求一段话的翻译,自己读了N遍硬是没读懂，太悲壮了！！

77banana

Yet if in the end neither service was the obvious victor, the principle of civilian dominance over the military clearly was. If there had ever been any danger that the United States military establishment might exploit, to the detriment of civilian control, the goodwill it enjoyed as a result of its victories in World War II, that danger disappeared in the interservice animosities engendered by the battle over unification.是大全上的文章里的一段，有人能讲下大意么？万分感谢啦！！

sorrymrj

然而如果最后，没有服务是显而易见的胜者，那么胜者就是民用原则大于军事。如果曾经有任何危险，美国的军事机构将会利用其在二战胜利中产生的信誉，来剥削平民的利益的话，那么这样的危险将会因为在战斗中统一作战的兵种间的仇恨而消失。

sorrymrj

翻译的不是很好，请见谅啊。

yorksha

fyi

Yet if in the end neither service was the obvious victor, the principle of civilian dominance over the military clearly was. If there had ever been any danger that the United States military establishment might exploit, to the detriment of civilian control, the goodwill it enjoyed as a result of its victories in World War II, that danger disappeared in the interservice animosities engendered by the battle over unification.

如果最後Navy 和 Air Force兩軍事系統皆非勝利者,那麼贏家非文人控制體系莫屬
即便美國軍方的做法可能使文人控制(這個因二戰勝利而備受推崇的制度)瀕臨危機,這種危機最後也因兩軍事系統對於整合與否的對峙而消失殆盡了

alanyao

因为2个军种争老大，最后得利的是文官掌权制度。（该制度是2战胜利的原因之一）


没看上下文，可能有误

77banana

大家真热心，感动！好像是挺难的，把原文贴上，让大家看起来跟方便点
Passage 70 (7/22)
The National Security Act of 1947 created a national military establishment headed by a single Secretary of Defense. The legislation had been a year-and-a-half in the making—beginning when President Truman first recommended that the armed services be reorganized into a single department. During that period the President’s concept of a unified armed service was torn apart and put back together several times, the final measure to emerge from Congress being a compromise. Most of the opposition to the bill came from the Navy and its numerous civilian spokesmen, including Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal. In support of unification (and a separate air force that was part of the unification package) were the Army air forces, the Army, and, most importantly, the President of the United States.
Passage of the bill did not bring an end to the bitter interservice disputes. Rather than unify, the act served only to federate the military services. It neither halted the rapid demobilization of the armed forces that followed World War II nor brought to the new national military establishment the loyalties of officers steeped in the traditions of the separate services. At a time when the balance of power in Europe and Asia was rapidly shifting, the services lacked any precise statement of United States foreign policy from the National Security Council on which to base future programs. The services bickered unceasingly over their respective roles and missions, already complicated by the Soviet nuclear capability that for the first time made the United States subject to devastating attack. Not even the appointment of Forrestal as First Secretary of Defense allayed the suspicions of naval officers and their supporters that the role of the U.S. Navy was threatened with permanent eclipse. Before the war of words died down, Forrestal himself was driven to resignation and then suicide.
By 1948, the United States military establishment was forced to make do with a budget approximately 10 percent of what it had been at its wartime peak. Meanwhile, the cost of weapons procurement was rising geometrically as the nation came to put more and more reliance on the atomic bomb and its delivery systems. These two factors inevitably made adversaries of the Navy and the Air Force as the battle between advocates of the B-36 and the supercarrier so amply demonstrates. Given severe fiscal restraints on the one hand, and on the other the nation’s increasing reliance on strategic nuclear deterrence, the conflict between these two services over roles and missions was essentially a contest over slices of an ever-diminishing pie.
Yet if in the end neither service was the obvious victor, the principle of civilian dominance over the military clearly was. If there had ever been any danger that the United States military establishment might exploit, to the detriment of civilian control, the goodwill it enjoyed as a result of its victories in World War II, that danger disappeared in the interservice animosities engendered by the battle over unification.

aeoluseros

Yet if in the end neither service was the obvious victor, the principle of civilian dominance over the military clearly was. If there had ever been any danger that the United States military establishment might exploit, to the detriment of civilian control, the goodwill it enjoyed as a result of its victories in World War II, that danger disappeared in the interservice animosities engendered by the battle over unification.
然而，如果最后没有一个势力（结合上下文service貌似应该是部队、部门）是明显的胜利者的话，civilian统治军队的原则就成了胜利者。

对于会损害civilian统治的因素来说，即便存在过美国军事系统可能会挖掘它在二战的胜利来(证实）它是有好处（goodwill,跟商誉类似的东东）（这样Civician的统治权可能就被削弱了）的危险，这个危险也已经在service间的因争论unification而产生的敌对中消失了。

77banana

Yet if in the end neither service was the obvious victor, the principle of civilian dominance over the military clearly was. If there had ever been any danger that the United States military establishment might exploit, to the detriment of civilian control, the goodwill it enjoyed as a result of its victories in World War II, that danger disappeared in the interservice animosities engendered by the battle over unification.
然而，如果最后没有一个势力（结合上下文service貌似应该是部队、部门）是明显的胜利者的话，civilian统治军队的原则就成了胜利者。

对于会损害civilian统治的因素来说，即便存在过美国军事系统可能会挖掘它在二战的胜利来(证实）它是有好处（goodwill,跟商誉类似的东东）（这样Civician的统治权可能就被削弱了）的危险，这个危险也已经在service间的因争论unification而产生的敌对中消失了。

-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2010/10/22 13:55:22)

啊呀，版主大人也出现啦！激动啊，我懂了，谢谢拉~

77banana

谢谢啦~

Ykong

依旧不知道第一句句子成分是怎样的