Women In War
October 29, 2006 by Ralph Brandt
Published in Women
Women have fought in every war.
Personally I wish nobody ever had to go to war. But reality is, it happens. And American women have been on the field of battle since the early days of this country. Be they the frontier woman fighting off savages (no PC here, they were savages), the women in the revolution who helped tend wounded, the women who did the same in the War against Southern Rebellion, the women who went to France in 1917, and so on….
In World War II they were allowed to take on other roles, some ferrying brand new planes with no guns (because women couldn’t fly an armed plane) to England. More than a score of these women died, some in the cold of the North Atlantic when a new engine with a problem failed, some to Nazi guns when they got to England, short on fuel and no place to go but try to land through an attack. They served as nurses in the jungles of the South Pacific and some endured the Bataan death march – and many died.
They served in many roles in Korea – Mash’s depiction of that is good but it is a picnic compared to reality. The Communists targeted Mash units at times with mortars and heavy artillery. Some time ask one of the surviving nurses what happened when one of them hit near a person. Many lost arms, legs, lives. Mortar rounds are nasty, you only know where they are going to hit AFTER the hit. And the Chinese Communist plumbers were very good. Unfortunately for the American plumbers (the name for the tube men) needed three shots to find them and four rounds were launched before they were stopped.
Then there was Viet Nam… More of the same.
And finally there was Sadaam. And in the rear echelon were many women. Let’s face it, today there is no rear echelon. A group from Western PA died in Gulf War 1 when a Scud hit their barracks . For those of you who don’t know and have doubts what Sadaam had, SCUD = WMD.
Let me say this in closing… American women have not had the opportunities to be in some of the battles men have served in but where they have served we have no reason to believe they would not carry on in the finest tradition of any male American unit. Till we have such evidence we need to treat them with the respect due the uniform they wear.
Liked it
November 1st, 2006 at 11:05 pm
That is true and little credit has been properly given to the role of women in history; silent victims, unheard heroes. Recently though history is finally giving back to Caesar(ea) what belongs to her: more and more women are honored for their participation in conflicts, wars, on the battlefield, etc…in science, medicine, social activities, the development of knowledge and human society in general. This has become a reality in all spectrums of reality no matter the colors of politics, the social orientations and choices, conservatists as well as liberals, left-wing or right-wing.. Looks like the only one who have not caught with the change of the times are certain categories of midleasterners who keep denying women their fundamental rights.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Were women not allowed to fly armed planes because it was believed that women didn’t have the aggrassion necessary to kill people, or because the weapons required physical strength beyond the capabilities of a woman?
Don’t worry – I’m no feminist, just curious.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:46 am
“The War Against Southern Rebellion”….you mean the Civil War? Some would argue that it was “The War of Northern Aggression”
I am not here to bash your article, the article was great I just wanted to make that point, before people jump all over me, no I’m not racist
to all,take care
July 10th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Catherine, I have heard both arguments given, that women couldn’t do it. Sure there are issues there, for example few women could have handled the 50 calibers on the waist of the B-17 – the largest and strongest men were selected for that. I am 5-7 170 pounds and I probably couldn’t have handled that gun position. But on the other hand, the ball (underneath) gun and the tail gun were powered and the space inside was tight. The smallest men were selected for these positions for this reason. I am definitely too big for the ball and very tight in the tail. A 5-0 woman at 130 pounds would have been perfect in both positions and capable of doing the job.
Women in ground units have a disadvantage of the weight of the equipment. But I know women in the private sector who do jobs that require lifting.
The reason for saying ‘no guns’ was that women were not allowed by American law to do combat.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:07 am
John, you can call it what you will but it could not be a war of aggression when its soldiers were just taking back their land from a rebel army.
The rebel clan was a bastard, a child with no legitimacy, it masqueraded as a country and a government. It illegitimately took the land that was not its and killed American citizens to hold it.
In any other country Bobbie Lee and Jeffie Davis would have been executed along with probably 300 others AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN for the carnage their actions caused.
The succession was never legal, anyone who looked at it with objectivity agrees that is the case. Only the fire brand rebels then and today believe it and they do becaues they want to.
It is like the Republic of Texas group that says they have that right, under the treaty. Unfortunately the treaty they cite is a draft, the actual treaty signed a year later DOES NOT include that provision. Guess what? The draft doesn’t mean diddly squat.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:41 am
Ralph, I understand your perspective, and it is valid, I was just saying there are those who disagree and have a vastly different view, albeit flawed, there are those even today who see the North or the “Union” purely as agressors, fascists trying to force their ways on unwilling citizens who, by the very nature of democracy have the right to make it known that they disagree, granted it should not have gone so far as war, but the fact is no one single group or individual is solely to blame, It takes more than one to have a war after all. I personally believe they could have come to an agreeable compromise on both sides without ANY bloodshed, but we can’t change the past can we?
July 11th, 2008 at 4:49 am
A lot of wars can be avoided with diplomacy,compromise and common sense, war is pointless, sheds innocent blood and really when it comes down to it, in war nobody really wins because there’s always loss on either side, If people would treat each other as human beings ought to, with decency and respect instead of animosity, there’d be a lot less tragedies in the world
July 12th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Rob… True but unfortunately that is the way it is. Burying your head it the sand only makes it cost more lives when it happens.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Lincoln tried…. Hard… Jeffie Davis, Bobbie Lee and the firebrands of the south wouldn’t see it… Bobbie Lee said it was only because of his native land he chose the south but if he hadn’t taken the stand the war would have been over much sooner with far less blood.
He was a weak man who went with the flow. But then so was Chamberlin.