Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts has an absolutely fascinating post:
I can’t find a video of it. Appearing in the final season (which some call MASH’s Repentance Tour), the episode I’ll be referring to has a two-fold story line. One, a light hearted story, is how a false rumor that Marilyn Monroe will visit the 4077th MASH gets out of hand.
The other storyline, much more serious, involves BJ Hunnicutt. His character was a replacement for the character Trapper John when actor Wayne Rogers left the show. Over the course of the series, BJ changed from a light hearted, witty, family friendly companion of Alan Alda’s Hawkeye Pierce, to a more dour, cynical and at times caustic character.
In this episode, he and a chopper pilot abscond with a helicopter to find the best fishing in the area. On the way, they see a hapless American soldier on the ground, being set upon by the enemy. They try to go down to rescue him, but the enemy is near. BJ insists they try again, so they fly low and throw him a rope. The soldier grabs it and begins to climb. Just then, gunfire rings out and hits the helicopter. The pilot yells to cut the rope, they’re hit, the engine is damaged, and the soldier is too heavy. Being a doctor back then and sworn to protect life, BJ objects, but has to cut it, watching in horror as the young solder plunges back down into the enemy surrounded countryside.
Through the rest of the episode, intermixed with the lighter Monroe storyline, BJ frantically calls and searches everywhere to find out what might have happened to the solider in question. He calls aid stations, evac hospitals, other MASH units. He even travels to one when he is told a patient there matches the description, only to be shattered when he finds out it isn’t him. To make matters worse, he finds out he has been nominated for a medal for what he is torn up about doing.
Toward the end of the episode, Hawkeye tries to console him. He tells BJ he did what he had to do. Had he not cut that rope, he might have gotten that medal posthumously. BJ fires back that thanks to his own selfish decision, someone is going to get a medal posthumously. Hawkeye then admits he would have cut the rope had he been in BJ’s situation. At that point BJ snaps He tells Hawkeye that he doesn’t have a damn clue what he would or wouldn’t do, and he hopes to God he never finds out. And then he says this:
“We sit around here in our Hawaiian shirts and red suspenders thumbing our noses at the Army, drinking home-brewed gin and flouting authority at every turn, and feeling oh-so-superior to those military fools who kill each other, and oh-so-self-righteous when we clean up after them. Well, good luck to you, pal. I hope you can keep it up. The minute I cut that rope, that made me a soldier.”
In that one speech, he defines the entire modern era and its approach to – everything. An era defined, let’s be honest, by spending most of our time sitting in the comfort our forebears built for us, criticizing, complaining, condemning, mocking, and spitting on anyone and everyone, anything and everything, and especially the heroes – especially old dead sinful heroes who built what we are letting be destroyed. A generation, I’m afraid, that would rather tear down the heroes than confront the villains of today.
This all came to my mind when I saw this some time ago:
Now, I’ll admit I’ve cooled to Karl Keating’s musings over the years. As a Protestant Clergy Convert (PCC), he loomed large in the writings I was pointed to, and I was often glad of that. But in recent years, I can’t put my finger on why, I find him less edifying than in the olden crazy days of our entrance into the Church.
Victor David Hanson is a historian I sometimes enjoy, though I admit he can go historian shock jock, especially on social media. Nonetheless he obviously has noticed something I’ve been observing for some time. It’s something my oldest noticed way back in his undergrad days. He noticed that many called young conservative today would embrace things and accept things, ideals and values and lifestyles that would make a Woodstock hippy blush. And that includes accepting many leftwing appraisals about the West and its unique evils in the world, including the evils of the good old USA.
What Hanson is doing is heading off at the pass the growing tendency of even conservatives to accept these premises. Including the conspiracy theory that the allies orchestrated the war – which is becoming more common to the Left of center. Remember, even Pope Francis alluded to the old ‘We could have bombed a few rail lines and ended the Holocaust, but of course we didn’t’ canard. Which is but a part of the whole ‘WW2 as Western Capitalist Conspiracy’ theory. You know, we could have stopped the war at any time but our lust for global conquest and big bucks from our military industrial establishment would have none of it. That’s what Hanson is aiming at. That we bombed civilians is old news to this up and coming generation. Of course we did. We orchestrated the whole war and supported the Holocaust. Why not bomb civilians for grins and giggles?
From that POV, there was nothing but evil in WW2 (I forget which news outlet got in trouble back in 2022 for posting that meme showing the D-Day landings photo and then saying ‘Celebrating an army of white supremacists wading ashore to fight and army of white supremacists!’). That is what more people are learning and saying, with even some conservatives apparently joining in (see David Brooks’ rise of the Conservative Nihilism). Yet despite Hanson’s desire to address this developing problem, what does Keating do? Sweeps in and says not so fast buster, it’s the bombings and nothing but the vile bombings. We must ever and always address the bombings. Be gone with your noble crusade gibberish.
But that’s us I’m afraid. Even the thought that we should see the noble crusade element of WW2 seemed to set Keating off. No way. No heroes to honor, no sacrifices to remember. We zero in on the bad, the failings, the scandal, the controversy, anything other than just say ‘we salute them.’ Or should I say, we sit around here in our Hawaiian shirts and red suspenders thumbing our noses at anyone in history, drinking home-brewed gin and flouting their legacy at every turn, and feeling oh-so-superior to those fools of the past, and oh-so-self-righteous when we perpetually turn from every noble cause to target their failure at being as awesome as we are on the Internet.
I’ve often said that if all we do is find ways to criticize or tear down our heroes, don’t be shocked when we end up with so few of them. Which might go a long way in explaining what we see today.
Hopefully some day, as large of a task as it would be, we’ll have enough people finally stand up and say what BJ said. Hopefully some day we will realize just how shallow and self-righteous and basically valueless we’ve become. When all we can do is compare ourselves favorably to anyone who has accomplished great things by insisting we could have done better, yet with so little evidence to show for our claims.
Go here to comment. Much of what is wrong about the modern world can be summed up as a flight from responsibility and a contempt for those who do take responsibility if they are not perfection incarnate, or as TS Eliot said: “This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper.”

100% correct –> “Or should I say, we sit around here in our Hawaiian shirts and red suspenders thumbing our noses at anyone in history, drinking home-brewed gin and flouting their legacy at every turn, and feeling oh-so-superior to those fools of the past, and oh-so-self-righteous when we perpetually turn from every noble cause to target their failure at being as awesome as we are on the Internet.”
If push came to shove, then the majority of us would cut the rope to which that soldier was clinging just as BJ Hunnicutt had. That includes the self-righteous Ed Feser on Twitter as well as former Pope Francis and current Pope Leo XIV. In the interest of full disclosure, sadly that has included me too. 😞
Not to nitpick on such a serious and solemn post but I think the headline should be “Armchair” Quarterback Generation.
Mr Griffey I think mischaracterizes Keating’s point and the defect in it. There’s no reason to believe that Keating has a clue what was or was not ‘militarily significant’ or what the bombings of those cities was ‘intended to do’ or what the alternative options were.
==
(IIRC, It was pointed out by Michael Voris about ten years ago that the IRS 990 forms revealed that KK was paid a salary 67% higher than that of the President of EWTN, even though the former had 20 employees and the latter 150. That’s a reason to be leery of KK).
Corrected. I had corrected that earlier, but I had too many versions of the post that I was working on and an earlier version was posted.
I think Hanson’s article was ill-served by the headline. This happens a lot.
He was discussing specific cases of revisionism from the left-wing perspective. He wasn’t saying that every act in WWII was noble. Keating responded to the idea that revisionism itself was wrong if it indicated that the Allies did immoral things, which I don’t think was Hanson’s point. Although I love the phrase “historian shock jock”, and I plan on reusing it a lot.
All of this said, I have a problem with the Hunnicutt example. Yes, it’s easier to critique from an armchair. But it doesn’t mean that we can’t do so. If I were an Allied commander I may have made different decisions than the keyboard-jockey version of me. Likewise I may have made different decisions if I were a German hired as a prison guard. I can’t claim I’d do better, but I have the right to critique decisions that were made by both.
Excessive critiques lead a person to presentism and tearing down statues. A refusal to critique lead a person to cultural relativism and tearing down statues.
Art Deco
Mr Griffey I think mischaracterizes Keating’s point and the defect in it. There’s no reason to believe that Keating has a clue what was or was not ‘militarily significant’ or what the bombings of those cities was ‘intended to do’ or what the alternative options were.
How do you know? In this modern age of the internet Keating could have researched without leaving his arm chair the files in Army History Dept, the Pentagon, those of the War Colleges and museums like those of the 8th Air Force in Savannah and 8th Air Force in England.
My father was stationed with the 91st Bombardment Group (Heavy) in England. He thought the bombardment of cities like Dresden was awful as it not necessary.
I was thinking about heroes as I was reading comments here. Are the heroes of WW II any less heroic because they also did some horrific things? Consider the numerous examples in the Bible of heroes like David who did some really horrible things. Be careful about wanting to be a hero because you may find yourself making the same mistakes or worse.
As for me, I think we should honor our heroes, learn from their mistakes, and pray that God gives us the grace and mercy to avoid having to be placed in the circumstances that those men and women found themselves in. Can anybody here swear they can do better? Yeah, I know: Dr. Ed Feser at Twitter can do better than any of us. General Armchair himself!
War is Hell on Earth. And once it starts, there are few or no limits till it is over. MASH always acted as if there was no real war going on. Hippies with medical degrees my father pondered. Cut the rope or not? It is a question we can all wrestle with.
Mr. Keating is 75 years old and has spent his life in Southern California, first in Los Angeles and then in San DIego. By his account, he practiced law from 1975 to 1987. He’s published a number of books, none of them on military history or military technology. Why would I fancy Karl Keating is speaking on his own authority?
Charity?
Every August, the subject of the atomic bombings comes up. There is a constant stream of criticism of the bombings. I’m tired of hearing the complaints and the Just War Theory applied by critics. The other day I overheard Taylor Marshall reciting Just War Theory as if he was teaching a class of college students. Marshall claims that JWT should be in the Constitution.
I know this. Trump has made it a centerpiece to not go to war. The unwashed multitudes who were not around in 1979 don’t know what they are talking about.
I saw that Keating post a while back. The claims he makes about the firebombings and atomic bombings are laughable. He corrected VDH? Okay. I have oceanfront property in Kansas for sale. Karl Keating doesn’t have the acumen to scratch Hanson’s backside!
Technical issue: I can’t like/dislike a comment on a thread I’ve commented on. I get “You cannot vote for your own comment”. I’m pretty sure that’s new.
There does seem to be a tendency, when arguing about the justifications of war, to act as though jus in bello outweighs jus ad bellum, and can even revoke it.
With regards to WW II, though, I think there is a need for Catholics, in particular, to examine it through the lens of Fatima. Two things immediately come to mind that make for very uncomfortable ponderings:
-The prophecy that WW II, if it happened, would be a punishment from God for mankind’s continuing refusal to repent.
-St. Jacinta’s view that almost everyone killed in that war would go to hell.
-St. Jacinta’s view that almost everyone killed in that war would go to hell.
I trust she was completely wrong about that. Few wars were more just than that from the Allied side.
Good if inconclusive subject and discussion. Brings up the question of whether nations go to war with armies or do armies go to war with nations. When the Church held some sway over rulers, there was the truce of God, protection of civilians at least in theory and various rules to lessen the worst effects of conflict. In the end of the discussion, it is difficult to improve on General Sherman’s observation, especially the concluding comment.
I find it extremely concerning that the liberal international order seems to believe in the inviolability of the international law. International law is nothing but campaign promises.
When a “serious” war breaks out, international law will be violated by every participating force to the extent that that force believes it can get away with it because 21st Century morality is primarily underpinned by two things: fundamentalist Islam or practical materialism. Christian ethics ranks a weak third, diluted and made impotent by the limp theology of “do as you like, all are saved.”
So, the 21st Century morality that underpins “international law” is actually the world (materialism), the flesh (eviscerated Christianity), and the Devil (Islam).
International law will be swept away rapidly in the next existential conflict. Any of us adhering to the true moral law will be like Gandalf at the Battle of the Five Armies – sneered at as “old fool!” and told to get out of the way.
Of course, we should be used to that already.
St. Jacinta’s view that almost everyone killed in that war would go to hell.
==
Concentration camp inmates, POW camp inmates, Dutch and French civilians succumbing to malnutrition, residents of Britain killed during the blitz….
The problem with revisionist histories is when they scramble up the facts and slice and dice the history. D.M. Giangreco’s book “Truman and the Bomb: The Untold Story.” covers revisionist histories. Amazon has a sample from the beginning of the book. The sample has a lot of interesting information. The sample had a lot of material that deals with the revisionist histories that developed after the war. The book has an appendix that deals with the revisionist histories “The Historiography of Hiroshima: The Rise and Fall of Revisionism.” He also has a book out called “Hell to Pay” covering the planned invasion of Japan. A great, if long, video, based on the “Hell to Pay” subject, is on the Military History Visualized YouTube Channel, “D.M. Giangreco on the Invasion of Japan, Lend Lease & much more” It has timestamps for those who want to jump around between topics.
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4uDfg38gyk
*
He deals with alternative histories, their weaknesses and shortcomings.
*
Over fifty percent of the Okinawan military were Okinawan conscripts. There was a cottage industry of military production in people’s homes in Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets. Internal Japanese estimates were for 20 million Japanese casualties. The Japanese military wanted a land invasion bloodbath to bleed the Allies to get more favorable terms. The Japanese people were pretty much expendable pawns.
*
At the end of WWII Hitler wanted a fight to the death of the German people. He wanted Gotterdammerung. He ordered the destruction of Germany’s productive infrastructure. The Nero decrees. If people want to see how conventional land invasions go they should study the Soviet battle for Berlin. Hitler was just as fanatical as the Japanese leadership. He ordered a fight to the death. Old men and Hitler Youth made up part of the Volkssturm, a militia. The Germans had a recoilless anti-tank weapon called the Panzerfaust. There are pictures of civilians being trained in its use. I’ve seen multiple sources where it was said that there were roving bands of extremists who could execute on the spot those Germans suspected of desertion. The siege was brutal and left the city a wreck. The casualty count was up there with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Hitler and Hirohito started WWII and continued the war until they were stopped. The war did not happen by itself.