men? Well, why not change the nature of women or any other group someone deems less than perfect. This is ludicrous and also, in itself immoral. If we allow them to live, it might be one step short of genocide, but only a small step.
2) To have men is to have terrible men and wonderful men. This is not an argument in support of any "all men must be modified" concept.
3) Here you have in important point. It is necessary for good men, and good women, to stop the evil. We cannot just stand idle and hope they won't do it. I am opposed to war, thinking it to be the most idiotic invention ever, but if attacked defense is required, even to the point of dropping an atomic bomb. So, good folks have to stand up to evil and this will always be a necessity for there will always be some evil people among us.
There have always been rapists among us. I don't think Einstein would have argued that all men should have their penis cut off as a means of protecting women. The war against war will always be with us.
Yes, a perfect world is not possible. A world without men would still have violence, but radically less violence. And thus, radically more money. Managing male violence is extremely expensive.
1) Woman can be brilliant scientists and philanthropists and carpenters too, men are not required.
2) I'm not arguing that all men should be modified. I'm arguing the male gender should be eliminated to the degree that's biologically possible. For now, some small number of men will be necessary for reproduction. As genetic engineering advances, men won't be necessary.
3) Yes, good folks should stand up to evil. But as we've all seen, that is not sufficient to achieve world peace, which I define not as a utopia, but as a radical reduction in violence.
Here's a larger point. Whatever the solution to violent men might be, any solution will most likely be some form of change on the scale of a "world without men", something outside status quo assumptions of what is "reasonable and realistic". You know, if "reasonable and realistic" ideas could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
I never stated that men should be chemically changed/castrated. My point was that if you are looking for the origin of violence, it's a chemical, sex hormone found in both women and men but predominant in men. I would never want to eliminate men. I love men. If it makes you feel any better the amount of testosterone in men in the U S is declining so maybe that will have an effect on violence in the U S. Of course I am being forcitious.
Ok, so if we're not going to change the chemical, and we're not going to eliminate the men in which that chemical predominates, then....
What we're saying is that we're accepting the unspeakable violence which has afflicted innocent people at every level of society all over the world for thousands of years.
Thanks for raising Fussell’s flag - long may it wave. “Thank God...” was very persuasive, and irrefutable in it’s consistent reliance on experience, one of his great principles. His writing on war made a devoted peacenik out of this fortunate son who grew up in a conservative GOP household at a time when America’s WWII exploits were still fresh memories and frequent fodder for Hollywood. He remains vivid and readable. America’s Orwell? They’re definitely cut from the same cloth and necessary for anyone seeking clarity in this time of ramped-up cant, inflated PR, boosterism, hype, sanctimony and sophistry. Thank God for PF and anyone who invokes his name in good faith.
Thanks for the comment Tim. He was not a fan of the Army as an institution, although very much a fan of his comrades in arms. My Penn professor friend Al who got to know PF well said that PF would sometimes read his memoirs aloud about the FUBAR nature of the army and couldn't stop laughing at the insanity of it.
Thank you this - I learned a lot. Wondering if you think Fussell would consider the situation in the Middle East “game over” as far as civilian casualties since there’s been years of such casualties taking place? The numbers cited for WWII were much higher, though I don’t know that the Fussell you describe would have cared as much about the quantity as the fact that there has already been a precedent for civilian losses.
It is not game over in the ME and will not be until Hamas is stifled from within the Arab world, and the Arab world agrees to the existence of Israel and they choose peace. Neither Israel nor the US or any non-Arab entity can impose peace as long as certain groups are dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Only a ceasing of support within the Arab world will lead to peace. Anything less will only be a quiet period until the next attack.
That’s not what I asked nor implied by game over. I was referring to what David cited about Fussell’s justification for the U.S. dropping the bomb on Japan and the number of casualties. Fussell seemed to suggest that bringing up the civilian casualties in Japan had already been made moot by the massive losses of life elsewhere during the war. I’m only asking what David thinks Fussell would say about what’s happening today.
First as to the number of civilian casualties, I was citing the very rounded average of a few sources on the Allied bombings of Germany and Tokyo, not including any other civilian casualties of the war of which there were tens of millions.
I don't think Fussell would say "game over" because there had been civilian casualties.
I think he would recognize that in WW2 the Allied objective was unconditional surrender by Japan, while for Israel the objective is the removal of Hamas from leadership in Gaza.
The similarities are certainly in the savagery of the attack and the inevitable and anticipated savagery of the response.
As I wrote, I believe his"stronger" point then and would be today that to speak of morality in war is a contradiction in terms.
I don't know if that addresses your question. Happy to follow up if it doesn't..
First of all, congrats on using Bruegel, one of the greats. Michael Frayn wrote a terrific novel, Headlong, about the Bruegel "seasons" paintings, and there's a Bruegel room in Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna that's jaw dropping.
On the A-bomb question, there are two issues. For a different perspective, the best book on the subject is Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes. His amazing study leads to what one might call the inexorable progression of knowledge. Having used all that time, money, theory, and brainpower to build it, there was little question that they were going to use it. There were indeed back channel discussions of Japan's surrender, and Truman was aware that the 100,000 American casualty projections of an invasion were ludicrous. Part of the reason for using the bomb was to discourage Stalin...didn't work out so well, since Russia had already stolen the technology.
To your main point about the deterioration of American universities, of, in fact, education in general, all I can offer is noted and profound literary term...OY.
I love Brueghel. I'm lucky that The Harvesters is at the Met nearby. And I've been in that room in Vienna . It's almost too much, too overwhelming to take in.
Hard to know how many Allied soldiers would have been killed or wounded. And the higher the number the more the rationale for using the bomb, which i agree Truman was inclined to do. That said, from what I've read the range of Japanese casualties would have been some large multiple of the deaths from the two atom bombs. In the end, I think there were multiple motivations for using it.
You definitely fall quite well into the "interesting" category yourself. Your posts are always insightful and raise important issues without a bludgeon. Fun to read and think about.
Try Headlong. It's fiction, but Frayn, who's most known here for Noises Off, is a deft writer and I guarantee you'll be checking out the paintings very carefully afterward.
Impossible to know about the invasion, of course. It's Frost's road not taken. But I think Truman, for political reasons, was always going to do it, because he had what he thought was a super weapon that would establish the US as the number 1 dominant power after the war. I suspect that without the bomb, he would have just stood off and firebombed the cities until Japan gave up. That's pretty much in character for Truman.
Thanks for this post. Elsewhere, in the context of discussion about Gaza, I have argued that we dropped nuclear bombs to end a war. However tragic the loss of lives, the war had to be ended and Israel is in this position. Israel is in the position of hearing enemies plan not only it's destruction of the state, but the murder of all Jews. Indeed, we need Fussell's voice and others like it today.
One other note, and I apologize if I once wrote of it here. After the draft was ended, I talked with a retired Marine office of some high rank (don't recall it exactly) and asked his thoughts on an all-volunteer army, expecting he'd approve as he'd want to lead men who chose to be there. To my surprise, he thought it was a terrible idea for the ones who would volunteer would be, with only a few exceptions, those with limited prospects and they would not be represented in Congress and in administration where decisions about going to war would be made. In short, those in power would have no skin in the game and this would make it too easy for bad decisions to be made. I believe he was right.
What the Japanese did to our soldiers during WW II can be likened to what happened to Israeli civilians Oct. 7. I was wondering if you were drawing a comparison metaphorically.
Ukraine— if only there were checks and balances and even auditing of how American tax dollars are used in the corrupt Ukrainian government. Don’t know if this is true but apparently Zelensky bought a mansion in Florida.
I was showing how brutality and savagery are the rule in battles. And sadly, the battles in the ME and in Ukraine are no exception. But, yes, I was also thinking about how savagery by one side is met with savagery by the other side.
David, this powerful essay strikes me as a superb companion to the film _Oppenheimer_ that I've seen and likely the book that I've not read but feel I should. You dig deep and intrigue.
The Great War and Modern Memory is a good book to have on your bookshelves, most particularly because it reminds everyone that living is done in the present tense.
David, this is great and brave commentary, and thanks for bringing up the work of Paul Fussell in this connection - I’ve also been thinking about George Orwell of late and how he would have gone after the current protests and self-righteous statements in the face of the brutal Israel-Hamas war (not to mention the ongoing war in Ukraine). As it happens, I’ve just finished reading the Oppenheimer biography the movie was based on, and it offers something of a counterpoint to Fussell - but Oppenheimer’s take-down in the anti-communist (and antisemitic) McCarthy era is likely yet another side of the consequences of war, when the rules of fair play evaporate.
Thanks Martha. I haven't read the Oppenheimer book or seen the movie yet. We slid pretty rapidly into the Cold War, didn't we? Anyway, now we're back into History, which is too bad!
I did recently read Orwell's marvelous essay on a collection of Kipling's poetry edited by TS Eliot. Orwell's contrarian streak reminded me of Fussell.
The common comparison over the last weeks has been between 10/7 and 9/11. Here, we’ve been talking about the atom bomb and WWII. I think the most relevant comparison to 10/7 is also WWII, in Pearl Harbor.
Both were surprise military attacks intended not as terrorism but acts of war. Hawaii, however, was not even American national territory in 1942 but rather a conquered colonial territory. In addition, the population of the U.S. in 1941 was 133 million, 15 times that of Israel today.
The death toll from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was 2403, of which only 68 were civilian. The current round number settled on for 10/7 is 1200, nearly all civilian. In an attack against military facilities, designed to destroy naval military assets, not to maximize wanton civilian death, the Japanese exacted a death toll only twice as large as that on 10/7, from a populace 15 times greater than Israel's.
In response to that attack, seeking unconditional surrender comparable to Israel’s goal of destroying Hamas (and victory over Japan did destroy the prewar regime), the U.S. prosecuted a total war, not exempting civilian populations (as did all parties in the war), both at sea and from the air. It waged that war for just short of 3 years and nine months, during which, in the Pacific Theater only, stemming from an originating death toll of 2403, up to 4 million Japanese lost their lives, including between half to one million civilians.
In the final island-hopping amphibious invasion, of Okinawa (not Japanese territory but a conquered colonial territory, like Hawaii), intended to serve as a staging area for an American invasion of mainland Japan, perhaps 150 thousand third-party Okinawans died, more than the combined military deaths of the Japanese and U.S. forces.
Thanks Jay (Is that your preferred name?) for the perspective. For additional perspective, I'd add that for Japan WW2 started in the 1930s with its war against China. Pearl Harbor was a fateful battle for a country already long at war.
Yes, David -- Jay. (A. Jay is professional :) Your additions are to the point. Both Imperial Japan and theocratic Hamas were already avowedly at war, with cruel, murderous, and oppressive authoritarian histories.
I have always wondered whether if we dropped the bomb first on Mount Fuji, that would have made enough of an impression. Indeed, if the bomb had succeeded in blowing the top of that mountain off, it would also have created a permanent monument to the horror of war.
BTW, you note that there were 7000 casualties a week at the end of the war, which would have meant 21,000 extra deaths. But casualties include wounded as well as dead.
Good point. I just took Fussell's language. He did then take that to mean that 21,000 would die in three weeks, but while he was many things, he was not a whiz with numbers!
Thank you for this. I’ve been struggling, as have so many others, about this war. You have helped put into perspective my thoughts (with much needed facts and solid information from the professor.)
I have written a post (but hesitate to publish) about my confusion over the reaction to Israel’s response. What did people expect they would do? Why would they stop? Would the US stop if asked nicely by other countries if they were staring down terrorists? We already know the answer to that question.
As always David you provide excellent, thought provoking essays.
Yes unless you want a world where men are no longer men as their testosterone would be removed. Check out the movie, "Clockwork Orange" for such a world.
Amazing coincidence but Children’s Games is mentioned in my next piece! (I saw it in the Kunsthistoriches in Vienna last week). Enjoyed this, David. 🙏
Thanks Jill.
Lucky you. I've been in that room once. It's overwhelming for a Brueghel fan.
Looking forward to your post and how you incorporate it.
David, I enjoyed this piece. I need to find some copies of Fussell's works and read more deeply. As a member of the armed forces for the last 24 years I have strong opinions on this topic and they are aligned with Fussell's. There are a lot of folks out there talking about a lot of things they don't know much at all about. Even in my own case, aside from one terrible summer in Iraq, I spent most of my career on submarines and ships so I don't feel as qualified to discuss certain aspects as those of my compatriots who were continually on the front lines. I have a son in college and he frequently tells me of the nonsense he observes on campus. But it isn't much different from the nonsense I hear at the local coffee shop from folks who have never left the confines of the tri-county area. Ignorance is everywhere and often filled with confidence.
Thanks for the comment. Having never served, I count myself as one of the people lacking the experience to opine. But that does not stop me from having immense gratitude and admiration for those who have, like yourself.
It seems that most of the commentary on such matters suffers from a bias for excessive sophistication. The horrific matters under discussion arise from a single easily identified source.
Violent men. A small fraction of humanity.
The overwhelming lack of interest in this simple fact reveals our real relationship with war. We say we want peace, but what we really value is the status quo.
https://www.tannytalk.com/s/peace
Violence is a feature of testosterone. Unless you want to change the chemistry of a human male you will have Violence. Remember there is value in what men bring into the world. Safety, stability, strength to name a few. Ying and Yang, right and wrong,black and white live side by side. One without the other leads to dystopia.
Hi Linda, thanks for your reply. Changing the chemistry of males is an interesting idea. Perhaps that will become possible. I'd like to learn more about that.
Yes, there is value that men bring in to the world, agree of course. But saying that isn't enough. We should be asking, does that value justify all the violence, suffering, and expense that men generate? Should we ask the citizens of Gaza?
What is it about the male gender that is so incredibly important that it justifies the unspeakable violence inflicted upon the innocent all over the world? A tiny number of men can impregnate vast numbers of women, so most men at least are biologically unnecessary. So that's not the necessary value.
I'll stop here because there are 14 pages of such discussion at the link above for anyone who might be interested.
Let's remember that this is not about all men. "All" of a group, any group, is never true. Proportionally, the men behind all this violence (and who says it is only men?) are a miniscule segment of the population -- statistically insignificant, in fact. So, prescribing some way of fixing men makes no sense. Hold all men and women to account is what is necessary.
Hi Josh, agree of course that not all men are violent, indeed, most are not.
However....
To my knowledge, no society in human history has figured out how to keep the peaceful men while getting rid of the violent men.
1) Thus, to have any men is to have violent men.
2) And to have violent men is to have unspeakable suffering of the innocent, at a huge financial cost.
3) And to give violent men ever more, ever more powerful tools, at what seems an accelerating rate, is a recipe for civilization collapse. The status quo is unsustainable.
Your goal of holding all men and women to account sounds reasonable, except for this... That's never worked. No philosophy, ideology, religion, system of law, social sanctions, etc has ever delivered us from violent men.
If we're serious about peace, we could start by discarding everything that hasn't worked for thousands of years. Was it Einstein who claimed that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of insanity?
Phil, I'll grant that a perfect world is not possible and hope you can agree to that.
1) Sure, but it is also to have peaceful men and brilliant scientists and philanthropists and carpenters and..... Hence, this is a truly meaningless argument. Men cannot be eliminated and as long as some men exist, some will be violent. Can we change the nature of men? Well, why not change the nature of women or any other group someone deems less than perfect. This is ludicrous and also, in itself immoral. If we allow them to live, it might be one step short of genocide, but only a small step.
2) To have men is to have terrible men and wonderful men. This is not an argument in support of any "all men must be modified" concept.
3) Here you have in important point. It is necessary for good men, and good women, to stop the evil. We cannot just stand idle and hope they won't do it. I am opposed to war, thinking it to be the most idiotic invention ever, but if attacked defense is required, even to the point of dropping an atomic bomb. So, good folks have to stand up to evil and this will always be a necessity for there will always be some evil people among us.
There have always been rapists among us. I don't think Einstein would have argued that all men should have their penis cut off as a means of protecting women. The war against war will always be with us.
Hi again Josh, thanks for the exchange.
Yes, a perfect world is not possible. A world without men would still have violence, but radically less violence. And thus, radically more money. Managing male violence is extremely expensive.
1) Woman can be brilliant scientists and philanthropists and carpenters too, men are not required.
2) I'm not arguing that all men should be modified. I'm arguing the male gender should be eliminated to the degree that's biologically possible. For now, some small number of men will be necessary for reproduction. As genetic engineering advances, men won't be necessary.
3) Yes, good folks should stand up to evil. But as we've all seen, that is not sufficient to achieve world peace, which I define not as a utopia, but as a radical reduction in violence.
Here's a larger point. Whatever the solution to violent men might be, any solution will most likely be some form of change on the scale of a "world without men", something outside status quo assumptions of what is "reasonable and realistic". You know, if "reasonable and realistic" ideas could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
I never stated that men should be chemically changed/castrated. My point was that if you are looking for the origin of violence, it's a chemical, sex hormone found in both women and men but predominant in men. I would never want to eliminate men. I love men. If it makes you feel any better the amount of testosterone in men in the U S is declining so maybe that will have an effect on violence in the U S. Of course I am being forcitious.
Ok, so if we're not going to change the chemical, and we're not going to eliminate the men in which that chemical predominates, then....
What we're saying is that we're accepting the unspeakable violence which has afflicted innocent people at every level of society all over the world for thousands of years.
Thanks for raising Fussell’s flag - long may it wave. “Thank God...” was very persuasive, and irrefutable in it’s consistent reliance on experience, one of his great principles. His writing on war made a devoted peacenik out of this fortunate son who grew up in a conservative GOP household at a time when America’s WWII exploits were still fresh memories and frequent fodder for Hollywood. He remains vivid and readable. America’s Orwell? They’re definitely cut from the same cloth and necessary for anyone seeking clarity in this time of ramped-up cant, inflated PR, boosterism, hype, sanctimony and sophistry. Thank God for PF and anyone who invokes his name in good faith.
Thanks for the comment Tim. He was not a fan of the Army as an institution, although very much a fan of his comrades in arms. My Penn professor friend Al who got to know PF well said that PF would sometimes read his memoirs aloud about the FUBAR nature of the army and couldn't stop laughing at the insanity of it.
FUBAR yes. As an acronym also invented by said Army, a briefly insightful moment of self-reflection 🤷🏻♂️
I borrowed that from your post!
😎
As the great David McCullough once said: the people of the past had no idea they were living in the past.
Well put!
Thank you this - I learned a lot. Wondering if you think Fussell would consider the situation in the Middle East “game over” as far as civilian casualties since there’s been years of such casualties taking place? The numbers cited for WWII were much higher, though I don’t know that the Fussell you describe would have cared as much about the quantity as the fact that there has already been a precedent for civilian losses.
It is not game over in the ME and will not be until Hamas is stifled from within the Arab world, and the Arab world agrees to the existence of Israel and they choose peace. Neither Israel nor the US or any non-Arab entity can impose peace as long as certain groups are dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Only a ceasing of support within the Arab world will lead to peace. Anything less will only be a quiet period until the next attack.
That’s not what I asked nor implied by game over. I was referring to what David cited about Fussell’s justification for the U.S. dropping the bomb on Japan and the number of casualties. Fussell seemed to suggest that bringing up the civilian casualties in Japan had already been made moot by the massive losses of life elsewhere during the war. I’m only asking what David thinks Fussell would say about what’s happening today.
Got it.
First as to the number of civilian casualties, I was citing the very rounded average of a few sources on the Allied bombings of Germany and Tokyo, not including any other civilian casualties of the war of which there were tens of millions.
I don't think Fussell would say "game over" because there had been civilian casualties.
I think he would recognize that in WW2 the Allied objective was unconditional surrender by Japan, while for Israel the objective is the removal of Hamas from leadership in Gaza.
The similarities are certainly in the savagery of the attack and the inevitable and anticipated savagery of the response.
As I wrote, I believe his"stronger" point then and would be today that to speak of morality in war is a contradiction in terms.
I don't know if that addresses your question. Happy to follow up if it doesn't..
That makes sense, especially the difference in objectives. Thanks David.
First of all, congrats on using Bruegel, one of the greats. Michael Frayn wrote a terrific novel, Headlong, about the Bruegel "seasons" paintings, and there's a Bruegel room in Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna that's jaw dropping.
On the A-bomb question, there are two issues. For a different perspective, the best book on the subject is Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes. His amazing study leads to what one might call the inexorable progression of knowledge. Having used all that time, money, theory, and brainpower to build it, there was little question that they were going to use it. There were indeed back channel discussions of Japan's surrender, and Truman was aware that the 100,000 American casualty projections of an invasion were ludicrous. Part of the reason for using the bomb was to discourage Stalin...didn't work out so well, since Russia had already stolen the technology.
To your main point about the deterioration of American universities, of, in fact, education in general, all I can offer is noted and profound literary term...OY.
I love Brueghel. I'm lucky that The Harvesters is at the Met nearby. And I've been in that room in Vienna . It's almost too much, too overwhelming to take in.
Hard to know how many Allied soldiers would have been killed or wounded. And the higher the number the more the rationale for using the bomb, which i agree Truman was inclined to do. That said, from what I've read the range of Japanese casualties would have been some large multiple of the deaths from the two atom bombs. In the end, I think there were multiple motivations for using it.
Thanks as always for the interesting comment.
You definitely fall quite well into the "interesting" category yourself. Your posts are always insightful and raise important issues without a bludgeon. Fun to read and think about.
Try Headlong. It's fiction, but Frayn, who's most known here for Noises Off, is a deft writer and I guarantee you'll be checking out the paintings very carefully afterward.
Impossible to know about the invasion, of course. It's Frost's road not taken. But I think Truman, for political reasons, was always going to do it, because he had what he thought was a super weapon that would establish the US as the number 1 dominant power after the war. I suspect that without the bomb, he would have just stood off and firebombed the cities until Japan gave up. That's pretty much in character for Truman.
Thanks for this post. Elsewhere, in the context of discussion about Gaza, I have argued that we dropped nuclear bombs to end a war. However tragic the loss of lives, the war had to be ended and Israel is in this position. Israel is in the position of hearing enemies plan not only it's destruction of the state, but the murder of all Jews. Indeed, we need Fussell's voice and others like it today.
One other note, and I apologize if I once wrote of it here. After the draft was ended, I talked with a retired Marine office of some high rank (don't recall it exactly) and asked his thoughts on an all-volunteer army, expecting he'd approve as he'd want to lead men who chose to be there. To my surprise, he thought it was a terrible idea for the ones who would volunteer would be, with only a few exceptions, those with limited prospects and they would not be represented in Congress and in administration where decisions about going to war would be made. In short, those in power would have no skin in the game and this would make it too easy for bad decisions to be made. I believe he was right.
What the Japanese did to our soldiers during WW II can be likened to what happened to Israeli civilians Oct. 7. I was wondering if you were drawing a comparison metaphorically.
Ukraine— if only there were checks and balances and even auditing of how American tax dollars are used in the corrupt Ukrainian government. Don’t know if this is true but apparently Zelensky bought a mansion in Florida.
I was showing how brutality and savagery are the rule in battles. And sadly, the battles in the ME and in Ukraine are no exception. But, yes, I was also thinking about how savagery by one side is met with savagery by the other side.
David, this powerful essay strikes me as a superb companion to the film _Oppenheimer_ that I've seen and likely the book that I've not read but feel I should. You dig deep and intrigue.
Thanks Mary for the comment, the encouragement and the support.
The Great War and Modern Memory is a good book to have on your bookshelves, most particularly because it reminds everyone that living is done in the present tense.
David, this is great and brave commentary, and thanks for bringing up the work of Paul Fussell in this connection - I’ve also been thinking about George Orwell of late and how he would have gone after the current protests and self-righteous statements in the face of the brutal Israel-Hamas war (not to mention the ongoing war in Ukraine). As it happens, I’ve just finished reading the Oppenheimer biography the movie was based on, and it offers something of a counterpoint to Fussell - but Oppenheimer’s take-down in the anti-communist (and antisemitic) McCarthy era is likely yet another side of the consequences of war, when the rules of fair play evaporate.
Thanks Martha. I haven't read the Oppenheimer book or seen the movie yet. We slid pretty rapidly into the Cold War, didn't we? Anyway, now we're back into History, which is too bad!
I did recently read Orwell's marvelous essay on a collection of Kipling's poetry edited by TS Eliot. Orwell's contrarian streak reminded me of Fussell.
Yeah, it feels like we’re back in Cold War times. The Oppenheimer movie is good, but the biography (“American Prometheus”) is much better.
The common comparison over the last weeks has been between 10/7 and 9/11. Here, we’ve been talking about the atom bomb and WWII. I think the most relevant comparison to 10/7 is also WWII, in Pearl Harbor.
Both were surprise military attacks intended not as terrorism but acts of war. Hawaii, however, was not even American national territory in 1942 but rather a conquered colonial territory. In addition, the population of the U.S. in 1941 was 133 million, 15 times that of Israel today.
The death toll from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was 2403, of which only 68 were civilian. The current round number settled on for 10/7 is 1200, nearly all civilian. In an attack against military facilities, designed to destroy naval military assets, not to maximize wanton civilian death, the Japanese exacted a death toll only twice as large as that on 10/7, from a populace 15 times greater than Israel's.
In response to that attack, seeking unconditional surrender comparable to Israel’s goal of destroying Hamas (and victory over Japan did destroy the prewar regime), the U.S. prosecuted a total war, not exempting civilian populations (as did all parties in the war), both at sea and from the air. It waged that war for just short of 3 years and nine months, during which, in the Pacific Theater only, stemming from an originating death toll of 2403, up to 4 million Japanese lost their lives, including between half to one million civilians.
In the final island-hopping amphibious invasion, of Okinawa (not Japanese territory but a conquered colonial territory, like Hawaii), intended to serve as a staging area for an American invasion of mainland Japan, perhaps 150 thousand third-party Okinawans died, more than the combined military deaths of the Japanese and U.S. forces.
Some historical perspective.
Thanks Jay (Is that your preferred name?) for the perspective. For additional perspective, I'd add that for Japan WW2 started in the 1930s with its war against China. Pearl Harbor was a fateful battle for a country already long at war.
Yes, David -- Jay. (A. Jay is professional :) Your additions are to the point. Both Imperial Japan and theocratic Hamas were already avowedly at war, with cruel, murderous, and oppressive authoritarian histories.
A bomb had to be dropped, definitely.
I have always wondered whether if we dropped the bomb first on Mount Fuji, that would have made enough of an impression. Indeed, if the bomb had succeeded in blowing the top of that mountain off, it would also have created a permanent monument to the horror of war.
BTW, you note that there were 7000 casualties a week at the end of the war, which would have meant 21,000 extra deaths. But casualties include wounded as well as dead.
Good point. I just took Fussell's language. He did then take that to mean that 21,000 would die in three weeks, but while he was many things, he was not a whiz with numbers!
Thank you for this. I’ve been struggling, as have so many others, about this war. You have helped put into perspective my thoughts (with much needed facts and solid information from the professor.)
I have written a post (but hesitate to publish) about my confusion over the reaction to Israel’s response. What did people expect they would do? Why would they stop? Would the US stop if asked nicely by other countries if they were staring down terrorists? We already know the answer to that question.
As always David you provide excellent, thought provoking essays.
Thanks Kim!
Yes unless you want a world where men are no longer men as their testosterone would be removed. Check out the movie, "Clockwork Orange" for such a world.