Posted on 01/04/2015 9:01:57 AM PST by shoedog
What Constitution have you been reading? Does yours have a “break in case of emergency” (”emergency” defined however you please) clause?
Though fictitious, or at least wildly misleading, your scenario sounds monstrous.
You display overmuch reason for government decision making. FDR, for instance, genuinely believed he could make Russia do what he wanted through sheer force of personality. It didn’t help that he was basically a walking corpse during his last term, but even at the top of his game he was either a shortsighted, prodigal ignoramous or pure evil.
I never accused General Patton of leading through physical abuse. He was no Zhukov or Yamashita nor did I ever compare him to those officers. However, any officer hitting an enlisted man in our armed service is totally unacceptable. General Patton is no exception. It was considered such a serious issue, that General Marshall was willing to relieve Patton of command and return him to the U.S. He in the end General Marshall decided to allow Eisenhower to make the decision. Ike addressed the issue with Patton, Patton apologized at Ike’s insistence. Having been a commissioned officer of the United States Navy I have walked into the log room, threw my cover across the space and jumped up and down and screamed and yelled to high heaven. Seldom, and done intentionally for effect. It let my officers and senior POs know that they had screwed up real bad. But is was reserved for the most monumental screw ups. IMO there is absolutely no occasion where a commissioned officer of the United States should hit an enlisted man.
Soviet Union declared war on them before they surrendered. I doubt we wanted to take any chance of splitting up who got what out of Japan.
We DIDN’T win WWII. We defeated Hitler. But the people whose puppet Hitler was (the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Bushes, the Eugenics Society, etc.) all remained in place.
The question is moot: there wouldn’t have been a WWII; just a nazi world.
Or a Commie world.
The Constitution is way better than the puny Articles of Confederation.
Please, read Article 1, Section 9 of the great Constitution,
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Riots when we are in the middle of a war are rebellion and also treason since they have to send military power to put down the rioters while the troops simultaneously have to fight. That would also be public safety since rioters enjoy murdering people, stealing from people, destroying property, etc. so good luck trying to argue with Article 1 section 9, which justified Congress suppressing freedom. However, when it comes to fighting a war, that is neccessary. Plus we won when congress executed Article 1 section 9.
Congress had the will to carry out Article 1, Section 9 in earlier wars. Rioting during wartime was an actual offense, and much of our news media and Hollywood came out in support. Some, such as the actor James Stewart served. Others promoted or gave messages encouraging us to actually win. We would lose in one day what we lost over years in Iraq or Afghanistan. Think about it.
Some of our biggest rioting is during wars, not just WWII, but the Vietnam war.
Do you remember the arrest of 13,000 Americans in 1971?
“It was considered such a serious issue, that General Marshall was willing to relieve Patton of command and return him to the U.S.”
It was considered such a serious political issue prompted by the media, that General Marshall was willing to relieve Patton of command and return him to the U.S.
Fixed it for you.
That says more about our media than our people. Patton didn’t deck the guy, either. He slapped him. Oh golly! Such hideous abuse!
“One of the nurses who witnessed the 10 August incident apparently told her boyfriend, a captain in the Seventh Army public affairs detachment. Through him a group of four journalists covering the Sicily operation heard of the incident, among them Demaree Bess of the Saturday Evening Post, Merrill Mueller of NBC News, Al Newman of Newsweek, and John Charles Daly of CBS News. The four journalists interviewed Etter and other witnesses, but decided to bring the matter to Eisenhower instead of filing the story with their editors. Bess, Mueller, and Quentin Reynolds of Collier’s Magazine flew from Sicily to Algiers, and on 19 August Bess gave a summary on the slapping incidents to Eisenhower’s chief of staff, Major General Walter Bedell Smith.[24]
The reporters asked Eisenhower directly about the incident, and Eisenhower requested that the story be suppressed because the war effort could not afford to lose Patton. Bess and other journalists initially complied.[26] However, the news reporters then demanded Eisenhower fire Patton in exchange for them not reporting the story, a demand which Eisenhower refused.[24]... Investigators Eisenhower sent to Patton’s command found the general remained overwhelmingly popular with his troops.[45]...
...Kuhl’s father, Herman F. Kuhl, wrote to his own congressman, stating that he forgave Patton for the incident and requesting that he not be disciplined.[46] Retired generals also weighed in on the matter. Former Army Chief of Staff Charles P. Summerall wrote to Patton that he was “indignant about the publicity given a trifling incident”, adding that “whatever [Patton] did” he was sure it was “justified by the provocation. Such cowards used to be shot, now they are only encouraged.”[47] Major General Kenyon A. Joyce, another combat commander and one of Patton’s friends, attacked Pearson as a “sensation mongerer,” stating that “niceties” should be left for “softer times of peace.”[48] In one notable dissention, Patton’s friend, former mentor and General of the Armies John J. Pershing publicly condemned his actions, an act that left Patton “deeply hurt” and caused him to never speak to Pershing again.[43]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents
For emphasis: “However, the news reporters then demanded Eisenhower fire Patton in exchange for them not reporting the story, a demand which Eisenhower refused.”
It was not my scenario. It was the one implemented by Eisenhower with the French and Churchill’s acquiesence.
The total number of civilian deaths was closer to 80,000.
You will find this in “The Americans at D-Day, GBE American experience at the Normandy Invasion,” by John C. McManus who is a Professor of Military History at the University of Missouri.
What was monstrous was the entire war brought on by Hitler and the Axis that resulted in the deaths of 50 million people worldwide.
As long as we fought on the same side as Stalin's Soviet Union; they'd be more than happy to support the war effort.
Just like they did then - AFTER Hitler invaded Russia.
Patton slapped an enlisted man. Only politics made a big deal out of it. His men were not concerned.
As an officer, I never struck anyone. I did, however, turn a blind eye when an 20 year old enlisted guy threw an 19 year old enlisted guy out of the tent and into the snow. My Sgt turned a blind eye as well. When the 19 year old started pulling his weight, he was allowed to sleep in a tent instead of the snow. He also turned into a damn good airman - because he DID learn to pull his weight and be part of a team!
I also once told an E-7 that if he didn’t get his ass out of the chair and get to work that I’d throw his lazy ass out of the window. We were on the second floor and I meant it. I guess he knew I meant it, because he got in gear. In today’s military, I’d probably be court martialed for hurting someone’s feelings.
“Now with your vast experience in the Air Force, is it acceptable for an officer to hit an enlisted man. YES or NO”
Could be yes. Not often, but then, Patton didn’t go around hitting folks daily either. All things considered, I’d trust Patton’s judgment over yours OR mine.
George Marshall was a politician in a uniform. I never could stand people like that. Eisenhower was more of a politician than a soldier, too.
Truman was rat, so no, today’s media wouldn’t have attacked him for nuking Japan, if a Republican had done it, yes.
Before my time, but I definitely read about the Vietnam era riots. Pretty ugly. Then there was the Berkeley riots...
IOW, "torture" and "enhanced interrogation" protests are not about "torture" or "enhanced interrogation". They're about getting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney into a courtroom packed with Communists, to be tried for their freedom, or their lives, for having stood up to The Left.
Same thing, different day: The same Left mob wanted Henry Kissinger imprisoned or executed for his having advised the Chilean colonels to save themselves from an impending Communist revolution that would have executed them, by turning the tables and executing the Communists. The Communists hated Kissinger's guts for that -- truly, deeply, and savagely.
It's never about the issue, the old Leftists said. It's always about The Revolution, viz, seizing power.
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.