Sometimes the fact-checkers, those paragons of virtue and truth, need some of their own fact-checking. Case in point: the Washington Post attempted to fact-check Fred Thompson's historical reference that Americans "have shed more blood for other people's liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world," and they completely missed:
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.
For beginners, Thompson said that we shed blood for "other people's liberty," not our own. This excludes the Soviet Union, who fought to defend its territory, and not to mention the Soviets had an alliance with the Nazis right up until June 1941. Their fighting the Nazis had nothing to do with the love of liberty. Sure, the Soviets helped secure victory on the Western Front, but the last thing on Stalin's mind was anyone's liberty. Just ask Eastern Europe.
The Post also uses the British as a counterclaim, but you'd have to believe Britain defended North Africa to bring liberty there. Apparently the Post can't distinguish between fighting for empire and fighting for liberty. Had Britain lost North Africa, they would've lost an important trade route to their southern empire. As for Poland, nothing was done until Britain and France were attacked nine months later. This is in no way to denigrate the service that Britain performed, but they fought for their own survival and for their empire, not for the liberation of people. The WaPo's argument about Macedonians and Napoleon follow the same fallacy; they were fighting for empire, not liberty.
Can the Post indicate where the United States demanded territory in Europe or Africa after World War II? Throughout the twentieth century, America mobilized its military to free captive peoples, including a sixty-year long effort to tackle communism and liberate Eastern Europe from the grasp of liberty-loving Soviet domination.
The lost distinction between liberty and empire says a lot about what appears in the pages of the WaPo. The bloody bean counting the WaPo conducted in no way reflects Thompson's remarks. The United States has led the world, albeit sometimes reluctantly, in offering its youth for the liberation of others. We've entered with the intention of freeing nations, leaving as soon as we can, and leaving democracies in our wake. We did so in Europe twice, in Asia several times since 1941, and now in the Middle East. The world is a better place because of our purposeful actions and the sacrifice of our soldiers to that end.
H/T to Captain's Quarters.
UPDATE: Props for the WaPo where due.
Recent Comments