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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 🙏
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.
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
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.
As the great David McCullough once said: the people of the past had no idea they were living in the past.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.