TO start, a few metaphors that probably will piss off the zero readers I have:
1. When one procrastinates, such as I do often, and put off whatever goal or task or *insert applicable action* for so long, when one is then forced to deal with whatever it was they were putting off until later, the result is mostly a lot of pain, misery and gnashing of teeth (although the levels of pain do probably run from mild to agonizing waterboarding-esque torture) to finish whatever you were putting off.
2. Would one take no precautions or actions to ensure that their child has a safe or relatively safe environment to grow up: clean house, clothes, food, water, heat, bed etc, and even moreso would try to provide more than what one had as a child growing up? That they would take interest in changes in the neighborhood, changes in the school curriculum, etc etc? That they would not intentionally leave a situation that could possibly endanger their progeny? Of course, I do omit from this general statement those who don't give a shit about their children, figuring in light of mammalian instinct it is more natural for humans to have some semblance of concern for their young.
SO, in both situations, why is it in light of much of the data available that most Americans fervently fight any movement that could mitigate the anthropocentric effect on the planet's climate. There is plenty of data out there that indicates that anthropocentric actions are effecting the planet's climate.
BEFORE I go further, a quick caveat: irregardless of the final outcome of the change in global climate or the fate of homo sapiens sapiens, the planet will recover in the long run as it has before in light of climate change or mass extinction events.
I said it: mass extinction events. That's one possibility on the extreme end of the global climate change. Below that would be mass starvation, drought, ice ages, bloody wars for resources and probably a complete breakdown of the modern civilization that we currently enjoy.
BUT back to the crude metaphors: in each, it does outline what we are facing in light of climate change and actions that we need and should take in order to mitigate the damage that we have already created. The first one points out that we've put off any action to seriously deal with anthropocentric effects on climate change that it will cost us...and although we are now looking to deal with it in the midst of an economic crisis, it isn't a minute too soon, although possibly a few too late. It will cost us indeed for our flippant attitude towards our actions toward the planet. But on the other hand, although it appears (currently reading the 2009 Clean Energy and Security Act) that it will bear a heavy cost in taxes and may cause further job loss; what about the possible innovations and changes in society that could arise from this--if it has teeth.
CLEAN energy--requires development, required innovation from people, required individuals to build the infrastructure to support its use, requires individuals to maintain and conduct maintenance on this infrastructure; those to physically maintain the mechanisms and then those to provide tech assist, parts replacement, training for new workers in the industry, etc. If done correctly, there is potential that not only will the pursuit of renewable energy sources to power our civilization will have a positive and lasting effect on the environment, it also carries within it the possibilities of a constant renewing source of jobs and industry.
IF the United States gets serious, for example, on mass train transit (which exists elsewhere across the world) to eliminate much of the carbon footprint caused by gas guzzuling vehicles, the act of creating this infrastructure should create jobs on the whole; building the rail system, developing "clean" trains, developing the power system (imagine it would be electric)-the electrical grids required to power these trains, possibly innovation on cutting down the loss of power via cables in order to economize the use of electrical power, manning the trains, building the stations, building the transportation hubs that would support commuters and so forth, manning all of the support and perhiperal components of a rail system. Plenty of possiblities for not only innovation but growth.
ALONG with this possiblitiy of growth and innovation--if Americans are up to the task, there is the possiblities of the impact upon foreign policiy: while there are hints of outsourcing overseas, it is essential for the United States to take the lead, because as the US goes in a progressive move, the world's democracies and our allies tend to follow along. Americans worry about jobs being lost overseas: but what is forgotten in this day and age is that it is a global economy, where we are very much intertwined with each other. Although there is a possiblitiy of more heavy industry heading overseas, instead of bemoaning that fact, American innovators need to see how they can improve and cut costs in heavy industry in the United States instead of sitting on their ass spouting racist and xenophobic epithets in the face of reality.
THE steady weaning away from fossil fuels, including becoming energy independent will go a long way in stablizing US foreign policy, where there is no influence to act in order to protect a source of fossil fuels to feed our current civilization. President Obama made several strong statments about the importance of the United States to become energy independent in the world; it is the lack of this independence that may have in part influence some of the poor judgements in US policy overseas. Not a total influence but part of a whole series of issues that effected judgement in the highest levels of government.
IT'S easy to simply look at the doom and gloom at the costs of forcing a change to move towards developing and using renewable energy sources, but we have to break free of the stifled dogma of the fossil fuel civilization which humans have grown dependent upon for over two centuries.
AMERICANS have faced several challenges before and tend to do a pretty good job of tackling challenges: while I personally despise constant references towards WW II, the US did not have a huge military industrial complex to support a mass mobilization--there were policies set forth in the late 1930s to move in that direction, but when the US went to war, it was a total mobilization of the US population to the war effort, in which we outstripped all of the Axis and most of the Allied powers combined in our output. Right now the US does not have much of an infrastructure to support clean energy, renewable energy, but that does not mean we are not capable of addressing this self imposed challenge and tackling it with the amorphous American-Can-Do-Spirit. It is not impossible.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Unbelievable
I had the misfortune to watch the Shawn Hannity show today and his yammering about how President Obama should have been more "forceful" prior to his press conference today. Apparently President Obama did not take the correct course to influence the Iranian government to not brutalize their own civilians in light of the uproar in Iran over the tainted election in that nation.
Maybe I was in la-la land, but the President, in my own humble opinion, tended to stick to a pragmatic approach to the events unfolding in Iran:
This was an article on Reuters on 06/21/2009 where Obama expressed concern about the violence in Iran.
And again on 06/23/2009, Reuters ran a short on Obama's previous statement made on 06/20/2009.
Here is the full text of his statements on the 23rd.
I'm not sure what the right expects the United States, let alone the world to do in the face of the unrest in Iran. Right now, it is an Iranian affair...while it is terrible that the Iranian state is visiting brutality upon its citizens, but what do these pundits expect the United States to do?
Economic sanctions?
War?
What?
War is not even an option. The United States is still engaged in Iraq and is now funneling more troops into Afghanistan to deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. On what legal grounds do we have to commence hostilities with Iran, a nation that has not directly attacked the United States? I'm not so sure I would buy into pre-emptive war or to "save the protesters."
The same goes with economic sanctions; what do they actually do that would help the protesters? What would stop the Iranian state from using the infallible post hoc ergo proctor hoc that since the United States is coming to the direct rescue of the opposition to Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah, therefore the opposition to the results of the "legitimate" election are actually proxies of the United States and supported by the CIA etc.
If one or the other or even both options were carried out by the United States what then would keep the Iranian state overtly declaring martial law to keep the state intact and to brutally crack down on all those involved in the unrest in Iran? When I say brutal crackdown, I refer to sending in the army with orders to shoot to kill, mass arrests, mass executions--something along the lines of the brutality the Red Army displayed in the crackdown Hungary, circa 1956.
Up to this point, the Iranian government has shown that it is willing to send police and gangs of young men to beat, shoot, stab, throw off bridges those individuals protesting against the results of this election (including anyone who was unfortunately in the same area). Its bad. It's really bad over there now. But...what does the United States do? Its a real problem.
For all the hub-bub made about what Regan would do, I would think first that those on the right should not forget that Regan's administration illegally sold arms to Iran to secure the freedom of the US hostages and that there were several factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet State, not just the immediate ramp up of the US military in the Cold War and Regan telling Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."
Lets not forget either that after the first few days of the unrest in Iran, the Iranian government barred all foreign journalists from observing these protests and now many were forced out of Iran. It is not as if there are outsiders observing the unfolding events--we have the views of the Iranian government and those of the opposition to Ahmadinejad's government, each with their own motives; one wishing to maintain their power and the other of those who feel disenfranchised and demand a fair election.
Without hesitation, it is wrong to try to violently suppress those engaging in a peaceful protest against what appears to be a stolen election. But I think it is foolhardy to state that the United States has shown weakness in not tossing inflammatory rhetoric out there for Admadinejad and his government to use to legitimize in their eyes crushing a foreign backed uprising.
In my opinion (and for what it is probably worth...nothing), it appears that the Obama Administration pragmatically looked at the events unfolding and wanted to make sure that 1) that it was certain to the world and Iran that the United States was not meddling and has no intention to meddle in Iran's internal affairs and 2) to find out exactly what was going on in country before coming out and making any statements and 3) when making these statements that the avoided any inflammatory statements or statements that could be perceived as inflammatory by Tehran that could be used against the protesters.
Already based on the actions taken by the Iranian government in the face of the events that unfolded after the election, they are not in a true position of power, based on that this unrest reaches across several demographic areas and at this point, where they cannot claim that this is a foreign venture meddling in Iranian domestic politics, they may shy away from a full on Tienanmen Square style crackdown for fear of unloosing something that scares them to their core: a revolution to remove them from their positions of power. It just appears that they are trying to wear down the movement, using coercion, fear, violence...but not to the point of rolling out the tanks and mowing down the barricades along with the protesters.
Hopefully, we won't get to that point...but as we've noticed, the Iranian government has had little problem with beating, killing and oppressing these people.
All said....even with the pragmatic thinking in this situation, what is to be done? What do we do when the Iranians start rolling out the tanks and army to start gunning down people? All questions outside of the uproar from the right over President Obama's response to the crackdown on the protesters in Iran, but what will the world do in that situation?
I only ask the questions because I don't know the answers and I wouldn't venture into what I would do in that situation because I don't have the intelligence briefings on the situation in Iran to even come up with a partly competent response.
Maybe I was in la-la land, but the President, in my own humble opinion, tended to stick to a pragmatic approach to the events unfolding in Iran:
This was an article on Reuters on 06/21/2009 where Obama expressed concern about the violence in Iran.
And again on 06/23/2009, Reuters ran a short on Obama's previous statement made on 06/20/2009.
Here is the full text of his statements on the 23rd.
I'm not sure what the right expects the United States, let alone the world to do in the face of the unrest in Iran. Right now, it is an Iranian affair...while it is terrible that the Iranian state is visiting brutality upon its citizens, but what do these pundits expect the United States to do?
Economic sanctions?
War?
What?
War is not even an option. The United States is still engaged in Iraq and is now funneling more troops into Afghanistan to deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. On what legal grounds do we have to commence hostilities with Iran, a nation that has not directly attacked the United States? I'm not so sure I would buy into pre-emptive war or to "save the protesters."
The same goes with economic sanctions; what do they actually do that would help the protesters? What would stop the Iranian state from using the infallible post hoc ergo proctor hoc that since the United States is coming to the direct rescue of the opposition to Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah, therefore the opposition to the results of the "legitimate" election are actually proxies of the United States and supported by the CIA etc.
If one or the other or even both options were carried out by the United States what then would keep the Iranian state overtly declaring martial law to keep the state intact and to brutally crack down on all those involved in the unrest in Iran? When I say brutal crackdown, I refer to sending in the army with orders to shoot to kill, mass arrests, mass executions--something along the lines of the brutality the Red Army displayed in the crackdown Hungary, circa 1956.
Up to this point, the Iranian government has shown that it is willing to send police and gangs of young men to beat, shoot, stab, throw off bridges those individuals protesting against the results of this election (including anyone who was unfortunately in the same area). Its bad. It's really bad over there now. But...what does the United States do? Its a real problem.
For all the hub-bub made about what Regan would do, I would think first that those on the right should not forget that Regan's administration illegally sold arms to Iran to secure the freedom of the US hostages and that there were several factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet State, not just the immediate ramp up of the US military in the Cold War and Regan telling Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."
Lets not forget either that after the first few days of the unrest in Iran, the Iranian government barred all foreign journalists from observing these protests and now many were forced out of Iran. It is not as if there are outsiders observing the unfolding events--we have the views of the Iranian government and those of the opposition to Ahmadinejad's government, each with their own motives; one wishing to maintain their power and the other of those who feel disenfranchised and demand a fair election.
Without hesitation, it is wrong to try to violently suppress those engaging in a peaceful protest against what appears to be a stolen election. But I think it is foolhardy to state that the United States has shown weakness in not tossing inflammatory rhetoric out there for Admadinejad and his government to use to legitimize in their eyes crushing a foreign backed uprising.
In my opinion (and for what it is probably worth...nothing), it appears that the Obama Administration pragmatically looked at the events unfolding and wanted to make sure that 1) that it was certain to the world and Iran that the United States was not meddling and has no intention to meddle in Iran's internal affairs and 2) to find out exactly what was going on in country before coming out and making any statements and 3) when making these statements that the avoided any inflammatory statements or statements that could be perceived as inflammatory by Tehran that could be used against the protesters.
Already based on the actions taken by the Iranian government in the face of the events that unfolded after the election, they are not in a true position of power, based on that this unrest reaches across several demographic areas and at this point, where they cannot claim that this is a foreign venture meddling in Iranian domestic politics, they may shy away from a full on Tienanmen Square style crackdown for fear of unloosing something that scares them to their core: a revolution to remove them from their positions of power. It just appears that they are trying to wear down the movement, using coercion, fear, violence...but not to the point of rolling out the tanks and mowing down the barricades along with the protesters.
Hopefully, we won't get to that point...but as we've noticed, the Iranian government has had little problem with beating, killing and oppressing these people.
All said....even with the pragmatic thinking in this situation, what is to be done? What do we do when the Iranians start rolling out the tanks and army to start gunning down people? All questions outside of the uproar from the right over President Obama's response to the crackdown on the protesters in Iran, but what will the world do in that situation?
I only ask the questions because I don't know the answers and I wouldn't venture into what I would do in that situation because I don't have the intelligence briefings on the situation in Iran to even come up with a partly competent response.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Uncertainty of nothing
It is a bit terrifying realizing that I will in less than 100 days go from living in Japan-- which in the words of Garth Algar: Its like a new pair of underwear--at first its a bit constrictive but soon it becomes a part of you.--to returning to the area of the US that I grew up for most of my sophomoric youth.
The sophomoric part being complete is still under review.
Northwest Indiana. Da Region. Da Chicagoland area. NWI.
Or as I like to put it....the place I attempted to maintain a restraining distance of 1000 miles since leaving the Midwest.
Actually, its closer to 90 than 100.
Terrifying.
I'm not sure how I will react when confronted by people from high school that I've long since lost track of--or forgot names--but they don't forget the things I said or did that I've long since forgotten. Hell, I can't even remember what I did three years ago today. A good guess is probably dealing with sleep deprivation or bobbing on the ocean somewhere.
The absolute best part will be that...I think...there will be a 10 year get-t0-gether for my high school class around the time I physically return to NWI.
Well, I could always show up as a Cowboy-Millionaire-Astronaut. Just make sure that I don't mention anything that could give me away.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
It's just a Goddamn Game.
I love how old timers and hysterical baseball writers are quick to demonize players who test positive for a banned substance that is not steroids but is known to be used by juicers after finishing up a steroid cycle to boost their testosterone that their body had stopped pumping out as the steroids provided all the testosterone the body needed.
But they guy didn't test positive for steroids. Maybe he's guilty. Maybe he's not. Unless someone tests positive for steroids (as some players have), I don't think I will go off an call a guy a cheat.
It's fishy, its sketchy, it causes one to raise eyebrows surreptitiously, but its not rock hard evidence that Manny was having a party with Jose Conseco poking each other in the ass with steroid filled syringes.
But hey, the current culture in baseball has not only created a situation where players feel compelled to find ways to 1) stay atop the pile, 2) get into the game, 3) have the chance to get that 10 year $200M USD contract or 4) legitimize said contract to management and the fans, but has allowed it to pervade and continue to perpetuate in professional baseball's culture.
The Mitchell report stated that there was general knowledge of PED usage by other players, management, trainers etc. and lets be honest, the trainers should notice these things, the managers should notice (damn, he sure got bigger this year), and the other players would definitely notice these things, yet since there was no legislation in baseball (and baseball would not even attempt to come up with regulation to deal with PEDs, the Players Union blocked all attempts and it took the threat of the US Government to force baseball to adopt some sort of regulation), why should they be the rat because it could be them the next time around needing that extra bit to stay on with the club or at this level.
But of course, the hand wringing at the supposed shaming of the integrity of this beloved game is probably the most laughable of laughable things on earth. We are talking about a game that for several decades would not allow African Americans the opportunity to play at the highest level of baseball although there were players comparable or even superior to those at the mainstream professional level.
Baseball writers love to gush about the greats...Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, Ty Co...well not so much Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio, etc etc, but if some of the greats of the Negro Leagues were able to join baseball from the get-go, maybe Babe Ruth would be considered a great player but not as good as say Josh Gibson if he were allowed to play at the MLB level. Hell, Babe Ruth wasn't as good as a player as Josh Gibson...so take that ESPN!
But sadly, since baseball was run by a bunch of racists in the early 20th century we'll never know because those players never had the opportunity to play against the supposed "elite players."
MLB has a glimmering and shining history that we should all emulate? Bullshit. Pure Bullshit. Just as this inane idea that MLB has an integrity that needs to be maintained is pure bullshit. There has always been cheating in baseball, pro baseball in this nation has a less than savory history if one really pulls the string and instead of demonizing players, MLB and all associated with its operations needs to:
1) Ensure that there are rigorous standards in place to preclude the use of PEDs in professional baseball.
2) Educate players at ALL levels about the dangers of using PEDs to curb their use. And Jesus will help you win isn't education either.
3) Look into eliminating or curbing back those issues that may have compelled players to use PEDs.
4) Work on rehabilitating and training current players who are known or past PED users to help them out to keep them from relapsing into this habit.
5) Hold managers, trainers and team management accountable for their players. Its easy to suspend a guy for 50 games and take his salary, but how about fining the team, the manager, the trainer for letting this happen. That might make teams more interested in ensuring their players are clean...not only for this game's integrity but for the health of their investment.
And old timers should simply shut up because I highly doubt that they would be so angelic in the same situation.
Now to bring down the BCS! Go President Obama go!
But they guy didn't test positive for steroids. Maybe he's guilty. Maybe he's not. Unless someone tests positive for steroids (as some players have), I don't think I will go off an call a guy a cheat.
It's fishy, its sketchy, it causes one to raise eyebrows surreptitiously, but its not rock hard evidence that Manny was having a party with Jose Conseco poking each other in the ass with steroid filled syringes.
But hey, the current culture in baseball has not only created a situation where players feel compelled to find ways to 1) stay atop the pile, 2) get into the game, 3) have the chance to get that 10 year $200M USD contract or 4) legitimize said contract to management and the fans, but has allowed it to pervade and continue to perpetuate in professional baseball's culture.
The Mitchell report stated that there was general knowledge of PED usage by other players, management, trainers etc. and lets be honest, the trainers should notice these things, the managers should notice (damn, he sure got bigger this year), and the other players would definitely notice these things, yet since there was no legislation in baseball (and baseball would not even attempt to come up with regulation to deal with PEDs, the Players Union blocked all attempts and it took the threat of the US Government to force baseball to adopt some sort of regulation), why should they be the rat because it could be them the next time around needing that extra bit to stay on with the club or at this level.
But of course, the hand wringing at the supposed shaming of the integrity of this beloved game is probably the most laughable of laughable things on earth. We are talking about a game that for several decades would not allow African Americans the opportunity to play at the highest level of baseball although there were players comparable or even superior to those at the mainstream professional level.
Baseball writers love to gush about the greats...Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, Ty Co...well not so much Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio, etc etc, but if some of the greats of the Negro Leagues were able to join baseball from the get-go, maybe Babe Ruth would be considered a great player but not as good as say Josh Gibson if he were allowed to play at the MLB level. Hell, Babe Ruth wasn't as good as a player as Josh Gibson...so take that ESPN!
But sadly, since baseball was run by a bunch of racists in the early 20th century we'll never know because those players never had the opportunity to play against the supposed "elite players."
MLB has a glimmering and shining history that we should all emulate? Bullshit. Pure Bullshit. Just as this inane idea that MLB has an integrity that needs to be maintained is pure bullshit. There has always been cheating in baseball, pro baseball in this nation has a less than savory history if one really pulls the string and instead of demonizing players, MLB and all associated with its operations needs to:
1) Ensure that there are rigorous standards in place to preclude the use of PEDs in professional baseball.
2) Educate players at ALL levels about the dangers of using PEDs to curb their use. And Jesus will help you win isn't education either.
3) Look into eliminating or curbing back those issues that may have compelled players to use PEDs.
4) Work on rehabilitating and training current players who are known or past PED users to help them out to keep them from relapsing into this habit.
5) Hold managers, trainers and team management accountable for their players. Its easy to suspend a guy for 50 games and take his salary, but how about fining the team, the manager, the trainer for letting this happen. That might make teams more interested in ensuring their players are clean...not only for this game's integrity but for the health of their investment.
And old timers should simply shut up because I highly doubt that they would be so angelic in the same situation.
Now to bring down the BCS! Go President Obama go!
Friday, May 8, 2009
A silly day dream
A silly day dream that involves me running/owning a Tex-Mex/Hawai'ian bar-restaurant in Shonan, complete with a little surf shop for the pure essentials people need on a surf trip: wax, fins, fittings for fins, misc tools, rash guards, wax combs, surf leashes, locks, waterproof cases, sun block, nu-wax strips...and of course warm showers and board storage.
In the back will be where I shape my own boards--or have guys shape boards for other people.
At night we would have local acts--reggae, local type music, bebop jazz groups etc.
Not sure about the name of the place...that'll come later
In the back will be where I shape my own boards--or have guys shape boards for other people.
At night we would have local acts--reggae, local type music, bebop jazz groups etc.
Not sure about the name of the place...that'll come later
Early look at "The Third Reich at War."
Needless to say, for anyone who has only the basic American high school level understanding of the Second World War in Europe, they are probably unaware many aspects about the war.
But I have to caveat this by stating that the Second World War was not a subject I exclusively studied, I am pretty confident that I am not clueless about this subject.
American high school version of WWII:
1933 Hitler becomes dictator of Germany and immediately rebuilds the German military. The wimpy British and French acquiesce to the German's demands in Austria and later in Czechoslovakia. The Germans then blitz the Poles and subsequently defeat their inferior army; in fact the Poles were so backwards that they sent cavalrymen on horses against German Panzers. Then the Germans invade and beat the French because they are fans of surrendering. Then they invade Russia, get caught in a bad winter; which doesn't help because they declared war on the United States. The US beats up the Germans pretty bad in North Africa, then stages the worlds largest amphibious operation at Normandy and start to liberate France. Then the US liberates Paris. Then the Battle of the Bulge. Then its a race to the heart of Germany for the US and the USSR who have too many people for the Germans to fight. The Russians take Berlin in 1945, Hitler commits suicide and end of the war.
That was actually a bit difficult for me to write seeing that I had to eliminate most of what I've read about the European theatre of the war in order to give the truncated version of what covered about 20 - 30 pages in a US textbook. Needless to say, I forgot to mention that it was the US that bailed everyone out. I think I managed to get the contempt for the French in there...the same pointless contempt that Americans today have towards the French.
As for the US taking the brunt of the war, in reality, it was probably the people of the Ukraine and Russia that took the biggest losses in the war compared to other European nation. Soviet records tended to lump all USSR casualties together, following old Russian doctrine of including the states of Byelorussia and the Ukraine into the overall Russian state. Norman Davies covers this near the end of his work: No Simple Victory.
I do highly recommend that book for those who have only the rudimentary background about this epoch in history.
Still, I am a bit saddened by the tilted version of the war, as seen through the kaleidoscope of the American experience: the roles of the British (who bore the brunt of the German Luftwaffe from 1940-1941), the French (it was not cowardice on the part of the French fighting man that brought about their surrender--in fact the French decided to make Paris an Open City to keep it from being wiped out by the Germans. As for the French not predicting the Germans coming through the thickly wooded Ardennes...it was a huge gamble on the part of the Wehrmacht to commit to that move and the French had covered the most likely path of the Wehrmacht, coming down from Belgium) and even more sadly, the marginalization of the Red Army.
Reading the excellently composed A Writer At War covering the personal writings of Vasily Grossman, a Soviet war correspondent for the Pravda, along with other writings by Antony Beevor, Norman Davies, Guy Sajer etc does bring to light the colossal struggle between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army, and how all other campaigns conducted by the American Army pale in comparison.
Patton's great tank battles were mere child's play, or just the games of divisional commanders when compared to Kursk.
The clearing of the hedgerows in Normandy or even the Battle of the Bulge paled in comparison to the bitter struggles of Stalingrad or the siege of Moscow and Leningrad.
The great and swift movements of the US Armies in France were a normal day for the Red Army sweeping across the European steppe towards Berlin in 1944.
Needless to say, it is a humbling and eye opening experience when actually delving into the German-Russian War. It puts into perspective the actual sacrifices of the Western Allies and the fighting ability of the Russian and German solider. While it is pretty easy to go along with the generally accepted statement that the German Wehrmacht was one of the world's greatest armies in World War II, the soldiers of the Red Army were nothing to scoff at. Tough, resilient and brave fighters--they were the ones who broke the back of the Wehrmacht in 1944. They were the ones who actually crushed the fighting ability of the Wehrmacht.
Of course, we all know Stalin wasn't exactly the world's greatest humanitarian, but it was the officers and enlisted of the Red Army, irregardless of Party affiliation: news flash, not all members of the Red Army were Communists...in fact those in the Party were not so sure whether or not to allow members of the Red Army into the Party. It was a very exclusive club.
We just happened to corner the market on improving on pulverizing cities from the sky.
So maybe Russians do have some right to scoff at the Western Allies when talking about defeating Germany, because until the Red Army overran the German industrial complex, the Albert Speer run war industry of Germany was still able to produce to supply the Army. Maybe they do have a right to scoff since it was they who destroyed one of the most powerful armies in the world at Stalingrad, or that they inflicted the crippling blow to the vaunted German panzer might at Kursk.
But, this post wasn't originally intended to go into how people should at least read one or two books about the Eastern Front (I do suggest Antony Beevor's Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege 1942-1943 and The Fall of Berlin 1945 as they are not only very informative but very accessible to the casual reader. He is the perfect historian--one who is able to convey his vast knowledge into something that anyone can easily understand and retain. I also suggest Antony Beevor and Luba Vinogradova's joint effort in A Writer At War: A Soviet Journalist with the Red Army, 1941-1945 that chronicles the Eastern Front through the private journals and Pravda pieces by Vasily Grossman), but about my take on the first hundred or so pages of Richard J. Evans' latest opus about Nazi Germany titled The Third Reich at War.
I have not read his first two books, The Coming of the Third Reich and The Third Reich in Power, but he even states in the introduction that each volume is capable of standing alone on its own. His intent in The Third Reich at War is not to give a history of World War II in Europe, but to "focus...is on Germany and the Germans" and at the very center of it is the mass genocide committed by the Germans and the German state. Basically, he intends to show how the Germans developed the mechanism that later lead to the killing machine of the "Final Solution."
Right from the start, Evans floors me with evidence that just as the German Wehrmacht was rolling across Poland that the murder, dispossession and deportation of Jews and Poles followed in the dusty tracks of the panzer divisions. Needless to say, despite some commentary about how this isn't a new trail blazing history of Nazi Germany, I personally thought that the German savaging other races did not go into full swing until the start of Operation Barbarossa. There's always something that someone did not know.
Still, just after the first 100 pages or so, I find it very readable with great information and without the usual dry prose that would make most people pass out after the first three paragraphs or so...but maybe other people would find this boring. I find TV in general quite boring, so who knows. The book already stands well on its own and maybe when I finally trudge through the 680 pages that remain, I may look into his two previous volumes.
But I have to caveat this by stating that the Second World War was not a subject I exclusively studied, I am pretty confident that I am not clueless about this subject.
American high school version of WWII:
1933 Hitler becomes dictator of Germany and immediately rebuilds the German military. The wimpy British and French acquiesce to the German's demands in Austria and later in Czechoslovakia. The Germans then blitz the Poles and subsequently defeat their inferior army; in fact the Poles were so backwards that they sent cavalrymen on horses against German Panzers. Then the Germans invade and beat the French because they are fans of surrendering. Then they invade Russia, get caught in a bad winter; which doesn't help because they declared war on the United States. The US beats up the Germans pretty bad in North Africa, then stages the worlds largest amphibious operation at Normandy and start to liberate France. Then the US liberates Paris. Then the Battle of the Bulge. Then its a race to the heart of Germany for the US and the USSR who have too many people for the Germans to fight. The Russians take Berlin in 1945, Hitler commits suicide and end of the war.
That was actually a bit difficult for me to write seeing that I had to eliminate most of what I've read about the European theatre of the war in order to give the truncated version of what covered about 20 - 30 pages in a US textbook. Needless to say, I forgot to mention that it was the US that bailed everyone out. I think I managed to get the contempt for the French in there...the same pointless contempt that Americans today have towards the French.
As for the US taking the brunt of the war, in reality, it was probably the people of the Ukraine and Russia that took the biggest losses in the war compared to other European nation. Soviet records tended to lump all USSR casualties together, following old Russian doctrine of including the states of Byelorussia and the Ukraine into the overall Russian state. Norman Davies covers this near the end of his work: No Simple Victory.
I do highly recommend that book for those who have only the rudimentary background about this epoch in history.
Still, I am a bit saddened by the tilted version of the war, as seen through the kaleidoscope of the American experience: the roles of the British (who bore the brunt of the German Luftwaffe from 1940-1941), the French (it was not cowardice on the part of the French fighting man that brought about their surrender--in fact the French decided to make Paris an Open City to keep it from being wiped out by the Germans. As for the French not predicting the Germans coming through the thickly wooded Ardennes...it was a huge gamble on the part of the Wehrmacht to commit to that move and the French had covered the most likely path of the Wehrmacht, coming down from Belgium) and even more sadly, the marginalization of the Red Army.
Reading the excellently composed A Writer At War covering the personal writings of Vasily Grossman, a Soviet war correspondent for the Pravda, along with other writings by Antony Beevor, Norman Davies, Guy Sajer etc does bring to light the colossal struggle between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army, and how all other campaigns conducted by the American Army pale in comparison.
Patton's great tank battles were mere child's play, or just the games of divisional commanders when compared to Kursk.
The clearing of the hedgerows in Normandy or even the Battle of the Bulge paled in comparison to the bitter struggles of Stalingrad or the siege of Moscow and Leningrad.
The great and swift movements of the US Armies in France were a normal day for the Red Army sweeping across the European steppe towards Berlin in 1944.
Needless to say, it is a humbling and eye opening experience when actually delving into the German-Russian War. It puts into perspective the actual sacrifices of the Western Allies and the fighting ability of the Russian and German solider. While it is pretty easy to go along with the generally accepted statement that the German Wehrmacht was one of the world's greatest armies in World War II, the soldiers of the Red Army were nothing to scoff at. Tough, resilient and brave fighters--they were the ones who broke the back of the Wehrmacht in 1944. They were the ones who actually crushed the fighting ability of the Wehrmacht.
Of course, we all know Stalin wasn't exactly the world's greatest humanitarian, but it was the officers and enlisted of the Red Army, irregardless of Party affiliation: news flash, not all members of the Red Army were Communists...in fact those in the Party were not so sure whether or not to allow members of the Red Army into the Party. It was a very exclusive club.
We just happened to corner the market on improving on pulverizing cities from the sky.
So maybe Russians do have some right to scoff at the Western Allies when talking about defeating Germany, because until the Red Army overran the German industrial complex, the Albert Speer run war industry of Germany was still able to produce to supply the Army. Maybe they do have a right to scoff since it was they who destroyed one of the most powerful armies in the world at Stalingrad, or that they inflicted the crippling blow to the vaunted German panzer might at Kursk.
But, this post wasn't originally intended to go into how people should at least read one or two books about the Eastern Front (I do suggest Antony Beevor's Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege 1942-1943 and The Fall of Berlin 1945 as they are not only very informative but very accessible to the casual reader. He is the perfect historian--one who is able to convey his vast knowledge into something that anyone can easily understand and retain. I also suggest Antony Beevor and Luba Vinogradova's joint effort in A Writer At War: A Soviet Journalist with the Red Army, 1941-1945 that chronicles the Eastern Front through the private journals and Pravda pieces by Vasily Grossman), but about my take on the first hundred or so pages of Richard J. Evans' latest opus about Nazi Germany titled The Third Reich at War.
I have not read his first two books, The Coming of the Third Reich and The Third Reich in Power, but he even states in the introduction that each volume is capable of standing alone on its own. His intent in The Third Reich at War is not to give a history of World War II in Europe, but to "focus...is on Germany and the Germans" and at the very center of it is the mass genocide committed by the Germans and the German state. Basically, he intends to show how the Germans developed the mechanism that later lead to the killing machine of the "Final Solution."
Right from the start, Evans floors me with evidence that just as the German Wehrmacht was rolling across Poland that the murder, dispossession and deportation of Jews and Poles followed in the dusty tracks of the panzer divisions. Needless to say, despite some commentary about how this isn't a new trail blazing history of Nazi Germany, I personally thought that the German savaging other races did not go into full swing until the start of Operation Barbarossa. There's always something that someone did not know.
Still, just after the first 100 pages or so, I find it very readable with great information and without the usual dry prose that would make most people pass out after the first three paragraphs or so...but maybe other people would find this boring. I find TV in general quite boring, so who knows. The book already stands well on its own and maybe when I finally trudge through the 680 pages that remain, I may look into his two previous volumes.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
When you put on your uniform, you are not a solider of god.
While the baseball purists will bemoan about the signal that Manny Ramirez has sent to young people with his current suspension in violation of MLB's drug policy, that is a non-issue in light of a little tidbit of information a buddy of mine was kind enough to post on Facebook.
I could care less about professional athletics sometimes--the teams, athletes, GMs, media, boorish fans and etc have created this situation with high salaries and matching expectations that allows for people looking to find an extra advantage in the game.
In other words, you have reaped what you have sown. I combat this by not subsidizing any professional team or athlete. The reality is that these teams and paid professionals do not care about you and don't want to drink a beer with you. They want to be left alone in their own free time, so therefore, give them space.
But this is a much more serious issue: US military chaplains proselytising in Afghanistan. Here's the article on Military.com.
For me, I am disgusted by these commissioned officers blatantly tossing out regulation just because they feel that it is their mission from god to force their bronze age god onto other people. This is not a mission for US military chaplains; they are there for personnel in the military who seek counseling etc.
In other words, these guys should no longer be drawing a paycheck from the US government. But that's my own opinion...and opinions are like assholes...everyone has one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
I could care less about professional athletics sometimes--the teams, athletes, GMs, media, boorish fans and etc have created this situation with high salaries and matching expectations that allows for people looking to find an extra advantage in the game.
In other words, you have reaped what you have sown. I combat this by not subsidizing any professional team or athlete. The reality is that these teams and paid professionals do not care about you and don't want to drink a beer with you. They want to be left alone in their own free time, so therefore, give them space.
But this is a much more serious issue: US military chaplains proselytising in Afghanistan. Here's the article on Military.com.
For me, I am disgusted by these commissioned officers blatantly tossing out regulation just because they feel that it is their mission from god to force their bronze age god onto other people. This is not a mission for US military chaplains; they are there for personnel in the military who seek counseling etc.
In other words, these guys should no longer be drawing a paycheck from the US government. But that's my own opinion...and opinions are like assholes...everyone has one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
