I had to cut it out of the last post (which is on the long side), but I was going to remind everyone or inform those who never knew that General George S. Patton was a vocal anti-Semite as well as a racist. He loved fighting anyone, but he made it clear in private conversations and letters that he thought we should have been fighting against the Russians with the Nazis. The Holocaust didn’t trouble him much. This charming feature was left out of the acclaimed movie starring George C. Scott as the batty–but effective!—World War II general.
My father, who fought under Patton at the Battle of the Bulge, detested the man primarily for his slapping of two (not just one, as portrayed in the movie) soldiers suffering from battle fatigue, or as we call it now, post-traumatic stress. Eisenhower didn’t like Patton either, and was very close to relieving him of command permanently , but ultimately decided that a lesser punishment was prudent because Patton was such a talented field general. (The Germans couldn’t understand why merely slapping a soldier would ever lead the Americans to sideline such a successful commander. Of course they couldn’t.) Thus the handling of Patton represents the Ethics Incompleteness Theorem regarding “The King’s Pass,” the exception that proves the rule (because all rules have exceptions).
Yet I wonder how much security Jewish people got from the knowledge that one of the key warriors who defeated the perpetrators of the Holocaust essentially agreed with Hitler regarding them.
Over to you, Clarence…
So I’ve been watching the MLB playoffs on television and have noticed something about the advertising there. Most of it is political, which is understandable given the calendar.
However, previously when I was hearing TV ads, the general formula was an ad asserting that Whatley (the Republican candidate for NC Senate) was a scoundrel, followed by an ad asserting that Cooper (the Democratic candidate for NC Senate) was a scoundrel. Next ad block, same thing — you’d have an ad for one followed by an ad for the other. I actually remarked to my sister that it was a shame that both Senate candidates here in North Carolina were such bad people. Surely they could have found some good ones to run? Sadly, she totally missed the satiric point.
Fast forward to the MLB playoffs. Now all I am hearing is ads for Cooper (Democrat). It has been a while since I can recall hearing a Whatley (Republican) ad.
I noticed that last night and thought: I thought the Republicans had a lot more money to spend right now than the Democrats. What’s up? Or have the Republicans just written off North Carolina as a lost race?
It really is a shame because my belief is that Trump basically drove Tillis into retirement. I thought he was doing a good job, and I think he would have had a decent chance against Roy Cooper. Cooper has been a major statewide Democratic player for a couple of decades, at least. He was elected twice state-wide as Attorney General, and then two terms as governor. And now it looks like he’ll ben our first Democratic senator since, I believe, John Edwards.
Overall, the polling is bad for Republicans, but who knows what will really happen when people actually vote — the polls have been skewed way for the left this year, at least for the Democratic primaries. If the GOP holds the House, the entire polling industry should close up shop and move to Australia. I do think there is a good chance they will keep the Senate, though — I flat do not believe some of the states that are supposed to be tossups.
If the GOP does loss control of Congress, then I don’t see how we can blame anyone other than Trump. But not for the reasons from past elections. Previously, people were tired of the chaos, the GOP ran a bunch of wacky candidates, and so forth. I think this time around, if we lose, it will be caused by Trump’s policies that have harmed the economy and exacerbated the electorate (Minnesota).
I think we have to concede that Trump is a true believer on tariffs and balance of trade. Unfortunately, my opinion is that he is flat out wrong on both. I think if not for his tariffs, and his picking fights with our allies and making excuses for our enemies — I think the economy would be roaring along and the GOP heading for victories in November.
The economy is still doing all right, despite everything, which is a credit to our economic resilience. And I will definitely give Trump credit for not backing down on Iran — I just don’t want to think of a world with a nuclear armed Iran in it. He’s been ham-handed with his efforts, to be sure, and deficient at communicating and promoting his war aims, but still, he is sticking to his principles. For Iran, I’d rate him as an Ethics hero, albeit a very clumsy one.
A few thoughts on your thoughts:
Jack: “My father, who fought under Patton at the Battle of the Bulge, detested the man primarily for his slapping of two (not just one, as portrayed in the movie) soldiers suffering from battle fatigue, or as we call it now, post-traumatic stress.”
Eisenhower executed Slotnik (?) for essentially the same thing, right? Washington famously (infamously?) forced certain soldiers to execute their fellow soldiers for actions that escape me. Tough decisions, but discipline requires enforcement.
War is Hell, no? That is not to say I like Patton. He is more of a General Sherman than a General Lee. He seems like a pragmatist, not a gentleman. Getting killed is not noble; killing the enemy is the job.
Jack: “He loved fighting anyone, but he made it clear in private conversations and letters that he thought we should have been fighting against the Russians with the Nazis.”
So what? As you have said, thinking bad things is one thing; what you DO is what counts. He was a soldier. He followed orders. He may not have liked the Jews and he may not have cared about the Holocaust, but he helped end it anyway.
Parallel: the Jews mention that God used Cyrus, a non-Jew (I guess that would make him a Gentile), to free the Jews from their Babylonian exile as Cyrus moved west toward Greece. Cyrus did not care about the Jews, but he was God’s instrument.
Patton might have been, as well….
(I still think he is a nasty person.)
-Jut
(It was Eddie Slovik. Slotnik was the hero of the DC plane crash.)
My Dad made me read “The Execution of Private Slovik.” He was never diagnosed with battle fatigue: he was just terrified of battle.Slovik was evaluated and treated as a voluntary offender rather than a psychiatric casualty. He refused to fight, wrote a sworn confession to that effect, and refused to retract it, assuming he would end up in prison but still alive. Ike properly made an example of him.
interesting for you to say Ike properly made an example of him.
you accurately cite Kant for the proposition that it is not ethical to use someone simply as a means to an end.
I would posit that in all circumstances except where you have a volunteer military, it violates Kant’s admonition.
in other words, volunteers are fair game.
draftees or conscripted troops are inherently unethical.
was Slovak a volunteer?
doubt it.
“Properly [making] an example of him” is almost a perfectly articulated example someone using another solely a means to an end.
Jack, you have convinced me that Eisenhower was unethical in executing Slovik.
-Jut
Kant wasn’t a prosecutor or a general. War is by definition, a utilitarian event. Absolutism doesn’t apply. War by reason and practice uses human beings as a means to an end. If soldiers can just refuse to fight, then the whole war is threatened, and civilization which must be protected by that war is threatened as well. Ike had to make that statement—killing a soldier who said “I won’t fight” to protect the greater good. It was not only ethical, it was necessary.
In combat, an American soldier who refused an order could be shot by his superior. Same principle.
Step aside MILK…move over WHITE SWANS.
WHITE PAINT is now RAYcist; to wit:
“A Dead White: An Argument Against White Paint” Wendy S. Walters (Associate Professor/Columbia University)
The kicker? It’s up for a non-fiction award.
Compared to Walters, Nicole Hannah-Jones actually seems sane.
I thank all that is Holy that my lovely and long suffering wife chose Fencepost and Honey Wind
PWS
Can I still buy vanilla ice cream?
Bing Videos I am not sure that Patton was an antisemite or not. What is factual is that he forced to city of Weimar to witness the atrocities visited upon the Jews at Buchenwald by the Nazis. according to third party reports the atrocities physically sickened him. I believe an article about Patton’s antisemitism in the Jerusalem Times attributed the command to another officer named Walker. All the other contemporaneous articles attributed the command to Patton. So who is correct. I don’t know, nor do I care. They are all dead.
Patton also wanted to take Prague before the Soviets to prevent communism from becoming entrenched there but Eisenhower told him no. Does that suggest that Patton sided with the Nazis, or was Eisenhower promoting communist expansion, or worse, was he just afraid of the Soviets. If it was the latter what makes him different than Private Slovik?
More to the point, I have read several reports from various Israeli and Jewish publications and organizations and their take was that antisemitism was the hallmark of American military leadership up to the Commander in Chief, Harry Truman. This is not much different than the social understanding of our founding fathers toward blacks and American Indians. We must consider the totality of the circumstances before we single anyone person out for condemnation. You can condemn ideas but we should avoid condemning the person who was taught those ideas. To change minds you must understand why someone holds those ideas you wish to alter.
Back to the military. Every officer deals with situations that most of us never have deal with. I would need more verifiable information to assess whether someone is a unrepentant bigot. We are all bigots in some regard. We all will not sacrifice every last conviction we hold irrespective of what others believe
Does it matter if we detest a group of people because they as a group are different from our tribe in terms of skin color or religious conviction. I don’t thinks so but it is human nature to believe the convictions you hold are the one and only truth because otherwise they would not be convictions. The goal is to not let our convictions prevent us from straying from the Golden Rule.