America Loves A Winner. Or Does It? Depends.... (Perhaps, TL; DR, But Fun To Have Written)

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Some poorly-organized thoughts regarding the saying that America loves a winner.

I.

Does America love a winner? Not sure that's true. Then again, it might be.

Turns out it depends on how one defines "America" and how one defines "winning."

That's pretty clear as it pertains to the current political back & forth. Not just Trump-Pelosi, but the greater Republican-Democrat contrast.

Trump was elected to fight for the common Deplorable. Clinton ran on a platform of privilege and status quo for The Elite. Pelosi-Schumer are now her successors (how else do you reconcile their flip-flopping on The Wall, etc.?).

Republicans are generally concerned with the rule of law and tend to act toward that goal. Winning is defined as moving closer to a society that's governed by the rule of law and that they serve at the People's pleasure (which is one way to view why you see Repubs "caving" so frequently).

Democrats, on the other hand, see winning in terms of power. Getting it, keeping it, strengthening it. Republicans also have this "will to power," but it is - philosophically - in service to the Rule of Law. For Democrats, rule of law is in the service to power. Here's a simple example showing this in action: while Republican lawmakers have term limits on their members Congressional committee participation, Democrats don't. It's the Right that is in greater favor of political office term limits. You don't see committee term limits or an interest in election term limits on the Left. Why? Because the DNA of a Democrat/Leftist is such that power is the be all end all. Just read "Alinsky's Rules"....

For Democrats, it is The People that serve at their pleasure (how else does one explain why the Dems, supposedly supporting the furloughed Fed workers, voted three times to kill a Repub bill to get them paid?).

II.

But let's take a look at something non-political to see if America agrees it loves a winner (or even who the winner is or even what we mean when we say "America").

Back in WWII who was the winningest US general? If you said Patton, you'd be correct. If you said Eisenhower, you'd be correct. If you said Bradley you'd also be correct. Why? Because each had constituencies that needed "their guy" to come out on top.

Of the three, Patton had the lowest casualty rate. Funny then that he was known as "Old Blood and Guts." (It's VERY important (see below) to understand who (the "who" = journalists) gave Patton the nickname and why.)

Bradley, on the other hand, was known as "The Soldiers' General" yet had a far higher casualty rate than Patton (Patton being the subordinate 3rd Army commander in Bradley's 12th Army Group helps lower Bradley's otherwise horrendous casualty rate). Bradley was an unimaginative commander whose sole idea in generalship was attrition warfare (i.e., pit two heavyweights against each other until one falls).

Eisenhower had no idea how to conduct a war, but was a useful tool for Churchill, Marshall, & Roosevelt. But in trying to please everyone, no one in the field was pleased. Take for, example, Eisenhower's failure to push Montgomery to take Caen after D-Day or his decision to support Montgomery in Market-Garden but failure to push Montgomery to secure the Scheldt estuary beforehand so that Market-Garden mattered. In both cases, Eisenhower failed to pick a course of action that would have ended WWII in Europe by September. We know this because German military officers and historians have said that had Eisenhower supported letting Patton loose earlier (immediately after D-Day instead of o/a 1 August) and supplying him rather than Montgomery's Market-Garden the Germans would have lost the war BY SEPTEMBER 1944! Think of how many American lives (specifically) and other lives would have been saved had we not fought Market-Garden, the Scheldt Estuary, the Battle of the Bulge, the Huertgen Forest (Bradley's largest blunder), etc.

So while Patton had in mind defeat of Germany and the saving of American lives, Eisenhower, Bradley, and interestingly, the Press had other ideas.

Bill Mauldin HATED Patton and did everything in his power to paint Patton in a bad light and Bradley in a positive one (he's the one, I believe, that coined Bradley the "Soldiers' General"). Mauldin wasn't alone among journalists in smearing Patton and these journalists had the active support of Democrat Senators/Congressmen (Patton was an independently wealthy, Republican-leaning sort of fellow, so of course he was the enemy), but interestingly Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley ENCOURAGED the journalistic smears.

What?! Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley encouraged the smears?! Yup.

Marshall was a pure establishment figure, both in the government and in his approach to Army doctrine. Patton was exactly the opposite. Marshall was all about The Plan and didn't need boat rockers upsetting The Plan.

Eisenhower wanted early on to run for President (by mid-1943 it was clear to many around him this was so) and he didn't want anything to get in the way. Eisenhower was worried Patton would get in the way (Patton was a scrupulous diary writer/record keeper and had prodigious amounts of documentation showing how incompetent Eisenhower was in the conduct of the war in the ETO (North Africa, Italy, & France/Germany)) so he employed a carrot/stick approach, re: Patton: promise him higher command but threaten to keep it from him if he didn't toe the line (what Patton didn't know (wasn't known until later) was that the senior military leaders (Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley) had already decided Patton would never rise above Army command). So Eisenhower not only conducted illegal eavesdropping/surveillance* on Patton after the war's end when Patton was military governor of Bavaria, but encouraged journalists to continue attacking Patton to bait him and keep him on the defensive in order to provide, if necessary, Eisenhower an excuse to discredit Patton. Patton dying in the car accident was fortuitous for Eisenhower: his biggest critic no longer had an active voice. (This is why the conspiracy theories about Patton being murdered were so strong back then and linger on today: Eisenhower had real motive to keep Patton quiet and out of the way.)

Why Bradley? Simple here. Bradley was an insecure, incompetent general who rode Patton's tail to stardom. Bradley didn't want that known and loyalty to Eisenhower ("lap dog")/common enemy (he and journalists against Patton) were a means to keep his dirty secret safe.

These "establishment players" allied with so-called objective, non-biased, politically-unaffiliated journalists in a mutually beneficial arrangement to get what each wanted. The "boat rocker" (Patton) served as a useful idiot and was cast aside once his services were no longer needed.

That Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley were successful is evidenced by where they ended up. Not only positionally, but literally immaculate saints in the common hagiography of WWII and the Cold War. Clearly, WINNERS! And we are told to love them.

For the families of the tens of thousands of casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA, etc.) of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, however, I wonder if the wrong folks were anointed "The Winners." Seems to me that if America really loved a winner America would have picked Patton and his way of war. But "Patton as winner" didn't fit the goals of a select few so that select few chose to mislead America, give us fakes for winners, and provide an opportunity to have more markers in cemeteries.

III.

Sort of like what we're seeing today.

Banks, capitalists, industry all make useful and convenient scapegoats for those who will do anything to keep controlling the narrative. Eisenhower railed against the "Military-Industrial Complex." But that was disingenuous and self-serving. The real problem was the Elite-Journalist Complex. And it still is today. Fight the good fight. Fight these vested interests.


*More than a bit ironic as Churchill used Kay Summersby as his agent-in-place to get intel on Eisenhower! What an absolute tool Eisenhower was; he considered Patton a useful idiot and yet he himself turned out to be a bigger one!

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I'll read that whole thing in a second but my initial reaction to your headline is that America not only does NOT love a winner, they actively resent and loathe a winner. Examples:

Tom Brady
Serena Williams
Taylor Swift
Donald Trump

Now I'll read your post...
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
More than a bit ironic as Churchill used Kay Summersby as his agent-in-place to get intel on Eisenhower! What an absolute tool Eisenhower was; he considered Patton a useful idiot and yet he himself turned out to be a bigger one!

--- End of line (MCP)
I hadn't read this before my post, but the section in Summersby's Wikipedia entry regarding her relationship with Eisenhower (Wikipedia - Kay Summersby - Relationship with Eisenhower) is at minimum a hoot and probably more along the lines of what I wrote above, re: ensuring Eisenhower's legacy as a winner.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
And now that I have read the post:

Thank you. I appreciate someone who will take the time to write a well thought out, interesting piece. It makes wading through the drivel worth it.

We are being manipulated every second of our lives. Told what to wear, what to eat, who to date, what to watch, what to say. The "winners" are who the media manipulators tell us they are. We can't be everywhere at once and see these things for ourselves, so we rely on the media/news to tell us. When they tell us a lie, we believe it because we don't know any better and many times don't really care. Our lives revolve around entertainment, not information, and the media oblige.

Monello and I are currently binge-watching Boardwalk Empire, which made me want to get an education about Warren Harding. Jeez Louise, what a creep. And we really haven't evolved past that sort of political machination, nor the news media's hushing it up and promoting what it's being bribed to tell us.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Wow. Yooper, was that all original material? Very interesting.
Thanks. Yup. Me myself.

Musings are the result of years of reading and study following a full career (senior Army officer, now retired) with advanced degrees in history, regional studies, military studies and etc. (blah, blah, blah) with service in military, pol-mil, intel, and spec ops assignments/communities (both overseas and here in the U.S.).

Apologize for the lack of polish. But I hope all find it may be useful/was interesting.

Have a great Saturday/weekend.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I hadn't read this before my post, but the section in Summersby's Wikipedia entry regarding her relationship with Eisenhower (Wikipedia - Kay Summersby - Relationship with Eisenhower) is at minimum a hoot and probably more along the lines of what I wrote above, re: ensuring Eisenhower's legacy as a winner.

--- End of line (MCP)
The F.D. Roosevelts are a fascinating study as well. Franklin was a disgusting human being with, among more egregious corrupt activities, mistresses up the ass; Eleanor had mistresses as well. And the press covered for them, painting a public picture of a loving couple who were fighting for Americans.

To this day he is considered a "winner" and routinely tops the Best President opinion polls, even though we now have the ability to know better.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Why Bradley?

--- End of line (MCP)
In a "too bad, so sad" bit of final irony, when the movie "Patton" was being made the only person of stature available to act as (senior) technical advisor was Omar Bradley.

He wanted to ensure Ladislas Farago's book didn't reflect too highly of Patton on the screen so he ensured Patton was portrayed in a way to garner "only thiiiiiis much adulation" and that Bradley would be seen as the voice of calm reason.

Yet it apparently backfired. "Patton" was released in 1970 (or so) at a time when we needed some winning (Vietnam, etc.). Patton turned out to be (and continues to be) a beloved movie and General George found new fans via George C. Scott's portrayal (who did Patton a GREAT service: Patton had a very high, squeaky voice that he was, according to Carlo D'Este, ashamed of and numerous critics have said that Patton wanted to be "Old Blood & Guts" to compensate). Bradley, to his dying day, hated Patton and was furious how he was upstaged by Patton in a movie he tried to control to minimize Patton!

Anyway, supposedly Nixon watched the movie and it gave him inspiration to ramp up military action in Vietnam! Also, it helped some of Patton's subordinates get back in favor and in a position to influence the Army's/National warfighting doctrine away from attritional, defensive warfare back to offensive, center-of-gravity warfare. See James Kelly Morningstar's excellent book, "Patton's Way: A Radical Theory of War." While I was previously aware of much of what's in his book I wasn't aware of the Nixon angle or how the movie helped get "Patton's people" into the position to set the stage for the massive change in doctrine. It was personal for me as it was the movie that made me want to go into the Army (and yes, be a tanker) and to live (at the tactical level) through the doctrinal change from "attrition & defense against the enemy's forces" to "maneuver & offense on the enemy's center of gravity."

Patton was correct; I saw it with my own eyes: men (and women) are more motivated to fight when moving and on the attack. Eisenhower and Bradley never saw that (brilliantly written about by Morningstar) and there have been far too many gold star families as a result.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
The F.D. Roosevelts are a fascinating study as well. Franklin was a disgusting human being with, among more egregious corrupt activities, mistresses up the ass; Eleanor had mistresses as well. And the press covered for them, painting a public picture of a loving couple who were fighting for Americans.

To this day he is considered a "winner" and routinely tops the Best President opinion polls, even though we now have the ability to know better.
I despise Roosevelt. But give credit where credit is due; Roosevelt was a master manipulator. We all know about his New Deal BS (actually lengthened and made more severe The Great Depression), but his foreign policy manipulation on the American public is also legendary (from a purely Machiavellian perspective).

If that aspect interests you, I encourage you to try to find & then watch "Mission To Moscow" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_Moscow). You'll both laugh and cry. Talk about public opinion manipulation! Ambassador Davies' book (upon which the book is based) is so uncritical and unreflective about his service in the USSR as to be criminal. But it was the perfect vehicle to base a movie of this sort on. After all, Davies was a respected member of The Elite!

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Some poorly-organized thoughts regarding the saying that America loves a winner.

I.

Does America love a winner? Not sure that's true. Then again, it might be.

Turns out it depends on how one defines "America" and how one defines "winning."

That's pretty clear as it pertains to the current political back & forth. Not just Trump-Pelosi, but the greater Republican-Democrat contrast.

Trump was elected to fight for the common Deplorable. Clinton ran on a platform of privilege and status quo for The Elite. Pelosi-Schumer are now her successors (how else do you reconcile their flip-flopping on The Wall, etc.?).

Republicans are generally concerned with the rule of law and tend to act toward that goal. Winning is defined as moving closer to a society that's governed by the rule of law and that they serve at the People's pleasure (which is one way to view why you see Repubs "caving" so frequently).

Democrats, on the other hand, see winning in terms of power. Getting it, keeping it, strengthening it. Republicans also have this "will to power," but it is - philosophically - in service to the Rule of Law. For Democrats, rule of law is in the service to power. Here's a simple example showing this in action: while Republican lawmakers have term limits on their members Congressional committee participation, Democrats don't. It's the Right that is in greater favor of political office term limits. You don't see committee term limits or an interest in election term limits on the Left. Why? Because the DNA of a Democrat/Leftist is such that power is the be all end all. Just read "Alinsky's Rules"....

For Democrats, it is The People that serve at their pleasure (how else does one explain why the Dems, supposedly supporting the furloughed Fed workers, voted three times to kill a Repub bill to get them paid?).

II.

But let's take a look at something non-political to see if America agrees it loves a winner (or even who the winner is or even what we mean when we say "America").

Back in WWII who was the winningest US general? If you said Patton, you'd be correct. If you said Eisenhower, you'd be correct. If you said Bradley you'd also be correct. Why? Because each had constituencies that needed "their guy" to come out on top.

Of the three, Patton had the lowest casualty rate. Funny then that he was known as "Old Blood and Guts." (It's VERY important (see below) to understand who (the "who" = journalists) gave Patton the nickname and why.)

Bradley, on the other hand, was known as "The Soldiers' General" yet had a far higher casualty rate than Patton (Patton being the subordinate 3rd Army commander in Bradley's 12th Army Group helps lower Bradley's otherwise horrendous casualty rate). Bradley was an unimaginative commander whose sole idea in generalship was attrition warfare (i.e., pit two heavyweights against each other until one falls).

Eisenhower had no idea how to conduct a war, but was a useful tool for Churchill, Marshall, & Roosevelt. But in trying to please everyone, no one in the field was pleased. Take for, example, Eisenhower's failure to push Montgomery to take Caen after D-Day or his decision to support Montgomery in Market-Garden but failure to push Montgomery to secure the Scheldt estuary beforehand so that Market-Garden mattered. In both cases, Eisenhower failed to pick a course of action that would have ended WWII in Europe by September. We know this because German military officers and historians have said that had Eisenhower supported letting Patton loose earlier (immediately after D-Day instead of o/a 1 August) and supplying him rather than Montgomery's Market-Garden the Germans would have lost the war BY SEPTEMBER 1944! Think of how many American lives (specifically) and other lives would have been saved had we not fought Market-Garden, the Scheldt Estuary, the Battle of the Bulge, the Huertgen Forest (Bradley's largest blunder), etc.

So while Patton had in mind defeat of Germany and the saving of American lives, Eisenhower, Bradley, and interestingly, the Press had other ideas.

Bill Mauldin HATED Patton and did everything in his power to paint Patton in a bad light and Bradley in a positive one (he's the one, I believe, that coined Bradley the "Soldiers' General"). Mauldin wasn't alone among journalists in smearing Patton and these journalists had the active support of Democrat Senators/Congressmen (Patton was an independently wealthy, Republican-leaning sort of fellow, so of course he was the enemy), but interestingly Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley ENCOURAGED the journalistic smears.

What?! Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley encouraged the smears?! Yup.

Marshall was a pure establishment figure, both in the government and in his approach to Army doctrine. Patton was exactly the opposite. Marshall was all about The Plan and didn't need boat rockers upsetting The Plan.

Eisenhower wanted early on to run for President (by mid-1943 it was clear to many around him this was so) and he didn't want anything to get in the way. Eisenhower was worried Patton would get in the way (Patton was a scrupulous diary writer/record keeper and had prodigious amounts of documentation showing how incompetent Eisenhower was in the conduct of the war in the ETO (North Africa, Italy, & France/Germany)) so he employed a carrot/stick approach, re: Patton: promise him higher command but threaten to keep it from him if he didn't toe the line (what Patton didn't know (wasn't known until later) was that the senior military leaders (Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley) had already decided Patton would never rise above Army command). So Eisenhower not only conducted illegal eavesdropping/surveillance* on Patton after the war's end when Patton was military governor of Bavaria, but encouraged journalists to continue attacking Patton to bait him and keep him on the defensive in order to provide, if necessary, Eisenhower an excuse to discredit Patton. Patton dying in the car accident was fortuitous for Eisenhower: his biggest critic no longer had an active voice. (This is why the conspiracy theories about Patton being murdered were so strong back then and linger on today: Eisenhower had real motive to keep Patton quiet and out of the way.)

Why Bradley? Simple here. Bradley was an insecure, incompetent general who rode Patton's tail to stardom. Bradley didn't want that known and loyalty to Eisenhower ("lap dog")/common enemy (he and journalists against Patton) were a means to keep his dirty secret safe.

These "establishment players" allied with so-called objective, non-biased, politically-unaffiliated journalists in a mutually beneficial arrangement to get what each wanted. The "boat rocker" (Patton) served as a useful idiot and was cast aside once his services were no longer needed.

That Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley were successful is evidenced by where they ended up. Not only positionally, but literally immaculate saints in the common hagiography of WWII and the Cold War. Clearly, WINNERS! And we are told to love them.

For the families of the tens of thousands of casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA, etc.) of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, however, I wonder if the wrong folks were anointed "The Winners." Seems to me that if America really loved a winner America would have picked Patton and his way of war. But "Patton as winner" didn't fit the goals of a select few so that select few chose to mislead America, give us fakes for winners, and provide an opportunity to have more markers in cemeteries.

III.

Sort of like what we're seeing today.

Banks, capitalists, industry all make useful and convenient scapegoats for those who will do anything to keep controlling the narrative. Eisenhower railed against the "Military-Industrial Complex." But that was disingenuous and self-serving. The real problem was the Elite-Journalist Complex. And it still is today. Fight the good fight. Fight these vested interests.


*More than a bit ironic as Churchill used Kay Summersby as his agent-in-place to get intel on Eisenhower! What an absolute tool Eisenhower was; he considered Patton a useful idiot and yet he himself turned out to be a bigger one!

--- End of line (MCP)
It is interesting . Montgomery was England's hero and I believe he lengthened the war .
Montgomery was a failure in many ways but we had to make him look good so the Brits could have a hero.
I feel the same way about De Gaulle A hero to France who actually lengthened the war and was useless to the fighting of it.

Prima Donna's. Much like Colin Powell Bush's errand boy.
 

Gummie

Member
With all the crybabies on here from both sides of the aisle, I thought from the title, this thread was going to be about adult diapers!
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
And now that I have read the post:

Thank you. I appreciate someone who will take the time to write a well thought out, interesting piece. It makes wading through the drivel worth it.
Thank you, right back at ya!

We are being manipulated every second of our lives. Told what to wear, what to eat, who to date, what to watch, what to say. The "winners" are who the media manipulators tell us they are. We can't be everywhere at once and see these things for ourselves, so we rely on the media/news to tell us. When they tell us a lie, we believe it because we don't know any better and many times don't really care. Our lives revolve around entertainment, not information, and the media oblige.
Absolutely agree. We want to be sheep (less effort, more enjoyment) and the media & "Our Betters" are only happy to provide. That's why "The Matrix" is such an important movie (and not just to me). Or "Animal Farm." In the former, because there need to be sheepdogs to protect the sheep against the wolves. In the latter, because we need cautionary tales to wake the flock the flock up! The surprise on the face of the middle class folks in "Doctor Zhivago" ("What, I have to share MY house?") is what we're destined to experience if we don't guard against it (i.e., the platform of the Democrat Party).

Monello and I are currently binge-watching Boardwalk Empire, which made me want to get an education about Warren Harding. Jeez Louise, what a creep. And we really haven't evolved past that sort of political machination, nor the news media's hushing it up and promoting what it's being bribed to tell us.
I have watched the first part of "Boardwalk Empire" but have put it aside until I can finish the book it's based on. So I'm interested in your take on Harding and will be on the look-out (both in book and on screen). And nope, we haven't evolved. What Aunt Nan learned at the feet of her Mafia-connected, mayor of Baltimore dad still works today.

So we have to fight the good fight. We may not win if we do, but we certainly lose if we don't.

Enjoy your on-going travels. Always look forward to you and Monello's "posts from the road." Have a great Saturday/great weekend!

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
It is interesting . Montgomery was England's hero and I believe he lengthened the war .
Montgomery was a failure in many ways but we had to make him look good so the Brits could have a hero.
I feel the same way about De Gaulle A hero to France who actually lengthened the war and was useless to the fighting of it.

Prima Donna's. Much like Colin Powell Bush's errand boy.
Agreed. And part of the "cover-up" in picking these "winners" (to include those you named above) is that the "outsider" (Patton) had the goods on them that these various Emperors' new clothes weren't all that flattering (and quite exposing!) So, "We must band together to keep the truth from getting out!" Sound at all similar to anything going on today? Unmasking, FISA courts, etc.?

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
With all the crybabies on here from both sides of the aisle, I thought from the title, this thread was going to be about adult diapers!
Nah. That would be pampering the forum's readers!

Have a great Saturday/weekend!

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
NO Man Ever Won a War By Dying For His Country ...
"Grab them by the nose and kick them in the ass!"

Undated to go something like this: "Find 'em, fix 'em, f*ck 'em, and finish 'em!"

Have a great Saturday/weekend!

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Some poorly-organized thoughts regarding the saying that America loves a winner.

I.

Does America love a winner? Not sure that's true. Then again, it might be.

Turns out it depends on how one defines "America" and how one defines "winning."

That's pretty clear as it pertains to the current political back & forth. Not just Trump-Pelosi, but the greater Republican-Democrat contrast.

Trump was elected to fight for the common Deplorable. Clinton ran on a platform of privilege and status quo for The Elite. Pelosi-Schumer are now her successors (how else do you reconcile their flip-flopping on The Wall, etc.?).

Republicans are generally concerned with the rule of law and tend to act toward that goal. Winning is defined as moving closer to a society that's governed by the rule of law and that they serve at the People's pleasure (which is one way to view why you see Repubs "caving" so frequently).

Democrats, on the other hand, see winning in terms of power. Getting it, keeping it, strengthening it. Republicans also have this "will to power," but it is - philosophically - in service to the Rule of Law. For Democrats, rule of law is in the service to power. Here's a simple example showing this in action: while Republican lawmakers have term limits on their members Congressional committee participation, Democrats don't. It's the Right that is in greater favor of political office term limits. You don't see committee term limits or an interest in election term limits on the Left. Why? Because the DNA of a Democrat/Leftist is such that power is the be all end all. Just read "Alinsky's Rules"....

For Democrats, it is The People that serve at their pleasure (how else does one explain why the Dems, supposedly supporting the furloughed Fed workers, voted three times to kill a Repub bill to get them paid?).

II.

But let's take a look at something non-political to see if America agrees it loves a winner (or even who the winner is or even what we mean when we say "America").

Back in WWII who was the winningest US general? If you said Patton, you'd be correct. If you said Eisenhower, you'd be correct. If you said Bradley you'd also be correct. Why? Because each had constituencies that needed "their guy" to come out on top.

Of the three, Patton had the lowest casualty rate. Funny then that he was known as "Old Blood and Guts." (It's VERY important (see below) to understand who (the "who" = journalists) gave Patton the nickname and why.)

Bradley, on the other hand, was known as "The Soldiers' General" yet had a far higher casualty rate than Patton (Patton being the subordinate 3rd Army commander in Bradley's 12th Army Group helps lower Bradley's otherwise horrendous casualty rate). Bradley was an unimaginative commander whose sole idea in generalship was attrition warfare (i.e., pit two heavyweights against each other until one falls).

Eisenhower had no idea how to conduct a war, but was a useful tool for Churchill, Marshall, & Roosevelt. But in trying to please everyone, no one in the field was pleased. Take for, example, Eisenhower's failure to push Montgomery to take Caen after D-Day or his decision to support Montgomery in Market-Garden but failure to push Montgomery to secure the Scheldt estuary beforehand so that Market-Garden mattered. In both cases, Eisenhower failed to pick a course of action that would have ended WWII in Europe by September. We know this because German military officers and historians have said that had Eisenhower supported letting Patton loose earlier (immediately after D-Day instead of o/a 1 August) and supplying him rather than Montgomery's Market-Garden the Germans would have lost the war BY SEPTEMBER 1944! Think of how many American lives (specifically) and other lives would have been saved had we not fought Market-Garden, the Scheldt Estuary, the Battle of the Bulge, the Huertgen Forest (Bradley's largest blunder), etc.

So while Patton had in mind defeat of Germany and the saving of American lives, Eisenhower, Bradley, and interestingly, the Press had other ideas.

Bill Mauldin HATED Patton and did everything in his power to paint Patton in a bad light and Bradley in a positive one (he's the one, I believe, that coined Bradley the "Soldiers' General"). Mauldin wasn't alone among journalists in smearing Patton and these journalists had the active support of Democrat Senators/Congressmen (Patton was an independently wealthy, Republican-leaning sort of fellow, so of course he was the enemy), but interestingly Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley ENCOURAGED the journalistic smears.

What?! Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley encouraged the smears?! Yup.

Marshall was a pure establishment figure, both in the government and in his approach to Army doctrine. Patton was exactly the opposite. Marshall was all about The Plan and didn't need boat rockers upsetting The Plan.

Eisenhower wanted early on to run for President (by mid-1943 it was clear to many around him this was so) and he didn't want anything to get in the way. Eisenhower was worried Patton would get in the way (Patton was a scrupulous diary writer/record keeper and had prodigious amounts of documentation showing how incompetent Eisenhower was in the conduct of the war in the ETO (North Africa, Italy, & France/Germany)) so he employed a carrot/stick approach, re: Patton: promise him higher command but threaten to keep it from him if he didn't toe the line (what Patton didn't know (wasn't known until later) was that the senior military leaders (Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley) had already decided Patton would never rise above Army command). So Eisenhower not only conducted illegal eavesdropping/surveillance* on Patton after the war's end when Patton was military governor of Bavaria, but encouraged journalists to continue attacking Patton to bait him and keep him on the defensive in order to provide, if necessary, Eisenhower an excuse to discredit Patton. Patton dying in the car accident was fortuitous for Eisenhower: his biggest critic no longer had an active voice. (This is why the conspiracy theories about Patton being murdered were so strong back then and linger on today: Eisenhower had real motive to keep Patton quiet and out of the way.)

Why Bradley? Simple here. Bradley was an insecure, incompetent general who rode Patton's tail to stardom. Bradley didn't want that known and loyalty to Eisenhower ("lap dog")/common enemy (he and journalists against Patton) were a means to keep his dirty secret safe.

These "establishment players" allied with so-called objective, non-biased, politically-unaffiliated journalists in a mutually beneficial arrangement to get what each wanted. The "boat rocker" (Patton) served as a useful idiot and was cast aside once his services were no longer needed.

That Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley were successful is evidenced by where they ended up. Not only positionally, but literally immaculate saints in the common hagiography of WWII and the Cold War. Clearly, WINNERS! And we are told to love them.

For the families of the tens of thousands of casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA, etc.) of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, however, I wonder if the wrong folks were anointed "The Winners." Seems to me that if America really loved a winner America would have picked Patton and his way of war. But "Patton as winner" didn't fit the goals of a select few so that select few chose to mislead America, give us fakes for winners, and provide an opportunity to have more markers in cemeteries.

III.

Sort of like what we're seeing today.

Banks, capitalists, industry all make useful and convenient scapegoats for those who will do anything to keep controlling the narrative. Eisenhower railed against the "Military-Industrial Complex." But that was disingenuous and self-serving. The real problem was the Elite-Journalist Complex. And it still is today. Fight the good fight. Fight these vested interests.


*More than a bit ironic as Churchill used Kay Summersby as his agent-in-place to get intel on Eisenhower! What an absolute tool Eisenhower was; he considered Patton a useful idiot and yet he himself turned out to be a bigger one!

--- End of line (MCP)
Bravo, sir. I've been an avid history buff for 50 years and to this day read every book anyone comes out with that delves further in to the subjects you discussed. It never ceases to amaze me the differences between basic facts and the twisting and spinning. I don't limit my interest to just WWII, although that is near the top..my library covers everything from the crusades through our most recent conflicts. I might have more books written about Vietnam than WWII but the numbers are going to be close. Common threads abound.
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
I'll read that whole thing in a second but my initial reaction to your headline is that America not only does NOT love a winner, they actively resent and loathe a winner. Examples:

Tom Brady
Serena Williams
Taylor Swift
Donald Trump

Now I'll read your post...
No, they love a winner until they don't. All that you listed were loved by many until they won too much, you could add Tiger Woods to that list. They go overboard with the love, then overboard with the hate once they find out they are human.

**Edit**I didn't read the original post, posts longer than a paragraph trigger me so I try to avoid them.
 
Last edited:

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
All that you listed were loved by many until they won too much.
I think this is where you hit the home run because this is what the Dems' platform is appealing to today; that it's unfair some people win too much (see AOC's recent drivel on billionaires for the perfect take/example). It's what Stalin appealed to with his campaign against the Kulaks.

That's why "Animal Farm" may be less funny than "Animal House," but far more important.

Have a great Saturday/weekend!

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Bravo, sir. I've been an avid history buff for 50 years and to this day read every book anyone comes out with that delves further in to the subjects you discussed. It never ceases to amaze me the differences between basic facts and the twisting and spinning. I don't limit my interest to just WWII, although that is near the top..my library covers everything from the crusades through our most recent conflicts. I might have more books written about Vietnam than WWII but the numbers are going to be close. Common threads abound.
Thank you, very much. Not a polished "essay," but it was fun to muse and write. "Patton against the Machine" seems, to me, to be a very suitable parable for today and today's events.

My interests are somewhat broad, as well. Of course, military history/affairs (more strategic than tactical, though), but also Europe, Russia/USSR, Balkans (by virtue of military assignments, responsibilities, portfolios, etc.).

Re: Vietnam, may I suggest H.R. McMaster's (yes, former NatSecAdv) "Dereliction of Duty" and Harry Summer's "On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War" (if you haven't already read them).

If you're interested in macro-level stuff, I heartily recommend the efforts of John Mearsheimer (such as "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics") and folks in his camp ("The Realists"). Helpful in dealing with those who see the world as they would like it to be and those who see it as it is (yes, a BIG DEAL, re: paradigms and arguments we see these days in foreign policy, domestic affairs, etc.).

Have a great Saturday/weekend!

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Top