Showing posts with label Norway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Norway. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 4, 2023

Monday, October 4, 1943. Monstrous

Himmler delivered the first of his Posen speeches to SS officers and German administrators, in which he stated, in part:

I also want to speak to you here, in complete frankness, of a really grave chapter. Amongst ourselves, for once, it shall be said quite openly, but all the same we will never speak about it in public. Just as we did not hesitate on June 30, 1934, to do our duty as we were ordered, and to stand comrades who had erred against the wall and shoot them, and we never spoke about it and we never will speak about it. It was a matter of natural tact that is alive in us, thank God, that we never talked about it amongst ourselves, that we never discussed it. Each of us shuddered and yet each of us knew clearly that the next time he would do it again if it were an order, and if it were necessary. I am referring here to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of the things that is easily said: "The Jewish people are going to be exterminated," that's what every Party member says, "sure, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination - it'll be done." And then they all come along, the 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his one decent Jew. Of course, the others are swine, but this one, he is a firstrate Jew. Of all those who talk like that, not one has seen it happen, not one has had to go through with it. Most of you men know what it is like to see 100 corpses side by side, or 500 or 1,000. To have stood fast through this - and except for cases of human weakness - to have stayed decent, that has made us hard. This is an unwritten and never-to-be-written page of glory in our history, for we know how difficult it would be for us if today - under bombing raids and the hardships and deprivations of war - if we were still to have the Jews in every city as secret saboteurs, agitators, and inciters. If the Jews were still lodged in the body of the German nation, we would probably by now have reached the stage of 1916-17. 

The wealth they possessed we took from them. I gave a strict order, which has been carried out by SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, that this wealth will of course be turned over to the Reich in its entirety. We have taken none of it for ourselves. Individuals who have erred will be punished in accordance with the order given by me at the start, threatening that anyone who takes as much as a single Mark of this money is a dead man. A number of SS men - they are not very - many committed this offense, and they shall die. There will be no mercy. We had the moral right, we had the duty towards our people, to destroy this people that wanted to destroy us. But we do not have the right to enrich ourselves by so much as a fur, as a watch, by one Mark or a cigarette or anything else. We do not want, in the end, because we destroyed a bacillus, to be infected by this bacillus and to die. I will never stand by and watch while even a small rotten spot develops or takes hold. Wherever it may form we will together burn it away. All in all, however, we can say that we have carried out this most difficult of tasks in a spirit of love for our people. And we have suffered no harm to our inner being, our soul, our character.... 

He also stated:

What happens to the Russians, what happens to the Czechs, is a matter of utter indifference to me, Such good blood of our own kind as there may be among the nations we shall acquire for ourselves, if necessary by taking away the children and bringing them up among us. Whether the other races live in comfort or perish of hunger interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our culture. 

He went on to refer to these people as animals, noting how the Germans were, he claimed, the only people in the world to have a decent attitude towards animals.

These were words from a German leader, it might be noted, celebrating German murder.

The Germans took the Greek island of Kos, following which they killed 100 Italian officers, following orders from Hitler regarding Italian officers who had followed their government into action against the Germans.

Corsica was liberated from the Axis.

Australian commanders at Dampu.

The Australians prevailed in the Battle of Dampu.

Albanian resistance fighters prevailed in the Battle of Drashovica.

An RAF raid on Frankfurt hit a children's hospital's air raid shelder, resulting in 529 civilian deaths, of which 90 were children.

The U-279, U-389, U-422 and U-460 were all destroyed by aircraft in the Atlantic.

The U.S. Navy attacked German shipping at Bodø, Norway with aircraft from the USS Ranger in Operation Leader.  Five German ships were sunk, four damaged and two aircraft lost for a loss of four Navy aircraft.

Dauntless dive bomber in Opeation Leader.

The operation in far northern Norway was the U.S. Navy's only carrier assault on German targets during World War Two, outside of operations against submarines and in the Mediterranean.

Bing Crosby recorded I'll Be Home for Christmas.

Monday, June 26, 2023

Saturday, June 26, 1943. Mutiny in Norway, Choosing Normandy, and Willie Gillis.

Today in World War II History—June 26, 1943: Allied commanders choose Normandy for invasion of France in 1944 and appoint Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory to prepare air plans for D-day.

Sarah Sundin, on her blog.

The crews of six U-boats based in Norway mutinied, refusing to put out to sea in light of high German submarine losses.  They were arrested and placed in Akershus Prison in Oslo.  The collapse of Imperial Germany began, of course, with sailor revolts in 1918.

Fritz Schmidt, age 39, the German Commissioner-General for Political Affairs and Propaganda in the occupied Netherlands died when he "fell, jumped, or was pushed out of a train".

"USS Newell (DE-322), launches sideways at Houston, Texas, June 26, 1943. The ship was named in honor of Naval Aviator Lieutenant Commander Byron Bruce Newell who was killed while serving onboard USS Hornet (CV-8) during the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands, October 26, 1942. Ship’s Sponsor was the widow. Photographed August 12, 1943. Official U.S. Navy photograph."

A famous Norman Rockwell illustration appeared on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post, depicting his everyman soldier figure, Willie Gillis,  showing the "cat's cradle" string trick to an Indian snake charmer.

Monday, May 15, 2023

Saturday, May 15, 1943. Changes in Tunisian leadership, Flaming bats.

From Sarah Sundin's blog:'

Today in World War II History—May 15, 1943: 80 Years Ago—May 15, 1943: US Army ends experiment in using “bat bombs” as bats burn down newly constructed, unoccupied Carlsbad Army Air Base, NM.

Oops.

She also noted that the Germans launched an offensive in Yugoslavia against Communist partisans, and ABC was founded to enable the newly formed company to purchase the NBC Blue Network.


The Free French deposed Sidi Muhammad VII al-Munsif (Moncef Bey) from Tunis, and would ultimately, that following July, send him packing to Madagascar.  The Bey had collaborated with the Germans, who had in turn made him the King of Tunisia.  To his credit, however, he'd protected the Jewish population of the country as well as the Muslim population.  In context, his actions may have made some sense, from a Tunisian prospective.

When he went into exile, his 25 wives went with him, so at least he wasn't lonely.

His cousin, Muhammad VIII al-Amin (Lamine Bey), became the new Bey.


Moncef Bey retained fairly strong support from Tunisian nationalist, who in turn had an uneasy relationship with the same.  This began to change upon Moncef Bey's death in exile in 1948.  Lamine Bey became king in 1956 with the departure of the French, but he was deposed in 1957.  He died at age 81 in 1962.

He was married to a commoner, with whom he had ten children.

The SS Irish Oak, an Irish flagged vessel with Irish tricolors and Eire painted on the side of it was torpedoed by the U-607.  The crew was able to abandon the vessel and the U-607 waited to fire a final shot until they had departed it.

Operation Checkmate came to an end.

Friday, April 28, 2023

Wednesday, April 28, 1943. Lost ships.

The Chichibu Maru (秩父丸) renamed Kamakura Maru was sunk by the submarine USS Gudgeon resulting in 2,035 of the 2,500 passengers, soldiers and civilians, loosing their lives.

No. 14 (Arctic) Commando began a raid on Haugesund Norway's shipping.  The seven man team would sink one ship before being captured. They all ultimately perished, six being executed under the Commando Order and a seventh dying of typhus while a prisoner.

From Sarah Sundin's blog:

Today in World War II History—April 28, 1943: Atlantic convoy ONS-5 begins battle with U-boats: by May 6, six U-boats and thirteen Allied ships will be sunk; a turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic.

Tuesday, February 28, 2023

Sunday, February 28, 1943. Norwegians at Vermok.

Norwegian ski born Norwegian commandos raided the Norsk Hydro plant at Vermok, Norway, destroying the heavy water inventory that had been produced there by the Germans.

The plant in 1948.

28,000 Norwegians carried on beyond Norway during the war, joining Norwegian forces that had made it out of Norway when it was invaded in 1940.  15,000 Norwegians joined the German forces, principally in the SS, which mostly fought on the Eastern Front, although Germany attempted to recruit Norwegians for the German Navy as well.  About 40,000 Norwegians participated in the Milorg, the Norwegian resistance.

The Vermok event was memorialized in the 1965 British war movie, Heroes of Telemark.  It was also featured in a 1948 Norwegian movie, Operation Swallow.

This was the third attempted raid on the plan, this one being more successful than the prior two.  Another air attack would take place in November 1943 and a heavy water transporting boat would be attacked in 1944.

The USAAF and RAF made a 1,000 plane raid on Saint-Nazaire submarine base.

Friday, February 24, 2023

The Lord's Prayer in Norweigan bokmål

 Vår Far i himmelen!


La navnet ditt helliges.

La riket ditt komme.

La viljen din skje på jorden slik som i himmelen.

Gi oss i dag vårt daglige brød,

og tilgi oss vår skyld,

slik også vi tilgir våre skyldnere.

Og la oss ikke komme i fristelse,

men frels oss fra det onde.

For riket er ditt og makten og æren i evighet. 

Amen.

Saturday, January 28, 2023

What are you reading?


A new trailing thread, dedicated to what we're currently reading.

And. . . we hope. . . with participation from you.

What are you reading right  now? Add it down in the commentary section

__________________________________________________________________________________

June 21, 2016

Give Me Eighty Men

I'm presently reading Give Me Eighty Men by Shannon Smith. It's a history of the Fetterman Fight, and a history of the history of the Fetterman Fight. I'll review it when I'm done, but I'll note that the favorable mention of the book by the authors of The Heart of All That Is caused me to pick it up, even though I'd been inclined to previously avoid it.

So far, I'm enjoying it, and its certainly raising a lot questions in my mind about the Fetterman battle, although I'm reserving my judgment on various things so far.

___________________________________________________________________________________

July 5, 2016

Red Cloud's War

I must be stuck on a theme right now.  Having read The Heart of All that Is, and having learned about Give Me Eighty Men from that, I am now reading Red Cloud's War by McDermott which I learned about from Give Me Eighty Men.  I wasn't actually aware that John McDermott had written a two volume history of Red Cloud's War until I saw it referenced, with a bit of criticism as to his treatment of Fetterman, in Smith's book but I'm enjoying it so far, having just started it today while riding on airplanes and sitting in airports. So far, I'm really enjoying it.

___________________________________________________________________________________

July 29, 2016

The Lost Mandate of Heaven
The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam

I just finished the excellent Red Cloud's War earlier this week and started on this over breakfast this morning. While I'm not far into it, so far its been very readable and very interesting as well.

Update:

I just finished this book and I'm left, yet again, wondering why the Kennedy Administration continues to  have such an golden aura surrounding it.

Besides Kennedy's personal ickiness, his administration was a foreign policy and moral wreck.  Camelot?  More like the court of AEthelred the Unready.

__________________________________________________________________________________

October 13, 2016

Blacklisted by History
The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy
by M. Stanton Evans 

A good, and very well read, friend of mine has been recommending this book to me for quite some time.  I just picked it up, and as I had been getting a lot of airport time, I'm about 3/4s of the way through it, even though its a lengthy book (in excess of 600 pages) and its incredibly dense in cited facts and sources.

Indeed, it's a hard book to describe.  It purports to be the "untold" story of Senator McCarthy, and I had some concern that it might be a revisionist essay, but it's neither really solely about McCarthy nor is it so much of an essay (although it is that) as an incredibly detailed example of investigative reporting.  Evans, who wrote the book, had a career in journalism and that shows.   Given that it is investigative journalism, basically, combined with history, and because Evans knew he was taking on the prior record, it's extremely densely packed with cites to original sources and its also somewhat repetitive.  Nonetheless, its riveting. 

What the book really is, is a history of Soviet penetration into American government in the 1930s and 1940s.  It starts well before McCarthy was on the scene and looks at a lot of data before he ever made his appearance.  It then picks up his role in exposing Communists in American government once he arrives.

I'm not finished with the book yet, but while I'll come back with my full opinions when I'm done, I'm satisfied that its not a simple hard right McCarthy fan piece.  Indeed, the friend who recommended it to me actually noted that when Evans started the book off he expected to find the opposite of what he did, which may explain in part why the book is so extraordinarily careful in slamming the reader repetitively with original sources.  And I also have to note that its slightly,  but only slightly, anti climatic (so far) in that the story in this area has really changed dramatically since 1990.  McCarthy, however, hasn't really been rehabilitated so far in the public eye.

That's a bit surprising as following the 1990 collapse of the Soviet Union and the release of Soviet records, combined with the Federal Government's release of the Army's Venona files we now knew beyond a shawdow of a doubt that Soviet espionage efforts were far deeper than previously believed. Figures like Whitaker Chambers who suffered for sounding the alarm turn out not only to be correct, but in fact the Soviet effort was far greater than was previously known to anyone but the government and its investigative arms.  Venona has confirmed that many of the people that left wing and liberal apologists maintained were innocent victims of accusations were in fact Communist operatives, just as they were accused of being.  Indeed, people who were only sort of expected turn out to be proven Communist operatives.

Evans builds on that and demonstrates that the individuals on the original McCarthy list of suspects and the amended one, some 60 or so people, were in fact generally what they were accused of being.  He also goes on to show that McCarthy clearly had sources inside at least a couple of agencies that were supplying him with up to date information so the period accusations that his stories were old news were inaccurate.

I'll leave it there, and there is more to discuss, but I'll pick that back up when I finish the book.

Update, November 14, 2016:

I finished the book noted above (some time ago actually) and highly recommend it, although it does have a very unusual style.  It's author's role as a journalist really shows, as its basically a series of essay points and explorations of evidence.

As good as it is, I still wouldn't say that its the definitive biography of McCarthy.  It's really simply an exploration of his role in exploring Communist infiltration into the US government and the opposition that he met in doing that.  I'd regard it as slightly partisan, but very well done.

I also think, however, that a full biography that's not biased would be in order, which I understand has not really been done. This book explores McCarthy's early life a bit, although not much, but completely omits anything regarding his personal life upon reaching public office.  His marriage to a much younger member of his staff, for example, isn't even mentioned.

All in all, a very good correction to the record, very well researched, and convincingly written.

__________________________________________________________________________________

November 14, 2016

The Secret War
by Max Hastings 

Hastings is extremely well known to students of World War Two and has written a number of absolutely excellent books on that topic. The former journalist hasn't focused solely on the Second World War, and recently wrote one on World War One.  At the time he wrote that book, he indicated that he was done writing on World War Two, but obviously, he wasn't.  He's noted that he's returned to the Second World War after making such statements before, doing so this time to examine intelligence and espionage during World War Two.

I must be on an espionage and fifth column kick, as the book noted immediately above is also basically on that general theme, but when I heard that Hastings had written a new book on this topic, I knew that I'd get it. Due to a series of long flights, I actually started it before I completed Blacklisted By History.

I'm still reading it and still have quite a ways to go, but so far, it meets with Hastings high standards of writing and research.  I'll detail more on it when I complete the book.

__________________________________________________________________________________

May 4, 1918

Comment

This blog has a bunch of "trailing threads" that I have not been keeping up on. The same is true of the pages on the blog.  I'll often think of updating them, but rarely do.

So I'm surprised to see that I haven't updated this entry since November 2016.  I skipped 2017 completely.  I finished The Secret War, enjoying it very much, and never entered anything else.

Pathetic.

May 4, 1918

Since  my last entry, I read (at least):

Stalin:  Paradoxes of Power 1878-1928
Stephen Kotkin

This excellent book, which is part of what will be a three volume treatment of Stalin's life, is excellent.  It's also somewhat depressing and distressing, but then so is the life of Stalin.

I read this during 2017 but towards the beginning of the year shortly after finishing Hasting's book noted above.  I should have noted it then. Anyhow, the treatment of Stalin is exhaustive, detailing his early life and distressing rise to power.

The German War: A Nation Under Arms, 1939-1945
Nicholas Stargardt

I'm frankly not sure if I picked this book up after the first volume treatment of Stalin's life or not.  I may have.  Some of the books I noted above I read while doing a great deal of traveling, which always makes for a lot of reading for me.

Anyhow, unusually, I read this book rather slowly.  Often just a few pages at a time while eating breakfast, until perhaps the last third of the book which I read more rapidly (and again, partially while travelling).

This book is extremely interesting and extremely distressing.  It details the views of average Germans on what they were thinking.  The book is a large one, extremely interesting, and after reading it I still don't know if I understand what they were thinking.  It seems they largely supported the war while knowing that some of their aims at least were grossly immoral.  In some ways, the book details the success of propaganda and self delusion over clear thinking, something that perhaps gives us a very distressing lesson for the present day.

Kristin Lavransdatter: (Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition)

Sigrid Undset

I'm presently reading this book, which is actually three books by Undset which were written sequentially and which take up the life of the protagonist, Kristin Lavransdattter sequentially.

Set in Medieval Norway, Udset's books The Wreath, The Wife and the The Cross are frankly masterpieces and she accordingly received the Nobel Prize for Literature for them.  She was a deep student of Medieval Norway to such an extent that the books portray what almost seems like a world that picks right up where the Scandinavian Sagas leave off, and almost read like one of them for that matter.  Beyond that, the books sort of mirror an intense series of personal struggles and revelations that the author was going through at the time that she wrote them.

I'm about half way the book now, having started it a couple of weeks ago, which says something about how readable it is as the book is over 1000 pages long.  I'm deep into The Wife now.  I'll report back when I finish, but highly recommended so far.

April 4, 2019

Once again, I've been bad about updating this thread.

For whatever reason, Kristin Lavransdatter, which I was reading when I last posted nearly a year ago, took me a long time to read.  In part that was because, as is often the case, I tend to read a lot in airports and while traveling, and starting about that time it seems my travel slowed down.

Anyhow, I finished it and it was absolutely excellent.  I very highly recommend it.

Anyhow, I did finish that book some time ago and now I frankly can't remember if I read another after it, other than a series of books on hunting dogs after we got our Golden Doodle, Odo.  More on him in some upcoming post.  Anyhow, last spring there was an entire series of books I read on training hunting dogs.

I gave up on that endeavor, however, and had somebody who knew what they were doing take up that task.

One book I did read after Kristin Lavransdatter was:

American Riding and Work Saddles, 1790-1920
Ken R. Knopp.

I've basically read this book twice, as I was privileged to read a pre publication version first.

It's excellent.

It probably would have come through a lot more a decade ago when I first started this blog, but at one time I rode a lot and have a deep interest in the topic. As part of that, I have a really deep interest in the material culture of riding.  I post a lot, in fact, at The Military Horse, the best web sight there is for folks with this interest.  And I've read a lot on the topic.

Knopp's book is excellent and in some ways is a nice companion to Margaret Derry's Horses In Society, a book that if you are interested in this topic, you need to read.  Taking on a century and a half of American saddlery is a daunting task, and Knopp does it very well.

I'm currently reading:

Vietnam, An Epic Tragedy 1945-1975
Max Hastings

I love Max Hasting's works, which are focused on World War Two more than anything else (he's stated a couple of times that he wasn't going to write on World War Two anymore, only to come back and write on it again).  This time he's writing on the what may be the defining war for American culture in the post 1945 era.

I'm only up to the assassination of Diem right now, but Hasting's doesn't disappoint.  I'll report back when I've finished the book, but I'm glad to have an English author write on the topic.  There have been other good histories on the war or on parts of the war, but they're all American or French, and therefore have a participants bias to at least some degree.  Hasting's does not.  Indeed, in reading his book I've already come to a better appreciation of the failings of The Lost Mandate of Heaven, discussed above, and a couple of other more recent histories on the Vietnam War.

Update, July 17, 2019.

Still reading this book but have to note, my collection of military historian friends who served in Vietnam, and Vietnam veterans in general, I suspect will really hate this book.

This isn't a condemnation of it by any means.  It's excellent.  And this book was necessary.

Update, August 2, 2019.

I concluded reading Hasting's book, Vietnam, An Epic Tragedy 1945-1975.

Gut wrenching would likely be the best description.

Hastings has done the history of this topic, and frankly Americans, an enormous service by writing this book.  It's arguably the first really objective history of the war, in no small part because as an English military historian and former journalist, he has no stake in the fight and how it is recalled.  Additionally, as a masterful writer in the English language, his book is widely accessible to those with an interest in the history of the war, which is largely the American audience.

Hastings' book is excellent, as are all of his books which I've read (I haven't read them all by any means).  His research on the war is excellent, admittedly hampered somewhat by the fact that the Hanoi government has not come close to releasing the information that it retains on the war.  His descriptions are, moreover, are both fascinating and heart rending.

Hastings is clear from the very onset of the book that he regarded the French and then the American effort in the war (most of the book deals with the American effort) as completely doomed right from the onset.  This doesn't make him a sympathizer with the North Vietnamese effort, however, and he's clear that it was lead by brutal men who engaged in brutal acts.  His concluding sections make it plain that whatever the communists claimed to be fighting for, and whatever those in the South and North believed about what the communist victory would mean, it mean unyielding and ongoing repression.

Still, reading the book really makes a person wonder if a different outcome was possible.  Hastings basically regards the American effort from 1965 to 1973, when the US pulled out of active participation, as inept, and its really hard not to join him in that conclusion.  He also makes the observation, which is undeniable, that the Saigon government was hopelessly corrupt and its military plagued with all the problems that largess and graft could bestow upon it.  Nonetheless, it's clear in Hastings account that a fair amount of the ARVN fought hard and valiantly right to the end and that some Southern units were stubbornly fighting right until the Southern government surrendered.  It's also hard not to come to the conclusion, as Hastings himself does, that the Republic of Vietnam would have weathered the 1975 North Vietnamese invasion if the U.S. had committed air power, as it had in 1972.  Hastings feels that such a commitment in 75 would have only postponed things to a later date, as the North Vietnamese government was totalitarian and dedicated to winning no matter what losses it sustained, but by 1975 it was done to soldiers in its early teens.  Frankly, I'm far from convinced that Hastings views are correct on that score, and strongly suspect that had American air power been committed in 75, the losses that would have been sustained by the North would have been too severe for them to really recover from for at least a decade.  . . and a decade stretching to 1985 would have made quite a difference.

That makes the U.S. look really bad, of course, and indeed the U.S. comes out of this book looking absolutely horrible, including the American military throughout the war and in particular in the later stages of the war.  Nixon and Kissinger come out looking awful, and they should.

I'd put this book in the must read category for a serious student of American history, and rank it was Alistair Horne's A Savage War of Peace on the French war in Algeria as a must read for contemporary American policy makers and military men (and women).  It's interesting in that regard that two of the really seminal works on Western wars in non western lands have been written by British historians whose nations weren't involved in them.  We're fortunate that they've written them.

_________________________________________________________________________________

August 10, 2019.


The Vanquished. Why the First World War Failed To End
Robert Gerwarth

I decided to take a break from Vietnam and read something that coincidentally fits in really well with this blog.  The Vanquished is a short book (about 1/3d of it is end notes) that deals with the wars and revolutions that came immediately out of World War One.

I'm about 1/3d of the way through this book now.  It's quite good, although I'm not really learning anything I didn't already know.  The reason for that, however, largely has to do with being a student of the era and, frankly, also because putting together the frequent posts for this blog have informed me about a lot of wars that followed World War One that I  wouldn't have otherwise known much about.

I suspect that most people don't know that much about then, however, and have the idea that when the Great War ended, the fighting simply stopped and the soldiers went home. That's far from true, for any of the combatants.

This books, so far, has been doing a nice job of explaining why that was the case, and where it was the case.

_________________________________________________________________________________

September 5, 2019

I finished reading The Vanquished.  For a student of World War One, modern history, or history in general, I think it's a must read.

It's become very common to believe that when World War One ended, there was peace, but it simply isn't true.  Indeed the United States may be the exception to the rule in that it largely entered peace, even though it still had troops in a combat role in Russia after November, 1918.  Almost every other combatant was fighting on in some other war, and some of the wars were pretty intensive, at least locally. And most of those wars were an offshoot of World War One.  The results of the war itself were very much in doubt for some time, and the new map wasn't established for years as new nations slugged it out over their borders or even for their existence.

It probably goes without saying, but all that is not only important and interesting history in its own right, it's necessary history for the understanding of World War Two.

I'm now reading;

A River Runs Through It and Other Stories
Norman Maclean

Most people are familiar with the really excellent movie based on this semi autobiographical novella by Norman Maclean which was made into an excellent movie by Robert Redford.  I just started reading it a few days ago and I'm already well into it.  I'll give, of course, a review of it when I've completed reading it.

_________________________________________________________________________________

September 8, 2019

I finished A River Runs Through It and Other Stories yesterday.

The novella A River Runs Through It has achieved almost mystical status in certain quarters, with it being particularly highly regarded among those who like "western" literature, or perhaps I should say literature of the modern west, although all of these stories are set in the period prior to World War Two.  The reputation is well deserved.

Various reviews attempt to compare the work to other well known authors who wrote in the same genera, with Hemingway being noted.  Well, it's much better than any work of Hemingway's, even if we consider that the Hemingway outdoor works set in the West actually are good, as compared to the rest of his writing which is not all that great, frankly.  A River Runs Through it, the longest of the novellas, is truly a masterpiece.

Maclean describes the West of the 1910s through the 1930s in a way that would be highly recognizable to anyone whose grown up in the real West even today.  The novella is hugely interior, and for that reason the task of putting it on film must have been really difficult to say the least.  To anyone wanting a real grasp of how Westerners see the West and themselves, this novella is the work to read.

One question that a person whose seen the excellent movie may have is how much does the novella depart from the film?  Not much, but it does some, and the film adds some elements that are lacking in the novella.  The novella does not deal with how Norman meets Jessie, his wife, in any fashion.  Jessie Maclean really was from Wolf Point Montana, but the story of their early relationship is completely omitted.  Indeed, throughout much of the novella Norman is already married, including those parts dealing with Jessie's brother.

It's hard to describe the writing of a novel, although this is barely a novel and close to a memoir and that also raises the question here on how much of the story is fiction and how much is fact.  I'm not familiar with Maclean's life enough to know how much of the story is fictionalized, but I suspect its not all that much.  By way of a plot spoiler, one thing that's definitely true, but somewhat fictionalized, is that Paul Davidson (Paul Maclean's actual nom de plum) did indeed die from being beat up in an alley in the late 1930s, just as described, and the murder remains an unsolved murder.  It was a Chicago murder, however, as Norman Maclean had convinced Paul to come to Chicago where he worked as a reporter and for the press office of the University of Chicago.  This wouldn't really fit the Montana centric story line however, as would the fact that Paul was a Dartmouth graduate.

The novella is, I feel, a must read.

As noted, this book contains three stories, not one, although A River Runs Through It is the longest and best known.

The second one is Logging and Pimping and You're Pal, Jim.

Maclean worked as a logger while attending college.  The precise details of that I don't know, but it was for at least two seasons. This novella deals with that and I suspect, and indeed I'm certain, that it's much more fictionalized than A River Runs Through It.  It's also of uneven quality.

In this novella Maclean sought to describe loggers but I suspect that he ended up, as is so often done, by fairly grossly exaggerating his depiction as he went on, which is unfortunate. Some elements of the description, in particular his description of clothing, are really excellent. But it decays as it the novella goes on and this one may be said to have almost no real point, other than being an odd character study.

The third one is USFS 1919, which deals as with Norman's work on a Forest Service crew in 1919.

This one is excellent, and again not only is the story worthwhile, but the descriptions of life at the time, and particularly a very distinct rural occupation of the time, are superb.  Descriptions of horses, packing and Forest Service work in a now bygone era are extremely well done.   This story is also probably mostly fiction, but his work for the Forest Service at a very young age (Norman is 17 when this story takes place, and he'd already worked for the Forest Service for two years) is not.  This novella is well worth reading.

On a couple of other observations, knowing that the movie was from a novella, I've wondered if the plot details of the film were filled out from the other novellas in the book. They are not.  As noted, the film includes story lines, such as Norman meeting Jessie, that aren't in the book at all.  About the only added details provided is that Norman worked as a logger and for the Forest Service, and his work as a logger is mentioned in the film.

Anyhow, the stories included in A River Runs Through It and Other Stories are first rate stories in the modern Western genre and much better than many, maybe most. The stories due have an earthy element to them, and all three have some references to illicit unions of one kind or another, but they aren't graphic and they don't get down in the mud as much as later works of Larry McMurtry.

_________________________________________________________________________________

September 12, 2019

The British Are Coming:  The War for America, Lexington to Princeton, 1775-1777
Rick Atkinson


This book is a new release by noted historical author Rick Atkinson.  Atkinson, whose Liberation Trilogy on the American ground campaigns in North Africa and Europe set the bar for the histories of the U.S. Army on that topic, now turns his eye on the American Revolution for a three volume treatment.

I've just started the book and I'm still in the prologue, but it promises to be excellent.

_________________________________________________________________________________

July 30, 1920

The King and the Catholics.
Antonia Fraser


When I update this thread it occurs to me how bad I am at keeping it updated.

And looking back on this thread it also occurs to me how much my reading has slowed down during the pandemic, which is an odd thing to realize.  Work has not slowed down for me at all, but travel really has, and that's a lot of the reason for that.

Anyhow, after I finished The British Are Coming I started, and just finished, The King and the Catholic by Antonia Fraser.  It's not a large book so I should have read it quickly, but for whatever reason it took me awhile to read this very interesting work.

The book deals with Catholic Emancipation in the United Kingdom, which then included Ireland, and which took place over a period of several decades in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries.

The UK has a complicated relationship with Catholicism and went from being a deeply Catholic country after its conversion to Christianity to one that was embroiled in turmoil following King Henry VIII's severance of ties with Rome, to being a virulently anti Catholic country some time later. In that latter period it outlawed the Church and persecuted Catholics.  In spite of that, some families in England and Scotland, including some prominent ones, remained loyal to the Catholic Church. By the mid 18th Century they were able to practice their faith at some personal risk, but were deprived of office and position.  Ireland, for its part, had been incorporated into the UK against its will and it remained overwhelmingly Catholic.

During the American Revolution the law slowly began to change, in part as a response to it, although it faced enormous opposition and backlash.  Nonetheless Catholics were largely freed from legal disabilities in 1829. This book traces that odd and interesting history.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm actually adding this book on the day I finished it, showing how much I've neglected this thread.

_________________________________________________________________________________

August 1, 2020

The Great Plains During World War II
R. Douglas Hurt


I've just started this book which is about just what its title indicates.

I'm only in the introductory chapter, so I don't have much to report as of yet, other than that it looks promising.

Update:  October 1, 2020

I finished this excellent book and recommend it, although it does tend to read like a textbook to some degree.

Meticulously researched, and covering every topic imaginable in its scope, the book leaves the reader with the realization that much of the rah, rah mythology surrounding the home front on World War Two is just that.  Not that real patriotism didn't exist on the Great Plains in particular and the country in general, but rather that it was much more nuanced than we might commonly imagine.

A must for the study of the home front during the war.

___________________________________________________________________________________

October 1, 2020

The SS A New History
Adrian Weale

I just started this history of the SS so I can't offer any review of it yet.  It'll be interesting to read, I'm sure, as its by the much respected British historian Adrian Weale and it covers a topic that's been heavily mythologized.

Indeed, I have a small volume on the SS around here somewhere that's interesting but clearly inadequate and I'd regretted not picking up The SS: Alibi of a Nation, when I saw it in a bookstore in Denver some years ago.  Weale's book comes highly recommended.

___________________________________________________________________________________

November 14, 2021

I"ve been terrible about updating this thread.

I didn't complete the book on the SS noted above, but perhaps because I already knew much of the history, even though it's only a year ago, I don't have a lot to report about it as it didn't make a huge impression on me.  It is a well done academic book.  If you're looking into the SS, I'd recommend it.

Since that time I may well have read other books, but I'm not immediately recalling them off hand. That is a year ago, and I'm never not reading a book.

Right now I'm reading the following:

Stalin:  Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941
Stephen Kotkin

This is the second volume of an anticipated three volume biography of the Soviet dictator.  The first volume is referenced up above with a 2018 entry.

This is an excellent tome, but its style is unusual for about 3/4s of the book, with very short chapters.  Frankly, I think Kotkin had a hard time with this volume, and it shows it.  It's a good work, but somewhat plodding in the first 3/4s. Frankly, it could have used some good editing, which would have frankly cut about 1/4 of it out.  

February 8, 2022

I finally finished the second volume of Stalin, noted immediately above, and in spite of what I noted, I’m looking forward to the next volume, which I hope will come out soon.  It isn't out yet.

Nonetheless, my comment above remains applicable.  The book is a very long one of nearly 900 pages.  Normally length doesn't bother me at all, and it didn't with volume one, but this one is broken up into very short chapters, much of which deals with Stalin's involvement in minutia.  I get it, he was involved with minutia, and that was part of the nature of his personal dictatorship, but lots of interruptions to deal with his involvement with a single book, or play, or things of this type is a bit much.  The point, I think, is that Stalin's dictatorship was haphazard but all encompassing.

This volume deals with the terror in great detail as well, which needed to be done, but which also gets a little overdone.  Kotkin never really offers an explanation for the mass killings, although he hints that it was simply to wipe out the old in favor of the young, so we're left a bit wondering.  Perhaps its simply inexplicable.

The book really picks up in the final fifth or so as it starts to heavily deal with the Soviet Union's dealings with Nazi Germany.  I don't know that any of this is new ground at this point, but it is very well put and puts the Second World War and the Soviet Union in a prospective that histories, starting I suppose with the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which came out earlier, tend to miss, and often still do. The common narrative, and the one I've always accepted, is that Hitler turned his gaze East as he always intended to do that, making, in essence, everything that happened in the war up  until that time really a preamble to an inevitable war against the Soviet Union. Kotkin doesn't view the war that way at all.

Kotkin's view, and it's really backed up with lots of evidence, is that the Soviet Union was ready to treat with Nazi Germany and then reached too far.  And, he holds, Nazi Germany was likewise ready to treat with the Soviet Union.  He views a war between the two as sooner or later being an inevitability, but not at the time it occurred.

Rather, he maintains, that following the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact the Soviets hoped to secure a better deal and the Germans explored it. What that would have required is the USSR going to war with the United Kingdom, as the Germans, he maintains, regarded the British Empire as their principal enemy.  The Soviets indeed were willing to consider entering the war against the British, and presented a list of demands to the Germans as to what that would require.  I.e., they wanted concessions in Eastern Europe that essentially gave them a free hand there.  The Germans were not willing to do that, and at that point they went to the second option they'd been considering, which was to invade the USSR and simply take the resources that they wanted.  The Soviets were never able to grasp that the Germans weren't going to make a counter offer, and in spite of the fact that they were well aware that Germany was building up for an invasion, they believed they'd get a final demand first, which they might accept, or might use to hold the Germans off through the invasion season.

That's quite a bit different from the classic view that the invasion was simply for Lebenstraum.  It was, and that was a stated goal, but it was actually a bit secondary to a longer term goal of defeating the British Empire.  Kotkin takes the view that the Germans hoped to conquer the European portions of the USSR first, end that war, and then turn again on the British Empire, which it was otherwise unable to directly reach.

July, 2022

I just finished reading Hue, 1968 by Mark Bowden.

I really recommend the book, it's excellent.

The intense urban battle that the book is about is well known as an unusual one during hte Vietnam War.  It's come to be regarded, not without some justification, as a symbol of American defeat in the war, even though the battle was a US and RVN victory.  Bowden does an excellent job of providing a narraitve history of the Marines and soldiers (people forget nearly entirely that the U.S. Army was involved in the battle.

Bowden's book provides accounts from quite a few U.S. servicemen who served in the battle, as well as accounts from the Communist combatants.  The book is intersting in that it swings very much back towards the immediate post Vietnam sort of view of the war as an overall betrayal/lost cause, which some more recent books have not.  The book is, quite frankly, not kind to American leadership during the battle and particularly unkind to senior leadership.  It's not particularly kind to the Marine Corps overall.  It tends to be somewhat sympathetic to the VC/NVA combatants, which is unusual for an American text.

A surprising element of the book is that Bowden, who wrote Black Hawk Down, is obviously unfamiliar with many details of weaponry and the like that most military authors are.  He notes in an updated epilogue that he received criticism from readers of the book for that reason.  It's not a serious matter, but for those who are familiar with such items, it's a bit distracting.

One criticism of the book that I do have is that the role of the ARVN in the battle is really overlooked, but perhaps this was unavoidable.  The book is full of first hand accounts of the battle by Marines, soldiers and Communist combatants, but it has none from the soldiers of the ARVN.  Indeed, the only real first hand account from an ARVN unit was from their US advisor.  As the ARVN fought the entire battle, this is a fairly signficant oversight, but its frankly extremely common for US works on the Vietnam War.

January 28, 2023

I'm obviously not very good at keeping this thread up to date.

The last entry here was from July 2021, at which time I'd just finished Hue, 1968.  After that, I went on to Rasputin by Douglas Smith.

Rasputin is an excellent and perhaps definitive biography of the mysterious Russian starets who became a central figure in the Imperial Russian household.  The book examines many of the legends and mysteries regarding Gregory Rasputin, the Russian peasant, who never held Holy Orders, contrary to one of the common myths.  It's worth reading for that reason alone.

Rasputin is so mysterious, and Imperial Russia was so vast and poorly recorded even in the 20th Century, and it descended into revolution, so even with this effort, which is well done, a lot simply remains unknown about Rasputin.  What we can conclude, even though it may be unsatisfactory, is that he rose up as the second "holy man" advisor to an anemic imperial household which nonetheless had absolute rule over a vast, backwards, nation.  This was largely based on the strength of his religious character and not, as is so often asserted, because he was able to stem the bleeding of the Alexei, who suffered, as is well known, from hemophilia.

He seems to have held conventional Orthodox religious views, although he was tolerant of other faiths in an era in which that was uncommon in general and certainly uncommon in Russia.  He was not, for example, antisemitic.  

What becomes clear from the book is that he had an enormously forceful personality that attracted some, and repelled others.  He was uneducated, but could read and write, and did so simply.  He was extremely religious and a devout Orthodox believer who did not hold, as he was accused of, heretical beliefs of a perverse nature. 

Nonetheless, some of the accusations against him were true.  In spite of his devout beliefs, he became a serial adulterer and did in fact have sexual relations with a large number of women, ranging from prostitutes to ladies of noble background.  This did not extend, as was sometimes suggested, to the imperial household.  He was a heavy drinker, the two of which played together in some instances.  Both of these traits became stronger as he became more influential.

More than anything else, what this book serves to show is how bizarrely effete the Russian imperial household had become.  It's hard not to come away basically with the conclusion that the Czar and Czarina were simply not very smart and a Russian revolution simply inevitable.  That a person like Rasputin could become so influential is evidence of that.  Russia was simply rotten to the core and the empire was going to fall.

I'm presently reading Bloodlands, by Timothy Snyder, and indeed because of a recent work travel event, I'm nearly finished with it.  I'll review it shortly.

Monday, January 23, 2023

Saturday, January 23, 1943. Casablanca released.

Casablanca was given its general release.  Our review of it is here:

Movies In History: Casablanca

First of all, let me note that I made an error in my review of The Maltese Falcon.  The 41 variant of that film was released first, not Casablanca.  I don't know why I reversed the order, but I did.

Casablanca was released for general circulation on January 23, 1943.

At that time, Morocco was just recently brought into the Allied orbit.  Allied troops had landed there in November, 1942 with the landings being part of Operation Torch.  The Moroccan landings, much less discussed than the Algerian ones, actually took place at Casablanca.  French forces resisted the Allies briefly in Algeria and Morocco, before formally switching sides as part of a negotiated turn about in early November, 1942.  Casablanca was the host that January to the Casablanca Conference between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, where the policy of unconditional surrender was announced and agreed upon.

So how's the film hold up?

Well, the movie doesn't take place in 1943, it takes place in December, 1941, just before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The US isn't yet in the war.  Morocco is in the hands of the Vichy French, although at the end of the movie we learn about a Free French garrison in Brazzaville, a city in French Equatorial Africa.  Casablanca is, as the movie depicts it, as sweaty den of vice, filled with refugees seeking desperately to get out of Morocco and on to freedom somewhere else.  In the center of it is Rick's Cafe American, where everyone goes.  Working into this, we have Victor Laszlo, a Central European resistance leader and his beautiful wife Ilsa Lund, played by Ingrid Bergman.  Lund, we learn, was the girlfriend of Rick of Rick's Cafe, who proposed to her just as Paris was set to fall, not knowing that she was already married to Laszlo.  Laszlo and Lund need "letters of transit" to leave Morocco, and Vichy French control, and the cynical world-weary Rick is believed to have obtained them from the oily Signor Ugarte, played by Peter Lorre.  Through it all a charmingly corrupt Inspector Renault, played by Claude Rains, weaves his way.

If you haven't seen it, see it.  This is another film which, by some people's measure, is the "greatest" movie ever made, although it isn't as great as the film commonly taking that prize, in my view, that being Citizen Kane.  It's a great movie, however.  And it's all the more amazingly great when you realize how much the making of the film was beset by all sorts of difficulties.

But what of its place in history. Was Casablanca of 1941 like the way it was portrayed in this 1942/43 film?

Well, probably surprisingly close.

Places under European colonial administration were bizarrely reservoirs of traditional cultures, advancement of European ideas, and massive corruption.  All three are shown to exist in the film and, if in exaggerated fashion, probably not too exaggerated really.  Morocco was controlled by Vichy at the time.  Brazzaville actually was beyond Vichy control and French Equatorial Africa was held by France Libre, a Free French movement.  Portugal was a neutral and a destination for people trying to get to the United Kingdom and beyond, or for that matter into Spain and then Nazi Germany through France.

Letters of Transit?  Nope, no such thing.  It is, after all, fiction.

In terms of material details, well the film was a contemporary picture, and it has the pluses and the minuses noted in our review of the Maltese Falcon.  Male costumes, more or less correct, with Bogar again wearing a Borsolino fedora, maybe the same one. Women's fashion?  Well, women refugees probably almost never traveled with a radiant wardrobe.

Well worth seeing, however.

The movie had a limited release on Thanksgiving Day, 1942, in New York City.

It was not known to the general public that Franklin Roosevelt was in Casablanca, Morocco, at the time.

The 8th Army captured Tripoli. We erroneously had this date reported a couple of days ago.

US forces successfully concluded all major ground operations on Guadalcanal, effectively bringing the campaign to a conclusion, the second such conclusion in the Pacific in two days.

British commandos, with Norwegian support, raided Stord, a Norwegian island, in Operation Cartoon and put a pyrite mine out of commission for a year.

Monday, January 9, 2023

Prince Harry is a Wuss

It needed to be said.

As the descendant of Irish immigrants, I'm not one of those people who weep at the thought of the British monarchy concluding, even though I am a subject of the monarchy through one of my citizenships.  But Harry ought to care, given as the only reason he's in the position in life that he is, is that he's a royal, irrespective of his current relationship with the House of Windsor.

I'm not a big monarchy fan in general, and I'm often baffled when you run into what seems to be a small Reddit class that feels all the ills of the modern age could be repaired by the restoration of monarchies.  Such people usually imagine that the Christian monarch will serve as a Christian, conservative, model for the nation.

Most monarchs may well have been conservative, more or less, although not all members of royal families have been, but as far as their personal morality is concerned, it's often lacking.  Their life circumstances in some ways operate against it, although perhaps that is just an excuse for it.  The now King Charles cheated on his wife, Princess Diana, with his current wife, Camilla.  King Edward had such an icky moral life that his father had wished that his second son, rather than Edward, could become king right off the bat.  King George IV had a string of mistresses, which seems to have been fairly openly known, and apparently one secret marriage, that being his first, which being to a Catholic, was kept quiet.  A child born during this time frame, or maybe two, would mean that the actual line of succession, if the marriage was legally valid (which due to the requirement of the sitting king giving permission it would not be) would mean that he should have succeeded King George IV.

King William IV lived with an actress with which he had ten illegitimate children.  He didn't have mistresses after his marriage, but the long prior arrangement is notable, and apparently he had an illegitimate child by another woman prior to that.

The next monarch after William IV was Queen Victoria, whose father was Prince Edward, Duke of Kent.  He is believed to have had three mistresses, including a long-running one, Camilla style, of 28 years.

The next king, Edward VII, had a large number of mistresses in his adult life, including one that was a great-grandmother of Camila.

We already discussed Edward VIII, of course.  He didn't have mistresses after his marriage, but he certainly wasn't chaste before.  George V, who succeeded him, was an exception to this story as he lived a normal life in this regard and therefore more or less fit the model of what real monarchy fans imagine royals to be.

We'll forgo the examples of non-British royals, for the most part, but they're no different. Even Czar Nicholas II, who is adored by some fans of monarchy, had a mistress in his early years, that woman also being the mistress of his brother at some point.

The point is that royals don't really tend to be that personally admirable.

Harry is a big whiner.  He didn't seem to be early on, but after marrying Meghan Markle he really took to it.  While doing it is fraught with hazard, blaming a wife for a fellow becoming a big wuss isn't a popular thing to do anymore (it was fairly common at one time) but something in this relationship really flipped the wuss switch.  Harry was, for example, a big fan of hunting before taking up with Markle but as she wasn't, he quit.  Altering a strong personality trait as the wife doesn't care for it, save for in the case of something like heavy drinking, drug use or philandering, isn't a good thing and can show a fairly weak character.

As noted, something about the weird status royals live in seems to encourage their worst traits.  Tending to have significant assets, even before becoming monarchs, if they do, and tending to be limited in their roles, they seemingly have time to engage in bad behavior and develop odd personality traits.  This would all suggest that at the human level, maintaining the monarchy might be a bad thing for royals themselves.  Prince Harry, for example, probably wouldn't have a lot of time for whining if he had to have a real job, and back when he was a serving British Army officer he seemed pretty non-whiney.

Indeed, one good trait about the royals of old was that they kept their beefs and bad behavior largely out of public view, although some of the philandering became pretty widely known.  At least that kept things at the rumor level, rather than the published book and 60 Minutes level.

Some would say, well just abolish the monarchy, it's not necessary anymore, and it truly is not.  Given as that decision isn't mine, and it doesn't appear that it will happen soon, although Prince Harry's whining is clearly imperiling it, perhaps it should be emphasized.  Heard much about the King of Sweden recently?  How about the King of Norway?

I didn't think so.

If it was way scaled back, and you hardly heard of them, and the various princes in the immediate households had to get real jobs, that might be best.  If that was the case, Harry right now might be a serving British Army officer still as it would be his only economic choice.  That might well mean that Meghan might not be a princess, but so what?  Or she and he could be living in off base housing in some Army town where we didn't hear of them, which would be fine.

Sunday, September 25, 2022

Friday, September 25, 1942. The Mosquito Raid

The Royal Air Force raids Oslo, Norway with four de Havilland Mosquitos. The target was the Gestapo headquarters, but the target was missed, and civilian houses were hit instead.  One of the Mosquitos, one of the more amazing aircraft of World War Two, was shot down.

Mosquito B, Mark IV, 1942.

The RAF nonetheless claimed the raid as a victory, which in some ways, it was.

The plywood bodied Mosquito was on of the great aircraft of the war, serving both as a light bomber and a twin engined fighter.


Sunday, September 11, 2022

Friday, September 11, 1942. The raid on Glomfjord


An Anglo Norwegian commando party raided the Glomfjord power plant in Norway.  The raid was a success, although seven commandos were ultimately captured and then executed under Hitler's Commando Order issued in October, which illegally called for the murder of captured commandos.

Ernest Hemingway, Gary Cooper and guide Taylor Williams went on a duck hunting trip to Sun Valley, Idaho,

Sunday, March 20, 2022

Friday, March 20, 1942. Industrial scale murder

It was on this day in 1942 that Auschwitz first commenced the industrial scale murder of its inmates, principally, although completely exclusively, consisting of Jews from all over Europe.

Everything about this is mind-boggling, and repeated efforts to explain how this occurred continue to be inadequate.  I had originally intended to post a lengthy post on this, but the day got away from me and I didn't have the chance.  

While the intended post would have been much lengthier, I will note that up into the initial decade and a half of the 20th Century, nobody would have imagined a horror on this scale, which is not to say that antisemitism did not exist in Europe.  Indeed, it very much did, although not equally in every country by any means.  Perhaps ironically, Germany compared favorably in this regard compared to, for example, France, where antisemitism had been much more open.  Indeed, German Jews were highly assimilated and acculturated in many instances in Germany prior to the First World War.

Nonetheless, antisemitism remained and had deep roots.  Even before the loss of the Great War, warning signs existed of an underlying virulent strain of antisemitism developing.  This took root in odd places, including in the popular eugenics movement that existed in the early 20th Century, which melded with the PanGermanism movement which should to unite "Germans" in a single nation. These combined in no small part as frankly defining what a German was, was not easy, and in fact the Nazis were never able to come up with a cogent definition in spite of dedicating significant efforts to do so.  To some degree, indeed, the definition of "German" didn't really come about until the Germans had lost the war.  At any rate, defining the "other", i.e., who was excluded, combined with odd wacky genetic theories of the time, and mixed in antisemitism with it.  The stress of the economic collapse of Germany during the Great Depression, cultural misconceptions about Jews in certain industries, the presence of Jewish refugees escaping the collapse of the Russian Empire and the Russian Civil war, and the confusion and propogandization of Communism with the Jews all added fuel to the fire and combined with age-old fears and prejudices.

Nonetheless, in spite of this and the rise of the Nazis, none of this could have occurred if a lot of Germans didn't choose to simply go alone or sit on their hands. 

Added to this, the complicity of Eastern European, and indeed Western European, populations can't be ignored.  In spite of the intense suffering that they suffered at the hands of the Germans, Poles and residents of the Baltic States were complicit in the murder of the Jews.  Romanians were as well.  Ultimately, authorities in occupied France assisted in the deportation of Jewish residents of France, not all of whom who had French citizenship but many of whom did.

In remarkable contrast, however, Scandinavian countries were hostile to German efforts, with Denmark being notably so in spite of being occupied, but with Norway also being.  Norwegians were particularly uncooperative with their occupiers in everything.  Finland, with some slight exception, likewise did not cooperate, and even Italy, in spite of having passed antisemitic laws under the fascists, did not cooperate with efforts to murder Italian Jews until September 1943.

As noted, the murder of so many people on an industrial scale, by a modern nation, is hard to grasp and remains inexplicable.  It couldn't have happened but for the fact that so many people turned a blind eye and chose to think of themselves, first.

Across the globe, on this day in 1942 Douglas MacArthur stated:

The President of the United States ordered me to break through the Japanese lines and proceed from Corregidor to Australia for the purpose, as I understand it, of organizing the American offensive against Japan, a primary object of which is the relief of the Philippines. I came through and I shall return,

Thursday, February 24, 2022

Friday, February 24, 1942. The Battle of Los Angeles

 


The Battle of Los Angeles occurred started on the night of February 24, 1942, and lasted into the morning of February 25, the result of jittery nerves amplified by a submarine shelling Ellwood the day prior.  Much of what sparked the event remains somewhat of a mystery.

The Air Force's official history of the event summarizes it as follows:

During the course of a fireside report to the nation delivered by President Roosevelt on 23 February 1942, a Japanese submarine rose out of the sea off Ellwood, a hamlet on the California coast north of Santa Barbara, and pumped thirteen shells into tidewater refinery installations. The shots seemed designed to punctuate the President's statement that "the broad oceans which have been heralded in the past as our protection from attack have become endless battlefields on which we are constantly being challenged by our enemies." Yet the attack which was supposed to carry the enemy's defiance, and which did succeed in stealing headlines from the President's address, was a feeble gesture rather than a damaging blow. The raider surfaced at 1905 (Pacific time), just five minutes after the President started his speech. For about twenty minutes the submarine kept a position 2,500 yards offshore to deliver the shots from its 5½-inch guns. The shells did minor damage to piers and oil wells, but missed the gasoline plant, which appears to have been the aiming point; the military effects of the raid were therefore nil. The first news of the attack led to the dispatch of pursuit planes to the area, and subsequently three bombers joined the attempt to destroy the raider, but without success. The reluctance of AAF commanders to assign larger forces to the task resulted from their belief that such a raid as this would be employed by the enemy to divert attention from a major air task force which would hurl its planes against a really significant target. Loyal Japanese-Americans who had predicted that a demonstration would be made in connection with the President's speech also prophesied that Los Angeles would be attacked the next night. The Army, too, was convinced that some new action impended, and took all possible precautions. Newspapers were permitted to announce that a strict state of readiness against renewed attacks had been imposed, and there followed the confused action known as "The Battle of Los Angeles."

During the night of 24/25 February 1942, unidentified objects caused a succession of alerts in southern California. On the 24th, a warning issued by naval intelligence indicated that an attack could be expected within the next ten hours. That evening many flares and blinking lights were reported from the vicinity of defense plants. An alert called at 1918 [7:18 pm, Pacific time] was lifted at 2223, and the tension temporarily relaxed. But early in the morning of the 25th renewed activity began. Radars picked up an unidentified target 120 miles west of Los Angeles. Antiaircraft batteries were alerted at 0215 and were put on Green Alert—ready to fire—a few minutes later. The AAF kept its pursuit planes on the ground, preferring to await indications of the scale and direction of any attack before committing its limited fighter force. Radars tracked the approaching target to within a few miles of the coast, and at 0221 the regional controller ordered a blackout. Thereafter the information center was flooded with reports of "enemy planes, " even though the mysterious object tracked in from sea seems to have vanished. At 0243, planes were reported near Long Beach, and a few minutes later a coast artillery colonel spotted "about 25 planes at 12,000 feet" over Los Angeles. At 0306 a balloon carrying a red flare was seen over Santa Monica and four batteries of anti-aircraft artillery opened fire, whereupon "the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano." From this point on reports were hopelessly at variance. 

Probably much of the confusion came from the fact that anti-aircraft shell bursts, caught by the searchlights, were themselves mistaken for enemy planes. In any case, the next three hours produced some of the most imaginative reporting of the war: "swarms" of planes (or, sometimes, balloons) of all possible sizes, numbering from one to several hundred, traveling at altitudes which ranged from a few thousand feet to more than 20,000 and flying at speeds which were said to have varied from "very slow" to over 200 miles per hour, were observed to parade across the skies. These mysterious forces dropped no bombs and, despite the fact that 1,440 rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition were directed against them, suffered no losses. There were reports, to be sure, that four enemy planes had been shot down, and one was supposed to have landed in flames at a Hollywood intersection. Residents in a forty-mile arc along the coast watched from hills or rooftops as the play of guns and searchlights provided the first real drama of the war for citizens of the mainland. The dawn, which ended the shooting and the fantasy, also proved that the only damage which resulted to the city was such as had been caused by the excitement (there was at least one death from heart failure), by traffic accidents in the blacked-out streets, or by shell fragments from the artillery barrage. Attempts to arrive at an explanation of the incident quickly became as involved and mysterious as the "battle" itself. The Navy immediately insisted that there was no evidence of the presence of enemy planes, and Frank Knox announced at a press conference on 25 February that the raid was just a false alarm. At the same conference he admitted that attacks were always possible and indicated that vital industries located along the coast ought to be moved inland. The Army had a hard time making up its mind on the cause of the alert. A report to Washington, made by the Western Defense Command shortly after the raid had ended, indicated that the credibility of reports of an attack had begun to be shaken before the blackout was lifted. This message predicted that developments would prove "that most previous reports had been greatly exaggerated." The Fourth Air Force had indicated its belief that there were no planes over Los Angeles. But the Army did not publish these initial conclusions. Instead, it waited a day, until after a thorough examination of witnesses had been finished. On the basis of these hearings, local commanders altered their verdict and indicated a belief that from one to five unidentified airplanes had been over Los Angeles. Secretary Stimson announced this conclusion as the War Department version of the incident, and he advanced two theories to account for the mysterious craft: either they were commercial planes operated by an enemy from secret fields in California or Mexico, or they were light planes launched from Japanese submarines. In either case, the enemy’s purpose must have been to locate anti-aircraft defenses in the area or to deliver a blow at civilian morale.

The divergence of views between the War and Navy departments, and the unsatisfying conjectures advanced by the Army to explain the affair, touched off a vigorous public discussion. The Los Angeles Times, in a first-page editorial on 26 February, announced that "the considerable public excitement and confusion" caused by the alert, as well as its "spectacular official accompaniments," demanded a careful explanation. Fears were expressed lest a few phony raids undermine the confidence of civilian volunteers in the aircraft warning service. In the United States Congress, Representative Leland Ford wanted to know whether the incident was "a practice raid, or a raid to throw a scare into 2,000,000 people, or a mistaken identity raid, or a raid to take away Southern California’s war industries." Wendell Willkie, speaking in Los Angeles on 26 February, assured Californians on the basis of his experiences in England that when a real air raid began "you won’t have to argue about it—you’ll just know." He conceded that military authorities had been correct in calling a precautionary alert but deplored the lack of agreement between the Army and Navy. A strong editorial in the Washington Post on 27 February called the handling of the Los Angeles episode a "recipe for jitters," and censured the military authorities for what it called "stubborn silence" in the face of widespread uncertainty. The editorial suggested that the Army’s theory that commercial planes might have caused the alert "explains everything except where the planes came from, whither they were going, and why no American planes were sent in pursuit of them." The New York Times on 28 February expressed a belief that the more the incident was studied, the more incredible it became: "If the batteries were firing on nothing at all, as Secretary Knox implies, it is a sign of expensive incompetence and jitters. If the batteries were firing on real planes, some of them as low as 9,000 feet, as Secretary Stimson declares, why were they completely ineffective? Why did no American planes go up to engage them, or even to identify them? ... What would have happened if this had been a real air raid?" These questions were appropriate, but for the War Department to have answered them in full frankness would have involved an even more complete revelation of the weakness of American air defenses.

At the end of the war, the Japanese stated that they did not send planes over the area at the time of this alert, although submarine-launched aircraft were subsequently used over Seattle. A careful study of the evidence suggests that meteorological balloons—known to have been released over Los Angeles—may well have caused the initial alarm. This theory is supported by the fact that anti-aircraft artillery units were officially criticized for having wasted ammunition on targets which moved too slowly to have been airplanes. After the firing started, careful observation was difficult because of drifting smoke from shell bursts. The acting commander of the anti-aircraft artillery brigade in the area testified that he had first been convinced that he had seen fifteen planes in the air, but had quickly decided that he was seeing smoke. Competent correspondents like Ernie Pyle and Bill Henry witnessed the shooting and wrote that they were never able to make out an airplane. It is hard to see, in any event, what enemy purpose would have been served by an attack in which no bombs were dropped, unless perhaps, as Mr. Stimson suggested, the purpose had been reconnaissance.

Now regarded by most as an amusing event, several people did die during it, and it showed the extent to which Americans were nervous and the defense of the coast uncoordinated.  UFO fans have adopted the event as their own, asserting that the unidentified objects were alien spacecraft.   The comedy movie 1941 was based on the event.

The Japanese actually did overfly US territory on this day, but with a submarine launched floatplane that flew over Pearl Harbor.

In a real air raid, the U.S. Navy raided Wake Island. The raid featuring carrier launched aircraft and surface ships targeted Japanese destroyers at Wake, but the Japanese thought it was an effort to retake the island.

A Soviet submarine sank the Panamanian registered MV Sturma which was carrying 781 Jewish refugees in the Black Sea.  Only one person survived.

German ambassador Franz von Papen survived a Soviet backed assassination attempt in Turkey when the assassin's gun misfired, and he accidentally detonated a bomb he was carrying.

The Voice of America began German language short wave broadcasts.

Norwegian Lutheran Bishops all resigned rather than swear loyalty to the Quisling regime.  The Lutheran Church, the state church of Norway.

Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Sunday, February 22, 1942. Harris takes command.

February 22, 1942: Air Marshal Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris takes command of RAF Bomber Command. President Roosevelt orders Gen. Douglas MacArthur to leave Bataan for Australia.

So states the opener of Sarah Sundin's blog for the day.

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naïve theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.”  Harris.
 

An unrelenting advocate of the RAF's Area Bombing Directive, he remains an extremely controversial figure, perhaps the most controversial British figure of the Second World War.

Harris was born and raised in England, but moved to Rhodesia at age 18.  While just about to enter ranching in that country in 1914, he reluctantly joined the 1st Rhodesian Regiment.  He transferred to the RAF as a pilot in 1916.  He remained in the RAF after the war and never returned to Rhodesia even though he considered it to be his country, although for a time after his retirement from the RAF he managed a mining company in South Africa.

As also discussed by Sundin, Douglas MacArthur was ordered by Franklin Roosevelt to leave the Philippines.

The Admiral Scheer and Prinz Eugen arrived at Bergen, Norway.  Later that day, the left for Trondheim.