Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Sure. It's a matter of degree though. It's egregious in both cases, in Hitler's case because that's seemingly what he spent his entire time doing during the downfall of the Reich, and because scapegoating is so frowned on in military affairs. What would Winston Churchill have done if Britain had fallen to the Nazis? It's hard for me to imagine him doing anything other than taking full responsibility. Not because he was a perfect human being, but because he would have seen that as his last duty. And in Trump's case, the scapegoating is egregious because a lot of the time nothing is really that wrong, it's just the free press criticizing the President like normal and Trump just can't deal with it. So yeah, scapegoating is normal, but the similarity to me was how they both elevated it to farcical levels.
We do know what one former US President, Dwight D Eisenhower, would have done if the D-Day landings had failed. He prepared two communiques in advance. The first was the one that SHAEF actually issued to the BBC at 09.05 DBST 6 June 1944.
Quote:
Under the command of General Eisenhower, Allied naval forces supported by strong air forces began landing Allied armies this morning on the northern coast of France.
The second, which was happily never used, was in case of disaster.
Quote:
Our landings in the Cherbourg - Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.
So, not much like scapegoater-in-chief Adolf Hitler. And not much like Ike's successor Donald Trump either.