Sunday, November 15, 1942. Americans prevail in Iron Bottom Sound.

The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal ended as an American victory.  On this day, the USS Washington, a battleship, sank the Japanese battleship Kriishima.

USS Washington in 1942.

Church bells were rung in the United Kingdom in celebration of the victory at El Alamein. They had been silenced since 1940.

Women entered USAAF flight training for the first time.  The training was at the Houston Municipal Airpor and the unit was designated as the 319th Army Air Force Flying Training Detachment.

The comic book Archie appeared.

Thursday, November 12, 1942. The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal commences.

The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal commenced.

Smoke from downed Japanese aircraft, 11/12/42.

The Japanese attacked US Task Force 67 headed towards Guadalcanal, commencing four days of hard fought naval engagements.  The Task Force was bringing reinforcements to the island.

One thing this serves to remind us of is how, already, the wars in the Pacific and Europe were remarkably different.  In Europe, or rather North Africa, the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy had just pulled off a massive seaborne invasion of North Africa.  Here, however, a pitched battle between the Axis, in the form of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the Allies, in the form of the U.S. Navy, was just beginning.

Congress lowered the age of conscription to 18.

This was no small matter.  At the time, much like when I was in high school, senior classes had a wide range of teen ages ranging from 17 to nearly 19.  I was 17 when I graduated, as was my father, but I've known men who were nearly 19 at the time. This meant that the government was reaching down, basically, into high school and in fact, while a deferment was possible, there were men who simply reported right out of school for the draft.

Eddie Rickenbacker and five other men rescued after having been adrift in the Pacific for three weeks.

Guatemala broke off diplomatic relations with Vichy France.

Silent screen actress Laura Hope Crews died at age 62.

Crews in 1910.

Friday, November 6, 1942. The Vichy French Surrender On Madagascar, Carson's Long Patrol, Anglican Church Removes Requirement For Female Head Coverings, El Toro Established

Vichy French forces in Madagascar, which the Allies were not at war with, surrendered after weeks of fighting to the British.

Eh?

Yes, that's right.

The Allies were at war with Vichy, but by this point had invaded Syria and Lebanon and then the giant island of Madagascar.  Throughout it all, the French fought back, and often quite hard, but Vichy abstained from declaring war in a monumental example of restraint, frankly, and of hedging one's bets.

Westland Lysanders flying over Madagascar, December 1942.

It should be noted that the Allies had real reasons to fear that the Japanese would land on the island. In retrospect, it's clear that the Japanese didn't possess the reserve strength to do that, but in 1942 that certainly wasn't clear.   Indeed, throughout 1942 there had been constant fears that the Japanese would land on mainland Australia and points west, which of course in the form of advancing in Southeast Asia, they somewhat did.

Madagascar had become a French possession in 1897 following an absolutely horrific campaign undertaken by the French Foreign Legion.  It's frankly outright bizarre from our current prospective to imagine why France ever conceived of itself as having a right to the island.

Resistance to ongoing French presence commenced after World War Two, and the country became independent in 1958.

The 2nd Marine Raider Battalion commenced an operation known as Carlson's Long Patrol on Guadalcanal.  It was an interdiction action against retreating Japanese forces.

The Church of England abolished its rule requiring women to wear hats in church.

This is an oddly controversial topic among a select group of people even today.

Catholic female factory workers attending a Palm Sunday Mass after getting off work, 1943.

I wasn't aware of the Church of England rule, nor why it was abolished at this point in time.  That it existed, however, isn't surprising, as even though "High Church" Anglicans are critical of the Catholic Church in some ways, they very much lean into it as well.  Indeed, attending a High Church Anglican service gives a glimpse of some of the things that existed in the Catholic Mass long ago, and most older Anglican Churches retain their alter rails.

At any rate, while this may surprise some, in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church it was a custom, not a law, that women wear head coverings up until the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which required women to wear a head covering and precluded men from wearing hats in church.  While this was the Canon Law, as of 1917, it was also the custom at the time as well, in any event.  Also, contrary to what some may suppose, it was only the Latin Rite that imposed these conditions, not hte Catholic Church as a whole.

The 1917 Code remained in effect until 1983, when a new one was promulgated. The 1983 Code removed the requirement that women wear head coverings. By that time, however, the practice had fallen completely away in much of the Western World anyhow.  I can't recall at all a time in which women generally wore head coverings in church, although a review of old photographs of weddings and the like shows that they certainly did well into the early 1960s.  Perhaps they were a casualty of the trend towards ever-increasing informality in the west, or perhaps it was something that the "spirit" of Vatican II reforms brought about, or both.

Oddly, however, in recent years, in Catholic circles, it's seen a bit of a revival.  There were always some who regarded female head coverings as Biblically mandated, citing St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians, in which he states, in part:

But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife,and God the head of Christ.

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.

But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved.

For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

 A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord.

For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.h

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given [her] for a covering?

St. Paul is, truly, the most ignored Apostle and the one most likely to make almost everyone in the modern world uncomfortable.  At any rate, some people have read this to mean that women must wear head coverings in church.

I'm not really qualified to comment on it, but I'd note that this was the subject of an article relatively recently in US Catholic, which stated, in part:

A hairy problem

Personally, I think it’s a no-brainer that the changes in the 1983 Canon gave us all freedom of choice about headgear. But a simple Google search convinces me this a matter that still isn’t settled in the minds of some Catholics.

Msgr. Charles Pope addressed this issue in a blog called “Community in Mission” on the Archdiocese of Washington’s website. It’s interesting that he calls the piece, dated May 19, 2010, “Should Women Cover Their Heads in Church?” Like it’s still a matter of debate.

It’s even more interesting how he starts out: “Now be of good cheer. This blog post is meant to be a light-hearted discussion of this matter.”

While admitting that the church currently has “NO rule” on hat wearing, he offered his thoughts to “try and understand the meaning and purpose of a custom that, up until rather recently was quite widespread in the Western Church.” He explains that even before the 1917 mandate, it was customary in most places for women to wear some kind of head covering.

He also tries to explain how the church got tangled up with this hat stuff in the first place. The reasoning is not easy to understand. He points to tradition and custom as well as feminine humility and submission.

I’m not weighing in on this one; I’ll defer to Msgr. Pope. He notes that in biblical times Jewish women often wore veils or mantillas in public worship. This custom got carried over to the New Testament by virtue of St. Paul’s letters, particularly 1 Corinthians 11:1–11, which takes up the topic of head coverings for women and men:

“For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.”

Msgr. Pope calls this a “complicated passage” with “some unusual references,” and goes on to say that Paul sets forth four arguments in it as to why a woman should cover her head. “Argument 1—Paul clearly sees the veil as a sign of her submission to her husband.” A second argument, based on custom or accepted tradition, is pretty straight forward and reasonable. Don’t ask me to explain the two remaining “arguments.” Even Pope concedes that Paul’s claims in the passage—that women should wear veils “because of the angels” and “nature”—are more “difficult references to understand.”

Heading forward

So who knows? Whether it was due to custom, a fascination with Victorian mores, or thinly-veiled patriarchy, the fact remains: After centuries of ignoring the matter, the church decided to codify regulations on head coverings in 1917 and to say nothing about them when it changed its own rules in 1983. For 66 years, milliners had a good run.

Of course, with the women’s liberation movement, most women had stopped wearing hats to church anyway. The whole idea of covering the head was a sign that had lost its meaning and even taken on a negative connotation in mainstream society. Besides, in the 1970s, in a document titled Inter Insigniores (On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had already linked wearing chapel veils with customs that were “scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance” and obligations that “no longer have a normative value.” The 1983 Code change just put the nail in the coffin.

Of course, some may still beg to differ. You have to wonder why church leaders like Cardinal Burke and Msgr. Pope would even feel the need to take up this issue. Chalk it up to the fact that old habits die hard and no one likes change but a wet baby. Today, traditional Catholic blogs advocate not only a return to the Latin Mass but pre-Vatican II accouterments like vintage attire for priests and nuns. Could a push for veils in the pews be the next big thing?

I wouldn’t bet on it.

I wouldn't either.

Let's take a look at the Msgr blog entry.  It states:

Should Women Cover Their Heads in Church?

Now be of good cheer. This blog post is meant to be a light-hearted discussion of this matter. The bottom line is that the Church currently has NO rule on this matter and women are entirely free to wear a veil or a hat in Church or not.

I thought I’d blog on this since it came up in the comments yesterday and it occurred to me that it might provoke an interesting discussion. But again this is not meant to be a directive discussion about what should be done. Rather an informative discussion about the meaning of head coverings for women in the past and how such customs might be interpreted now. We are not in the realm of liturgical law here just preference and custom.

What I’d like to do is to try and understand the meaning and purpose of a custom that, up until rather recently was quite widespread in the Western Church.

With the more frequent celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, the use of the veil is also becoming more common. But even at the Latin Masses I celebrate, women exhibit diversity in this matter. Some wear the longer veil (mantilla) others a short veil. Others  wear hats. Still others wear no head covering at all.

History – the wearing of a veil or hat for women seems to have been a fairly consistent practice in the Church in the West until fairly recently. Practices in the Eastern and Orthodox Churches have varied. Protestant denominations also show a wide diversity in this matter. The 1917 Code of Canon Law in  the Catholic Church mandated that women wear a veil or head covering. Prior to 1917 there was no universal Law but it was customary in most places for women to wear some sort of head covering. The 1983 Code of Canon Law made no mention of this requirement and by the 1980s most women, at least here in America, had ceased to wear veils or hats anyway. Currently there is no binding rule and the custom in most places is no head covering at all.

Scripture – In Biblical Times women generally wore veils in any public setting and this would include the Synagogue. The clearest New Testament reference to women veiling or covering their head is from St. Paul:

But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.  But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved.  For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.  A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man;  for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.  Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. (1 Cor 11:1-11)

This is clearly a complicated passage and has some unusual references. Paul seems to set forth four arguments as to why a woman should wear a veil.

1. Argument 1 – Paul clearly sees the veil a woman wears as a sign of her submission to her husband. He also seems to link it to modesty since his references to a woman’s  hair cut short were references to the way prostitutes wore their hair and his reference to a shaved head was the punishment due an adultress. No matter how you look at it such arguments aren’t going to encourage a lot of women to wear a veil today. It is a true fact that the Scriptures consistently teach that a wife is to be submitted to her husband. I cannot and will not deny what God’s word says even though it is unpopular. However I will say that the same texts that tell a woman to be submitted tell the husband to have a great and abiding love for his wife. I have blogged on this “difficult” teaching on marriage elsewhere and would encourage you to read that blog post if you’re troubled or bothered by the submission texts. It is here: An Unpopular Teaching on Marriage. That said, it hardly seems that women would rush today to wear veils to emphasize their submission to their husband.

2. Argument 2 – Regarding the Angels– Paul also sees a reason for women to wear veils “because of the angels.” This is a difficult reference  to understand. There are numerous explanations I have read over the years. One of the less convincing ones is that the angels are somehow distracted by a woman’s beauty. Now the clergy might be 🙂 but it just doesn’t seem likely to me that the angels would have this problem. I think the more convincing argument is that St. Paul has Isaiah in mind who wrote: I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple. Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they veiled their faces, with two they veiled their feet, and with two they hovered aloft.(Is 6:2-3). Hence the idea seems to be that since the angels veil their faces (heads) it is fitting for women to do the same. But then the question, why not a man too? And here also Paul supplies an aswer that is “difficult” for modern ears: A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. In other words a man shares God’s glory immediately whereas a woman does as well but derivatively for she was formed from Adam’s wounded side. Alas this argument too will not likely cause a run on veil sales.

3. Argument 3 – The argument from “nature” – In effect Paul argues that since nature itself veils a woman with long hair and this is her glory that this also argues for her covering her head in Church. What is not clear is that, if nature has already provided this covering, why then should she cover her covering? I want to take up this notion of glory in my conclusion.

4. Argument 4-  The Argument from Custom–  This argument is pretty straight-forward: Paul says it is customary for a woman to cover her head when praying and, other things being equal, this custom should be followed. Paul goes on to assert that those who insist on doing differently are being “argumentative.” In effect he argues that for the sake of good order and to avoid controversy the custom should be followed. However, in calling it a custom, the text also seems to allow for a time like ours where the custom is different. Customs have stability but are not usually forever fixed. Hence, though some argue that wearing veils is a scriptural norm that women “must” follow today, the use of the word custom seems to permit of the possibility that it is not an unvarying norm we are dealing with here. Rather, it is a custom from that time that does not necessarily bind us today. This of course seems to be how the Church understands this text for she does not require head coverings for her daughters.

Conclusions –

1. That women are not required to wear veils today is clear in terms of Church Law. The argument that the Church is remiss in not requiring this of her daughters is hard to sustain when scriptures attach the word “custom” to the practice.

2. I will say however that I like veils and miss women wearing them. When I was a boy in the 1960s my mother and sister always wore their veils and so did all women in those days and I remember how modestly beautiful I found them to be. When I see women wear them today I have the same impression.

3. That said, a woman does not go to Church to please or impress me.

4. It is worth noting that a man is still forbidden to wear a hat in Church. If I see it I go to him and ask him to remove it. There  a partial exception to the clergy who are permitted to wear birettas and to bishops who are to wear the miter. However, there are strict rules in this regard that any head cover is to be removed when they go to the altar. Hence,  for men,  the rule, or shall we say the custom, has not changed.

5. Argument 5 – The Argument from Humility – This leads me then to a possible understanding of the wearing of the veil for women and the uncovered head for the men that may be more useful to our times. Let’s call it The Argument from Humility.

For both men and women, humility before God is the real point of these customs. In the ancient world as now, women gloried in their hair and often gave great attention to it. St. Paul above,  speaks of a woman’s hair as her glory. As a man I am not unappreciative of this glory. Women do wonderful things with their hair. As such their hair is part of their glory and, as St. Paul says it seems to suggest above  it is appropriate to cover our glory before the presence of God.

As for men, in the ancient world and to some lesser extent now, hats often signified rank and membership. As such men displayed their rank and membership in organizations with pride in the hats they wore. Hence Paul tells them to uncover their heads and leave their worldly glories aside when coming before God. Today men still do  some of this (esp. in the military) but men wear less hats in general. But when they do they are often boasting of allegiances to sports teams and the like. Likewise, some men who belong to fraternal organizations such as the various Catholic Knights groups often  display ranks on their hats. We clergy do this as well to some extent with different color poms on birettas etc. Paul encourages all this to be left aside in Church. As for the clergy, though we may enter the Church with these ranked hats and insignia, we are to cast them aside when we go to the altar. Knights organizations are also directed  to set down their hats when the Eucharistic prayer begins.

I do not advance this argument from humility to say women ought to cover their heads, for I would not require what the Church does not. But I offer the line of reasoning as a way to understand veiling in a way that is respectful of the modern setting, IF  a woman chooses to use the veil. Since this is just a matter of custom then we are not necessarily required to understand its meaning in exactly the way St. Paul describes. Submission is biblical but it need not be the reason for the veil. Humility before God seems a more workable understanding especially since it can be seen to apply to both men and women in the way I have tried to set it forth.

There are an amazing number of styles when it comes to veils and mantillas: Mantillas online

This video gives some other reasons why a woman might wear a veil. I think it does a pretty good job of showing some of the traditions down through the centuries. However I think the video strays from what I have presented here in that it seems to indicate that women ought to wear the veil and that it is a matter of obedience. I do not think that is what the Church teaches in this regard. There can be many good reasons to wear the veil but I don’t think we can argue that obedience to a requirement is one of them.

As noted, I'm not qualified to opine on this, and I'm loath to not take St. Paul at his word, but in some ways what I think St. Paul is instructing on here is simply to "dress decent".  That changes, quite frankly, over time, and varies by culture.

Indeed, on this, I heard awhile back an interview of an Easter Rite icon painter who was disturbed by the rich Renaissance art in Latin Rite churches.  His view was that the paintings bordered on indecency (well, he thought they were indecent but was too polite to say so) as seeing the naked or mostly naked body of a woman was strictly limited to her spouse.  St. Paul is saying something that's sort of in the same ballpark, a bit.  Having lived through the wrecking ball of the late 70s and early 80s in clothing standards, I can get that, as there was a time in there in which I'd see clothing at Mass that was occasionally indecent.  It might be the case that St. Paul is instructing people not to put themselves on display, and as recently as a few months ago I was at a Mass at which an attractive young woman with very long hair was constantly addressing it, for lack of a better way to state it.

No, she wasn't being indecent.  Yes, it was hard not to notice, but not in an indecent way.

Anyhow, as the articles above note, veils and even rarely hats at Mass are making a little bit of a comeback, but when you see them, they're making, usually, a bit of a statement. The women wearing them is usually some sort of Catholic Traditionalist.  That can be a bit distracting in its own right, but I don't mean to criticize it either.

Indeed, again by way of an example, some time ago I attended an early Holy Day Mass in which two young women, either on their way to work, or maybe to school, sat in front of me.  One was very well turned out, but in a modern fashion.  A nice wool seater paired with a nice leather skirt. She was wearing what we call inaccurately a veil.  Her friend in contrast was wearing jeans, etc. The veiled young woman also cut, in her apparel, an attractive presence.

Where am I going with this?  

Well, nowhere really.  I'm just noting another clothing change here that's taken place over time, the second in one day, really.

Before closing, I'd note that the "veil" or "chapel veil" is a "mantilla".  I know that my mother had some, as all Catholic women did.  No idea what happened to them.

A friend of mine actually recent got his wife, a convert from the Baptist faith, one.  He was asking me about it at the time, and I had no advice of any kind.  I don't know where you get them, etc.  He wasn't sure how she would take it, and I never followed up to find out.

By the way, my wife wouldn't wear a veil at church.  No way.

Also, back when head coverings were required, mantillas weren't required, just a head covering.  I recall my grandmother wearing a hat, usually of the pillbox type, and occasionally my mother doing so as well.

The Marine Corps aviation station at El Toro opened.

El Toro, near Irvine California, in 1947.

A chow demonstration was conducted.

"Dehydrated foods. Top war agency officials lunch on dehydrated foods--the kind of food that is being sent overseas to save shipping space. From left to right: Leon Henderson, Price Administrator; Donald M. Nelson, Chairman of the War Production Board (WPB); Brigadier General Carl Hardigg, Office of the Quartermaster General; and William Batt, WPB Vice Chairman. The luncheon was arranged on November 6, 1942 in the Social Security Building by Lee Marshall, Food Consultant to Mr. Nelson, to acquaint war agency officials with the progress that has been made in this country in the field of dehydrated foods. Such dried foods result in savings of up to eighty percent in volume and up to ninety percent in weight."

Wednesday, November 4, 1942. Turning tide.

Today in World War II History—November 4, 1942: British Eighth Army is victorious at the Second Battle of El Alamein. Carlson’s Raiders (US Marines) land at Aola Point, Guadalcanal, to harass Japanese.

As Sarah Sundin so notes on her blog, things were really swinging towards the Allies everywhere.  Lots of hard fighting, but still, the war, for the Axis, was rapidly becoming a defensive one. 

Also on Guadalcanal, it might be noted, the Matanikau Offensive ended with an American victory.

Tuesday, November 3, 1942. The 1942 Election.

Today was election day in 1942.  Overall, the nationwide election saw an increase in Republican office holders.

In Wyoming, the following occurred:

1942.  Lester Hunt, DDS, the sitting Wyoming Secretary of State and a Democrat narrowly defeated Governor Nels H. Smith.

Lester C. Hunt.

Hunt would serve as Governor for two terms before going on to becoming Wyoming's Senator.  He killed himself in 1954 after Washington D. C. policy picked up his son in 1953 for soliciting a male prostitute.  The scandal was kept quiet for awhile, but political opponents threatened to use it against him as a threat to keep him from engaging in a 1954 bid for office.

In the Senate Hunt had been an opponent of Joe McCarthy.

In the same year that Wyoming went from Republican to Democrat for the Governor's mansion, the state went in the opposite direction for the Senate.  Edward V. Robinson defeated incumbant Harry Schwartz.

Robinson.

Robinson's election was part of a nationwide treand that year that saw a Republican increase.  He's serve only one term and lose a bid for reelection.  He was Welsh and had served in the British Army in the Boer War, and is little remembered as a Wyoming politician.

Hunt's death, it should be noted, remains an enduring tragedy of the McCarthy Era, and one which, at least in some Wyoming circles, came to define McCarthyism and certain right wing elements of the press.

More on Hunt:

Baseball, Politics, Triumph and Tragedy: The Career of Lester Hunt

Robinson, on the other hand, gives us a rare example of a nearly completely forgotten Wyoming politician.  In some ways, that's a shame, as his life story was one that was somewhat typical of the era in that he was an early, post Frontier Era, immigrant to the state when a person could still enter ranching, which he did, in spite of having an engineering background.  Following his defeat for reelection he ultimately retired to Pendleton Oregon in 1958, where he died in 1963. 

 The Marines and Army begin an offensive on Guadalcanal at Koli Point.

Marine Corps pack artillery in action at Koli Point

Sunday, November 1, 1942. Excapes

Japan's Ministry of Colonial Affairs ceased to exist, its functions going to the Ministry of Greater East Asia.

From Sarah Sundin's blog:

Today in World War II History—November 1, 1942: US War Department designates Japanese aircraft with human names, initially with male names for fighters and female for all others.

This came about later than I'd realized.  She has a set of playing cards depicting Japanese aircraft up on her blog as well.

She also notes:

 US ceases production of liquor—warehouses contain a four-year stock.

I was completely unaware of that.  Note that this pertains to hard alcohol, not beer.

Films produced in this era routinely show casual drinking, which would at least suggest it was relatively common, and at least personal recollections I've heard suggest that very much was at the time.  The cessation of production should have had no immediate effect on prices for anything aged, which would have been most hard alcohols.

Alcohol had only become legal, once again, in 1932, and even then it was readily available, as some later depictions suggest.  Prohibition had a devastating impact on the production of Rye, which had predominated the quality American production prior to 1919 and which has never really fully recovered.

The Marines launched the Matanikau Offensive on Guadalcanal.  It would run for four days and secure Koli Point.

The Germans took Alagir in North Ossetia, in the USSR.

Four German sailors broke out of Fort Stanton, New Mexico. They'd soon be captured by a mounted posse, during which one of them was wounded.

Portugal held elections, but as it was a one party state, the victory of the National Union Party was somewhat foreordained.

Pornographer Larry Flynt, who was responsible for Hustler magazine, was born on this day.  Huslter followed in the wake of Playboy and Penthouse, and was cruder than either two, that avenue having been opened up for glossy smut due to Playboy.

It was the Solemnity of All Saints, as it is now, which is a Catholic Holy Day of Obligation.  Given as this one fell on a Sunday, there would have been no requirement for attendance at an extra Mass for Catholics on this week in 1942.

Monday, October 26, 1942. Hard fighting in the Solomons

Today In Wyoming's History: October 26: 1942  The Torrington Post Office robbed. Attribution:  Wyoming State Historical Society.

In the Solomons, the Battle for Henderson Field ended with an American victory, and the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands was raging.  On this date, the USS Hornet of Doolittle Raid fame was badly damaged, which would lead to her scuttling the following day.

Japanese losses in trying to take Henderson Field were grossly outside, with over 2,500 men being killed in comparison to less than 70 Americans.

In the Second Battle of El Alamein the Defense of Outpost Snip action began.

Sunday, October 25, 1942. Rommel returns, the Japanese Navy strikes.

Rommel returned to Africa.

During his absence, things had not gone well for the Axis.  There's no reason to believe that they would have gone any better had he been there.

Rommel arguably has an outsized reputation.  Perhaps because the British tended to admire him, for some reason, as an adversary, and as they measured their success in the desert in terms of defeating his command, he's obtained the reputation of being a "clean" German commander.  There actually is some evidence to support this, but it's mixed and not as clear-cut as sometimes claimed.

Spectacular photograph of US ships in action on the following day, October 26.

The Battle of Santa Cruz Islands began with the Japanese, operating under the assumption that they had taken Henderson Field on Guadalcanal, moved ships from the Shortland Island towards Guadalcanal in order to support the Japanese ground forces on the islands.  Aircraft from Henderson Field ended up attacking the Japanese convoy throughout the 25th, sinking a light cruiser.  This alerted the Japanese that Henderson Field remained in American hands, but they pushed forward in hopes of engaging the American Navy in a decisive naval battle.

Saturday, October 24, 1942. Lighting The Torch

A naval task force departed the United Kingdom for North Africa containing the invasion force for Operation Torch.  At the same time, the main Task Force, which included one of my late partners who was a naval officer, left Hampton Roads, VA and Casco Bay, ME.

USS Charles Carroll on which one of my late partners served. She's see action all over the globe.

They were all bound for landing sites in North Africa.

Wilhelm Ritter von Thoma took command of the Afrika Korps after George Stumme was reported missing. Stumme would be found later, dead, but without wounds, although it was learned that his car had been attacked by the British and his chief signals officer killed in the attack.

Stumme had high blood pressure and may have had a heart attack during the stressful event.

Stumme did not take the precautionary measures that Rommel did while traveling in North Africa, and may ultimately have paid for it with his life.

The Japanese launched attacks on the Lunga perimeter on Guadalcanal. The attacks were unsuccessful.

The Saturday Evening Post went to the stands with an illustration by Mead Schaeffer of an American soldier carrying a Thompson Submachine Gun, in a jungle.  Starting in November, the focus of the American Press would very much switch to the war against the Germans.

Friday, October 23, 1942. The High Water Mark for Nazi Germany

The Second Battle of El Alamein began.

Montgomery watching his armor in action.

The British offensive was really the first under Bernard Law Montgomery, and pitted slightly larger Allied forces against the Afrika Korps.  Of note, the British had considerably more armor than the Germans.  It would result in an Allied victory, of which Churchill stated; It may almost be said, "Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat".

On that theme, arguably today was the high water mark for the Axis, or perhaps yesterday.  The Germans and their European Allies had advanced as far as they were going to in the Soviet Union, having taken the Stalingrad tractor factory several days prior.  They had expelled the British from Europe and defeated all of their enemies there, although guerilla campaigns were going on against them.  In North Africa, they had advanced up to El Alamein, but they had not taken it.

The Germans knew they were in trouble at this point.  While it was not obvious to casual observers, their offensive in the Soviet Union had stalled without defeating the USSR and without even bringing to an end the fighting before the onset of winter.  Their advances in the country had been massive, but insufficient, and they knew it.  Additionally, massive Axis efforts on the land, air and sea had failed to drive the British out of North Afrika and, on this day, the British would recommence advancing.

Starting on this day, the Germans would be losing ground every day.

The Battle for Henderson Field commenced as well, with a large-scale Japanese assault designed to take the airfield.

In the Pacific War, the Japanese were already in the position of not really advancing any longer, although the war in New Guinea made that unclear.  Resources were still thin in a theater that was limited to Australian and American forces, with the Japanese war being much more recent than the European one.  Having said that, the Japanese run in the Pacific was over.

Elanor Roosevelt arrived in the UK and met with the King and Queen.

The latter event emphasizes, again without the public really realizing it, that the Western Allies already knew that they would win the war at this point, and the Soviets may have realized it by this point as well.  Lots of the war was yet to be fought, but the final results were dimly in view.

Tuesday, October 13, 1942. The Army lands on Guadalcanal

Today in World War II History—October 13, 1942: First US Army troops land on Guadalcanal, joining the US Marines. On Guadalcanal, Japanese naval shelling makes Henderson Field inoperable.

So reports Sarah Sundin.  The soldiers were from the 164th Infantry and they took up the 6,600 yard sector at the east end of the American perimeter.   The 164th was part of the Americal Division.

It's often forgotten that the Army played a significant role in the fighting in the Pacific, but it did.  While the island hopping campaigns that later developed were principally, but not exclusively, Marine Corps affairs, larger engagements nearly always featured the Army.  Of this battle, one of the Army's official histories states:

The Guadalcanal Campaign also made clear that whether subsequent fighting in the Pacific took place in an Army or a Navy theater, success would depend on a high degree of interservice cooperation. The early stages of the campaign were dominated by Navy-Marine components of the interservice team. But as the battle continued, Army units assumed the burden of interservice coordination and, in the end, secured the American victory on the ground. The campaign also made clear the scale of operations the Americans would have to mount to take sizable island outposts from the Japanese: between fifty and one hundred thousand troops, at least half a dozen air squadrons of high-altitude bombers, dive bombers, and fighters, and between two and three hundred Navy ships and smaller craft of all types. In coming months fresh Army divisions would form new interservice teams and, applying techniques demonstrated by the XIV Corps, continue the island march to Japan.

While the Marine Corps would likely dispute that conclusion, at the time the Marine command on Guadalcanal was highly impressed with the 164th.

The DUI of the 164th.

Sundin's entry for this day also notes that Japanese naval shelling by the battleships Kongo and Haruna took Henderson Field out of operation and that the first flight of a Rolls-Royce engined P51 Mustang occurred.  It was the British, not the Americans, which made that critical change.

Indeed, on that change, it might be noted that while the P51 is thought of as the great American fighter of the Second World War, it was really an Anglo-American project, with its original ordering to its critical power plant change coming about due to the British.

Sunday, October 11, 1942. Battle of Cape Esperance

It was Columbus Day in the United States, when that meant more than it does now.

The naval Battle of Cape Esperance commences in the Solomons off of Guadalcanal.  It would result in an American tactical victory, with one U.S. destroyer being sunk as opposed to a Japanese heavy cruiser and a destroyer sinking in surface actions, and two Japanese destroyers going down in air attacks retreating from the battle.

United States Navy Infantry Battalion flag that served as the unofficial U.S. Navy flag until 1959.

Joe Louis announced his fighting days were over.

Friday, October 9, 1942. Australian legislative Independence.

The Australian parliament adopted the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act.  The act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1931, granted the dominions nearly full legislative authority.  Australia back dates acceptance to a 1939 date so as to predate the war.

Marines crossed the Matanikau River, putting Henderson Field out of artillery range.The above and other events are discussed for this date on Sarah Sundin's blog:

Today in World War II History—October 9, 1942: First WAVES enlisted schools open. On Guadalcanal, Marines cross Matanikau River, pushing Japanese out of artillery range of Henderson Field.

Albert Peter Low, Canadian geologist and explorer, died at age 81.

A.P. Low and party on a hauling picnic up Lake Winokapau, Churchill River, Labrador, 1894.

Sunday, September 27, 1942. The heroism of Douglas Munro.

Today in World War II History—September 27, 1942: During the withdrawal from Matanikau on Guadalcanal, Signalman 1C Douglas Munro uses his Higgins Boat to shield Marines at the cost of his life;.

So notes Sarah Sundin on her blog. 

Douglas Munro.

Munro had dropped out of college to enter the Coast Guard in 1939 as he saw the threat of war looming, doing so as its primary mission was saving lives.  He's been born to a Canadian mother and American father, in Canada, but his father had relocated the family to the United States as a child.  Munro was very slight of build, as the photograph above shows, and had to eat heavily to meet the Coast Guard enlistment weight.

Sundin also notes that today saw the last performance by Glenn Miller before he entered the service.  At the time he was making $15,000 to $20,000 per week, which seems like a lot now, but which was the equivalent of $250,000 to $333,000 per week in today's' dollars, a vast sum indeed.

Friday, September 18, 1942. Far from home.

The Rohwer War Relocation Center, a Japanese American internment cap, opened in Desha County, Arkansas.

Popular myth has held that all internment camps were in the West, but this one obviously wasn't. 8,500 people were held there during the war, in a location that was probably as alien as imaginable from their homes.

FWIW, the current population of Desha County is nearly half of what it was in 1940.

The British occupied Tamataave on the east coast of Madagascar in their undeclared war on the Vichy French in Madagascar.

The British also concluded Operation Anglo, the long-running raid on Rhodes, successfully.

The 4,157 man 7th Marine Regiment and one battalion of the 11th Marine Regiment, land on Guadalcanal.  Additionally, food arrives, allowing the Marines to go back to full rations.

September 15, 1942. The Devastating Torpedo Run of the I-19.

USS Wasp after being hit.

The Japanese I-19 fired fatal torpedo shots at the USS Wasp and USS O'Brien, and damaged the USS North Carolina off of Guadalcanal in a single torpedo run of six torpedoes.

The USS O'Brien being hit, the Wasp is burning on the left.

The I-19 had a devastating career in the Pacific War until its luck ran out on November 25, 1943, when it was sunk by the USS Radford.

On the same day, Italian frogmen placed limpet mines on the British SS Ravens Point at Gibraltar, sinking her, but not beyond repair.

The United States Army Air Force bombed Kiska for the second day in a row.

Monday, September 14, 1942. Truman speaks.

Senator Harry S. Truman of Missouri delivered a speech on developments in the War Program.

The Japanese effort at Edson's Ridge on Guadalcanal draws to a close in a Marine Corps victory.

US bombers stationed at Adak bomb the harbor at Kiska, damaging two Japanese submarines.

Stalingrad experienced fierce fighting and. . . frost.

The Japanese reached Ioribaiwa Ridge and attack, but the Australians hold out.

The Chinese take Wuyi.

Day two of Operation Agreement proves an Allied failure.

The Yankees took the 1942 American League Pennant, beating out the Cleveland Indians.

Sunday, September 13, 1942. Japanese attacks on Edson's Ridge, Commonwealth raids on Tobruk, the Laconia Tragedy, Assaults at Stalingrad.

Marine Corps artillery and aircraft, from nearby Henderson Field, cause the Japanese to retreat from Edson's Ridge.  The Japanese, under the command of Gen. Kiyotaki Kawanguchi, tried again that night and broke through the line, but the were stopped by machinegun fire from Hill 123 as well as artillery.

General Kawanguchi was an unusual character who had previously objected to Japanese revenge killings of Philippine government and military officials following the fall of the Philippines.  He stated the killing of prisoners was a violation of Bushido.  Following his service at Guadalcanal, he was put on the reserve list, where he would remain until 1945.  He died in 1961.

The U-156 picked up survivors from the Laconia.  The U Boat commander sought additional help, and even broadcast in English for assistance.

The Germans commenced a large-scale offensive at Stalingrad resulting in house to house fighting, the commencement of that type of combat in the city. It made little progress.

Commonwealth forces commenced Operation Agreement near Tobruk, a series of amphibious and ground raids. They'd take large scale losses to little effect.

Saturday, September 12, 1922. The Battle of Edson's Ridge and the Laconia incident commence.

Japanese forces, believing that the Marines have only 2,000 men on Guadalcanal, when in fact there are 12,000, attack Edson's Ridge.  The fighting, which commences at night, is intense and confused, but the Japanese make little progress.

Edson's Ridge after battle.

The U-156 sinks the British troopship Laconia in the South Atlantic, which is carrying a mixed group of Italian POWs, civilians and military personnel.  The submarine surfaced to pick up survivors, and was surprised to find that many were Italian.

Tuesday, September 8, 1942. Marine Raiders at Taivu.

World War Two shoulder insignia of the Marine Raiders.

The Marine Corps 1st Raider Battalion landed at Taivu, behind Japanese lines, on Guadalcanal and destroyed the Japanese base camp that was being used to prepare for a large-scale offensive.  The Marines were aware of the Japanese landings at that point. The raid disrupted the Japanese effort and revealed intelligence on the size of the Japanese forces, some 5,200 troops, committed to Taivu Point.

At Efogi, Papua, Japanese efforts prevent Australian counterattacks and result in a nighttime Australian withdrawal from their positions.

Today in World War II History—September 8, 1942: Joint British-American directive is issued consigning night bombing of Nazi-occupied Europe to the RAF and daylight bombing to the US Eighth Air Force.

From Sarah Sundin's blog.

I wasn't aware that this was part of a directive, but had thought it simply reflected the tactical thought of the two different air forces.  At any rate, it did so reflect them.

The RAF, based on its early experiences in the war, simply felt that daytime raids were too costly, and frankly from their prospective they definitely were.  Their turning to the night, however, meant that they sacrificed accuracy for safety.  The U.S. Army, in contrast, was extremely confident in the precision of its bombing and hoped for accuracy, thereby making it willing to take large losses.  In contrast, however, it could afford them, and it somewhat compensated for the risk to its crews by limiting the number of missions they would fly until they were rotated home.  Nonetheless, early on, few crews made it to that number.

The result was that Germany was bombed night and day, although not very accurately by either air force.

Perhaps ironically, also on this day, a nighttime RAF raid on Frankfurt dropped most of its bombs in the countryside outside the city, and as far away as Russelsheim some fifteen miles distant.