Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 09/19/2007 9:12:01 AM PDT by jdm
Newspapers like to play gotcha games with presidential candidates and their stump speeches. Most of the time, the fact-checking sessions focus on number-juggling on tax proposals and spending policy, and they find plenty of daylight between claims and reality. However, when the Washington Post attempts to fact-check Fred Thompson on historical references, they reveal more of their bias than of Fred's. They try to take apart Fred's claim that Americans "have shed more blood for other people's liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world", and manage to completely miss the point:
The number of overall U.S. military casualties, while high, is still relatively low in comparison to those of its World War I and World War II allies. In World War II alone, the Soviet Union suffered at least 8 million casualties, or more than 10 times the number of U.S. casualties for all wars combined. According to Winston Churchill, the Red Army "tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine." It can be argued that Soviet troops were primarily fighting to free their homeland from Nazi occupation. After fighting its way to Berlin, the Soviet Union imposed its own dictatorship over Eastern Europe. Even so, Soviet sacrifices contributed greatly to the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi domination. Soviet forces died for their own country and their own tyrannical government, but they also spilled blood on behalf of their Western allies.
Even if the Soviet Union is not included in the calculation, U.S. military casualties in all wars combined remain lower than those of the British Commonwealth ("a combination of nations," in Thompson's phrase) in World War I and World War II. According to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the British Commonwealth lost 1.7 million troops in the two world wars.
The Post awards Thompson "four Pinocchios" for his statement. I'd award the Post about ten dunce caps for borderline illiteracy.
Thompson specifically mentions that we shed our blood for "other people's liberty", not our own. That excludes any nation that fought to defend its own territory. The Soviet Union had allied itself with Nazi Germany -- right up to the moment of Hitler's invasion of June 1941. The Soviets did not fight the Germans to liberate anyone except themselves. True, they bled massively in their defeat of the Nazis, but they didn't do it out of love of liberty or selfless devotion to France or Britain. Their effort certainly helped the West in achieving victory on Hitler's Western front, but that wasn't why Joseph Stalin insisted on crushing the Nazis. Had Hitler not launched Operation Barbarossa, Stalin wouldn't have lifted a finger for anyone's liberty, let alone those of his own people -- which he proved in the post-war Iron Curtain he imposed on Europe.
Anyone who can't figure this much out has no business writing for a professional newspaper. It's a ludicrous, almost ghoulish argument in the face of what followed World War II in Europe. It's worthy of Walter Duranty, the disgraced Soviet apologist of the 1930s New York Times.
The rest of the piece is almost as bad. The unidentified writer uses the conquests of the Alexandrian Greeks (actually Macedonians, to be accurate) as a counter-example to Fred's claim, as well as Napoleon. The Post seems to have some trouble distinguishing imperial acquisition from liberty, a lost distinction that explains quite a bit of what appears on the pages of its newspaper.
It also uses the British as a counter to the claim, an example that actually may have some merit -- but only in World War II, and only if one believes that Britain defended North Africa to bring liberty there. In fact, Britain was defending its empire and its trade routes, and had they lost in Africa, they would have lost the entire southern empire. France and Britain declared war on Germany in response to the invasion of Poland, but then did nothing until both were attacked by Germany almost nine months later. The British fiercely held off Germany through waves of devastating aerial bombings in London and its environs until the US finally joined the war. They were magnificent, but they fought for their own survival and that of their empire, not to liberate anyone else except possibly the French, and only secondarily.
In its previous wars, Britain fought for empire. In fact, Wilson was so suspicious of Britain's intentions towards the Ottoman Empire in that war that he refused to ally the US to Britain or France, instead calling them "associates". His fears were justified, as the Versailles treaty and its related protocols proved. Britain and France carved up the Middle East into spheres of influence and de facto colonies, and attempted to force the US to take a mandate for Palestine. Much of that mischief continues to haunt us to this day.
The US never asked for territory in Europe or Africa, except enough to bury our dead. America has gone to war on massive scales throughout the 20th century to free captive peoples, including a six-decade effort to beat communism and help liberate Eastern Europe from Stalin and the rest of the liberty lovers in the Soviet Union. We did not fight these wars to gain lebensraum or gain colonies.
Thompson knows of what he speaks. The Washington Post should be embarrassed by their historical and rhetorical illiteracy, and should offer an apology for calling Thompson a liar.
UPDATE: Tom Shipley points out that the piece was written by Michael Dobbs, but at the time I posted this, no by-line appeared on the article. Also, James Joyner at OTB joins me in awarding Dobbs ten dunce caps for this effort.
UPDATE II, BUMP to top: Jules Crittenden also has a few thoughts about the Post's fact-checking abilities.
Ping.
Fred could not have been more clear: “other people’s liberty.”
The Red Army liberated NO ONE.
Liberals always twist the facts to get to their desired end point.
That rag ought to be banned. The Soviets didn’t die for liberty, not even their own liberty. They died for the right to impose their own hideous brand of tyranny on themselves, and on others.
for OTHER PEOPLE's liberty you morons!!!
The soviets attacked Poland and was hitlers ally. Only AFTER it was attacked by its socialist ally did the soviets fight hitler for ITS survival not anyone ELSE's liberty.
Berlin wall anyone?
Excellent analysis. I have long since given up expecting anything of meaningful substance from the WaPo. It is as if none of their reporters have any memory of history beyond Madonna’s first MTV video. My bet is most of their writers have strong opinions regarding this video but could not recall the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany and shared in the spoils of conquest of Poland. Gee, I guess those journalism degrees from Columbia are really worth alot!!
Joe Stalin certainly didn’t care about the Finn’s liberty back in 1939.
1941-1942 NKVD troops executed 150,000 Soviet Soldiers
1945 15% of surviving Soviet POWs cleared, the rest executed or sent to Gulag.
I'm guessing that you're being sarcastic. They absolutely do teach that. WWII was won by the Soviet Union. Big campaigns in the East. Lots of dead Germans. That's why D-Day, and the Ardennes was such a cakewalk for us. We just walked in the front door while the Russians did all the work.
I've heard this many times, and it drives me crazy.
Mind you, the same people will tell you that Russia won the Cold War. It was the enlightened leadership of Gorbachev which led the world into a new era of peace and happiness. The war-mongering ways of Ronald Reagan almost derailed his efforts, but Gorbachev was able to prevail and put an end to those dark days.
Gag me.
Naw, let's keep it around for the ridicule value. It's easy to achieve good pwnage over clueless commie apologists.
lol, what an idiotic statement, calling the Wash Post a "professional" newspaper
Yes. AS I said last night, three words: “Hitler-Stalin Pact.” Not to mention the Winter War in which Stalin invaded Finland.
If Stalin hadn’t agreed to split middle Europe with Hitler, it’s doubtful that the Second World War would have happened. In a contest for “most evil man of the twentieth century,” it’s doubtful which of these two tyrants deserves the prize.
LOL!
It amazes me that these people apparently can’t read at all.
Stalin would have started the war if Hitler hadn't, Stalin was just trying to buy time to rebuild the Red Army after the purges of 1938.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Because they had seen the West, and knew that everything Joe Stalin said was a lie, so they had to be "eliminated."
The WaPo, like the NYT, has a long and ugly history of supporting communism. They did it throughout the Cold War, so doing so again shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Likewise, after watching what they did to Allen last election cycle, it shouldn’t surprise anyone they are going after Thompson.
What it does tell you is they think Thompson is a viable, and potentially dangerous candidate to the Democrats.
No.13
It makes very good cat paper too.
“OTHER people’s liberties”
Reading comprehension for the win...
I'm just saying.
FACTS, WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING FACTS, WE ARE THE PRESS!!!
True, he was a hell of a guy that one...
And the fact is, the Finns kicked some serious Bolshevik butt.
Yes, it is all be being presented as fact. Our Soviet allies “allowed” us victory.
It would have still happened, Hitler was as much interested in looking west as he was looking east.
Yeah, the held their own pretty well as I remember.
In fact, the Red Army’s struggles in Finland convinced Hitler that the Soviets were easy pickings.
“In a contest for ‘most evil man of the twentieth century,’ it’s doubtful which of these two tyrants deserves the prize.”
Especially since you excluded the eminently-worthy third contestant: Chairman Mao.
;-)
sitetest
Yeah, I seemed to remember a comment to one of his Generals to the effect that if the inferior Finns could hold them back, they would be no match for the German army.
Even though I majored in military history, it was 20 years ago.
But as a German General put it, “Fighting the Russians is like an elephant fighting ants, the elephant may kill millions of ants, but the sheer number of ants will eventually overcome the elephant, and they will eat him right down to the bone.”
The 7,000 found alive at Auschwitz on 27 January, 1945 would likely disagree with that assessment. As would the 3,000 found alive at Sachsenhausen on 22 April, 1945. Or those at Majdanek and Gross-Rosen. Or the 100-odd who survived the human soap factory at Stutthof. Or the 3500 women who survived Ravensbrueck.
Life under the Soviets was no picnic. Especially for former Soviet POWs, many of whom were promptly deported to the GULag as suspected traitors... but for the Jews, Roma and others targeted by the Nazi Holocaust, survival under the Soviets sure beat the alternative.
From Adam Kirsch’s review in the N.Y. Sun on September 5, 2007:
“This is a revisionist history of World War II, designed to shake the complacency of British and American readers who are accustomed to thinking of it as the “good war”. . . [Davies’s] purpose, rather, is to remind the world of two truths [about World War II] that, while well-established, he believes are not sufficiently reckoned with.
The first is that, in military terms, the World War II in Europe was predominantly a war between Germany and the Soviet Union; the contributions of Britain and America, while crucial, were not of the same order. The second is that, when Nazism and Communism fought over control of Eastern Europe, there was little moral difference between them. The Soviet Union was one of the Allies, but it had less in common with Anglo-American democracy than it did with Nazi tyranny.”
This haunting passage from the review illustrates the point: “Worse, because totally irrational, the Soviet state continued to destroy its own people even when the war was at its height. During the first year of the [German] invasion [of Russia], the Red Army issued 800,000 death sentences to its own soldiers. Evey unit had its commissar, who had to countersign all military orders, and who could condemn anyone to death for an impolitic word. No wonder that, as Mr. Davies writes, “the front-line zone maximum physical danger” became for the Red Army troops “a zone of psychological liberation, even of gay abandon, which no doubt contributed to the willingness of the ‘Ivans’ to rush to their deaths with a hurrah on their lips.”
In short, Soviet Russia was as monstrous as Nazi Germany in prosecuting the Second World War. Its elevation of communist ideology over human life on the battlefield and everywhere else negates any suggestion that its motives, principally self-preservation of the communist regime and extension of the Soviet Empire to Eastern Europe, were benevolent.
Well aren’t you the clever one.
You know what I meant.
After the war “broke out” in September 1939, pretty much nothing happened until the following April. They called this period the “phony war.” It didn’t get real until shortly after Hitler hit Denmark and Norway. The British and French didn’t fight back until the French were invaded...and very promptly defeated.
The Germans flattered themselves. The Soviets didn't just overwhelm the Germans; they also out-fought them. They did so notably at Kursk, among other places.
We used to listen to the English version of Radio Moscow, on short wave, back in the 80's. We could pick it up in Missouri of all places, when the night air was right. Some of the propaganda they spewed was choice. I remember the history lesson on the end of WWII in the Pacific theater. Imagine our surprise to learn that had it not been for the Soviet entrance into the Pacific theater, the Japanese would have never surrendered :-)
Who was that, wasn’t that general who was relieved after that winter offensive. I am getting old.
Good point. There are times opression can beat being dead.
What does that have to do the fact that the act which drove the UK to declare war was the invasion of Poland?
Ah, the French...
They expected to fight the Germans in Belgium, but the Germans made their break through the Ardennes, and quickly cut them off, that was where the battle was lost.
I remember reading transcripts of some of their stuff. All but fought off the Japs for us at Pearl harbor they did...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.