He was the man period!!The God of War may very well be Mars w/ Diemos & Phobos as it's moons, but unequivocally the God of Bombing was Lemay.. SAC and Offut AFB Nebraska his Heavenly Headquarters. :/ :o) lols
I feel like this is an unfair portrayal, or rather than it focuses on all the wrong things: "Look at this guy's dead expression, look at how badly he writes" – This is stuff that you say about a guy that you already dislike, and if somebody started in on that about somebody that you'd like, then I'm sure (or at least I'd hope) that you'd point out that they're bringing up stuff that doesn't really matter compared to what they actually did. For goodness' sake, you even pointed out that his expression was the product of a physical disability, so why do you bring it up (twice!) except to give us a bad vibe about the guy?
On the one hand, I'm horrified by, "I have tried to slaughter as few civilians as possible." But compare that to Thomas S. Power's statement that, if there's a nuclear war and there's just two Americans and one Russian left alive, then he's satisfied and he considers that to be a victory. The most horrifying thing about LeMay's statement, to me at least, is that he might actually be one of the least bad of the bunch.
I mean, maybe he isn't, but I need more context. My understanding up till now has been that LeMay wanted to minimize casualties in the long term by hitting as hard as necessary in the short term and thereby ending hostilities as quickly as possible. I do not believe that this strategy has borne good fruit but I am sympathetic to his position (in part because I do not know how much evidence he had that this would not work), just as I am sympathetic to (what appears to me to be) his belief that there was no way to prosecute the war without being a war criminal. I would, of course, prefer a military command who do not commit war crimes, full stop, but in lieu of that seemingly impossible demand, I would much rather have a military command who recognizes that they are doing bad things and therefore are trying to do them as little as possible, over a military command that – like Power – believe that they're the good guys, so anything that they do is good and there's no reason to exercise restraint.
You got into some of the other stuff, like LeMay's friendly relationship with George Wallace, but that's the first thing you said that actually indicates to me that LeMay was actually bad.
I'd only add that in That respect LeMay was going down a well established path and that he was likely well aware of the way that the Canadians had fought in the previous World War, when they were nearly always the first to leave the trenches in a major attack and were thus the Allies shock troops:
In 1968 George Wallace, the governor of Alabama best known for his declaration of "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," broke with his party and launched a third-party bid for US president. He chose Curtis LeMay as his vice presidential running mate.
The Wallace-LeMay ticket won several states in the Deep South, and came in close-second in a couple of others. Their aim — in which they almost succeeded — was to drain enough Electoral Votes from Nixon-Agnew and from Humphrey-Muskie to throw the election into the House of Representatives, where each states' delegation would cast a single vote for president and a separate single vote for vice president.
If the dead-eyed reptilian LeMay's conduct of the firebombing of Japan and his leadership of SAC frighten you... imagine the possible result of deal-making to dictate the outcome of that contingent election: Nixon as president, Wallace as vice president, and LeMay as secretary of defense.
The B-52 bombing campaigns against the North would almost certainly _not_ have been limited to mining Haiphong Harbor and dropping big loads of iron bombs. IRL Nixon expanded the war in Southeast Asia to include Cambodia & Laos without congressional authorization; imagine if he bent to LeMay and authorized using nukes sometime in 1970.
From what I have read Mac was certainly appreciative of what LeMay was doing with the bombing effort in the Japanese home islands: that effort Did afterall ensure that fewer arms were getting to the Japanese at the front that MacArther's men were fighting. But I think that he viewed the AF effort as a thing that was in support of the Real effort that would defeat the Japanese which, not surprisingly, MacArther considered to be the forces operating on the ground. When the Bomb was dropped though MacArther was appalled in a way that was similar to FDR's advisor Ademiral William Leahy, he thought that the weapon was a kind of antithetical thing to the profession of bearing arms, and that it's use would do not good for American prestige in the long run(I also suspect that Mac had hoped to lead the Allies in one last decisve battle against the Japanese, one in which he MacArther would acheive victory in full view of the world). So I would guess that at That point MacArther would have considered LeMay as more of a bureaucrat rather than a real soldier because of LeMay's reliance on technolgy rather than willingness to actually engage on the battlefield . If that's true than I would have loved to see any communication between the two when Mac was theatening to use nuclear weapons in Korea, weapons that LeMay's air force would likely be delivering,...
Well, in this he wasn't that much different than his British counterpart Harris: Harris too had a strange ruthless streak. I would add though that Harris probably came by his sense of callousness from all the years that he spent in the then colony of Rhodesia(he moved there when but 17). Harris loved the place and it would be hard to argue that some of that affection didn't come from the way that the country was ruled based largely on White privilage(flame suit on). The attitude that Harris had of throwing lives at a thing to keep up the pressure no matter what the loss rates were is a little Too much like LeMay's open contempt for Japanese casualties in whatever form they took: after all, what are thousands of lives if it means getting the job done?
My brother who served in SAC said the unofficial coda to "Peace is our profession" was "War is our hobby." That's what comes after the ellipses.
Yikes!
He was the man period!!The God of War may very well be Mars w/ Diemos & Phobos as it's moons, but unequivocally the God of Bombing was Lemay.. SAC and Offut AFB Nebraska his Heavenly Headquarters. :/ :o) lols
I feel like this is an unfair portrayal, or rather than it focuses on all the wrong things: "Look at this guy's dead expression, look at how badly he writes" – This is stuff that you say about a guy that you already dislike, and if somebody started in on that about somebody that you'd like, then I'm sure (or at least I'd hope) that you'd point out that they're bringing up stuff that doesn't really matter compared to what they actually did. For goodness' sake, you even pointed out that his expression was the product of a physical disability, so why do you bring it up (twice!) except to give us a bad vibe about the guy?
On the one hand, I'm horrified by, "I have tried to slaughter as few civilians as possible." But compare that to Thomas S. Power's statement that, if there's a nuclear war and there's just two Americans and one Russian left alive, then he's satisfied and he considers that to be a victory. The most horrifying thing about LeMay's statement, to me at least, is that he might actually be one of the least bad of the bunch.
I mean, maybe he isn't, but I need more context. My understanding up till now has been that LeMay wanted to minimize casualties in the long term by hitting as hard as necessary in the short term and thereby ending hostilities as quickly as possible. I do not believe that this strategy has borne good fruit but I am sympathetic to his position (in part because I do not know how much evidence he had that this would not work), just as I am sympathetic to (what appears to me to be) his belief that there was no way to prosecute the war without being a war criminal. I would, of course, prefer a military command who do not commit war crimes, full stop, but in lieu of that seemingly impossible demand, I would much rather have a military command who recognizes that they are doing bad things and therefore are trying to do them as little as possible, over a military command that – like Power – believe that they're the good guys, so anything that they do is good and there's no reason to exercise restraint.
You got into some of the other stuff, like LeMay's friendly relationship with George Wallace, but that's the first thing you said that actually indicates to me that LeMay was actually bad.
I'd only add that in That respect LeMay was going down a well established path and that he was likely well aware of the way that the Canadians had fought in the previous World War, when they were nearly always the first to leave the trenches in a major attack and were thus the Allies shock troops:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-forgotten-ferocity-of-canadas-soldiers-in-the-great-war
“…make the canals boil around bloated bodies of the people” is something else. Imagine if he had a Substack…
In 1968 George Wallace, the governor of Alabama best known for his declaration of "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," broke with his party and launched a third-party bid for US president. He chose Curtis LeMay as his vice presidential running mate.
The Wallace-LeMay ticket won several states in the Deep South, and came in close-second in a couple of others. Their aim — in which they almost succeeded — was to drain enough Electoral Votes from Nixon-Agnew and from Humphrey-Muskie to throw the election into the House of Representatives, where each states' delegation would cast a single vote for president and a separate single vote for vice president.
If the dead-eyed reptilian LeMay's conduct of the firebombing of Japan and his leadership of SAC frighten you... imagine the possible result of deal-making to dictate the outcome of that contingent election: Nixon as president, Wallace as vice president, and LeMay as secretary of defense.
The B-52 bombing campaigns against the North would almost certainly _not_ have been limited to mining Haiphong Harbor and dropping big loads of iron bombs. IRL Nixon expanded the war in Southeast Asia to include Cambodia & Laos without congressional authorization; imagine if he bent to LeMay and authorized using nukes sometime in 1970.
Reading the wiki page on his run, it’s amazing how much of the problems of modern politics has been present the whole time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_1968_presidential_campaign#Campaign_rhetoric
I wonder if LeMay and MacArthur knew each other. I think they would have gotten along great.
From what I have read Mac was certainly appreciative of what LeMay was doing with the bombing effort in the Japanese home islands: that effort Did afterall ensure that fewer arms were getting to the Japanese at the front that MacArther's men were fighting. But I think that he viewed the AF effort as a thing that was in support of the Real effort that would defeat the Japanese which, not surprisingly, MacArther considered to be the forces operating on the ground. When the Bomb was dropped though MacArther was appalled in a way that was similar to FDR's advisor Ademiral William Leahy, he thought that the weapon was a kind of antithetical thing to the profession of bearing arms, and that it's use would do not good for American prestige in the long run(I also suspect that Mac had hoped to lead the Allies in one last decisve battle against the Japanese, one in which he MacArther would acheive victory in full view of the world). So I would guess that at That point MacArther would have considered LeMay as more of a bureaucrat rather than a real soldier because of LeMay's reliance on technolgy rather than willingness to actually engage on the battlefield . If that's true than I would have loved to see any communication between the two when Mac was theatening to use nuclear weapons in Korea, weapons that LeMay's air force would likely be delivering,...
And Lemay thought that Thomas Power was far worse that he himself was. IIRC, the term that Lemay used about Power was "sadistic ".
Thanks for a new post to read in the morning
Well, in this he wasn't that much different than his British counterpart Harris: Harris too had a strange ruthless streak. I would add though that Harris probably came by his sense of callousness from all the years that he spent in the then colony of Rhodesia(he moved there when but 17). Harris loved the place and it would be hard to argue that some of that affection didn't come from the way that the country was ruled based largely on White privilage(flame suit on). The attitude that Harris had of throwing lives at a thing to keep up the pressure no matter what the loss rates were is a little Too much like LeMay's open contempt for Japanese casualties in whatever form they took: after all, what are thousands of lives if it means getting the job done?
The link to your book preorder is broken
Fixed, thanks!
Ha! Interesting.
Frightening!
Double frightening... the Forever Wars!