June 19, 2008
Juneteenth.
RECOGNIZING THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF JUNETEENTH INDEPENDENCE DAY
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congresswoman Nancy Boyda (Kansas Second District) announced passage in the United States House of Representatives of Congressional Resolution 1237, “Recognizing the Historical Significance of Juneteenth Independence Day.”
Boyda said “I was proud to support this resolution. It marks an important day in United States history – a day that set Americans on the course to equality.”
The Resolution signifies the 142nd anniversary of June 19th, 1865, when Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas to announce and enforce the end of slavery.
While the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect two and a half years earlier, it was largely ignored in the states still loyal to the Confederacy. Thus, Juneteenth marks the day when liberty was truly extended to all.
The passing of the resolution indicates the importance of history, as both a tool to understand the past and effectively face the challenges of the future. Juneteenth is a celebration that observes the country’s oldest commemoration of the abolition of slavery. It is an important reminder of America’s most noble ideals – equality and freedom.
And we've reached the point politically where we had a serious female contender for the Presidential nomination of a major political party, and in fact, have a black man as the Presidential nominee of a major political party.
That's all good. Took a while longer than it should have, certainly.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Took a while longer than it should have, certainly.
IMHO, only because Colin Powell decided not to run in 1996. Had he done so, I think he would have been the GOP nominee.
by fdcol63 on June 19, 2008 3:12 PM
Concur.
by AW1 Tim on June 19, 2008 4:04 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 18, 2008
Madmen at the Helm
[Kat]
I'm surprised we haven't linked this before, but I am finding the back and forth over Buchanan's book extremely interesting. It starts with a predictable book by Buchanan:
Churchill, Hitler and "The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World
I haven't read the book, but I understand the premise is what is in the title. Pretty much, Buchanan insisting that decades of bad decision making by western nations, wars of aggression (by the west!), ending with a very tough Treaty of Versailles in 1918 is what leads to the rise of Hitler and World War II.
Which, if you insisted on viewing WWII as the culmination of totally rational, if occasionally, misguided or illogical, decisions of state, could be a simple and acceptable view of the war. Accept, of course, that throughout the periods that Buchanan samples, Germany is hardly an innocent player or simple victim of other imperial bullies. And, Hitler's Nazism wasn't exactly a flash of anti-semitic militarism straight out of the blue German skies without relationship to any other history.
[continued in flash traffic]
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
In fact, private, para-military forces were off shoots of "home troops" of the many principalities that made up Germany before and during Bismark's ascendance and the Kaiser's imperial expectations. They became even more powerful post WWI and the break up of the Weimar Republic, eventually leading to the installation of Hitler at the front of a para-military force.
Those are just little facts that Buchanan gives short shrift to in trying to shape history to his ideology. But, I'm an amateur in this ring, comparatively speaking, so I'll shove you over to Gateway Pundit, who has a great round up of the reply, counter and counter-counter reply between Hanson and Buchanan. Then Allahpundit jumps in with a link to Hitchen's take down.
The point that Hanson and Hitchens each conclude is very simple: Hitler was not and never was a rational actor at the helm of the Ship of State, regardless of whether someone can point to actions of Germany that seem the acts of a rational state.
These continuing attempts to reform Hitler into a rational actor are always egregious because they must rely on omitting everything Hitler did before 1939. Like opening concentration camps, killing untermenschen and writing a crazy book called "Mein Kampf", complete with all of his plans laid out and written almost a decade before he actually took power.
One of the worst arguments I've ever seen on the subject is that Hitler really hadn't killed that many people before the war started, so the war must be to blame for Hitler ramping up his murderous activities. That's pretty much where Buchanan comes down on the subject and that also ignores the truth that Hitler was actually trying to mass murder people well before the war began. He just hadn't settled on the most efficient, quiet manner. For all Hitler's railing against the capitalist industrialists raping the Fatherland in "Mein Kampf" (yes, I did read the book), he was extremely fond of the order and efficiency of factories. He wanted to put that to work for the state; in all things.
The only difference that the war made is that he no longer had to keep it somewhat "quiet" and out of sight; particularly, in "occupied" areas. A trench in the woods and machine guns to the back of the head were quick and sufficient. That was before he realized he couldn't totally stomp out all sense of humanity in his troops. Plus the time and money for ammunition and pausing to eradicate populations went against his industrial military timelines. That's when he expanded his industrial death camp machines to other areas like Poland.
In the end, it was not the lack of desire before the war that kept people from being mass murdered on an industrialized scale, it was the lack of appropriate means. At least, the means that Hitler felt fit in with his "New Reich" where the trains always ran on time.
Frankly, I agree with others that analyzing all the political moves up until the rise of Hitler is an interesting academic exercise, but attempting, in any way, to reform Hitler and make him a rational actor at the helm of a rational state is useless, offensive and corrosive. I can see no legitimate reason to do so and it flies in the face of reality. Usually, as is the case with Buchanan, it is an attempt to alleviate any sense of our responsibility towards Israel and make the death of entire populations acceptable as part of the norms or necessities of politics and war. He would like it to be more acceptable for the United States to compromise with Iran and leave Israel to the wolves, allowing the United States to be "America First".
As you might know, I reject that completely. It is one of the reasons that I have argued here very strongly against Iran and its moves to obtain nuclear weapons. Regardless of how rational a state's actions seems to be, or how we understand political machinations, when a national leader begins to speak about wiping a nation or people off the map, repeatedly, and then sets about ramping up development of the very weapon capable of doing it, I get very itchy.
Because, I remember, too, how many people thought Hitler was surely a rational man, only doing what was best for his nation and would, surely, not do anything so horrendous as he said in his speeches or book. It was all just talk to bolster the nation and bring it back from the brink of ruin.
Wasn't it?
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Excellent analysis, Kat.
I think one of GatewayPundit's commenters got it right: Buchanan is a 1930s-style isolationist with all that entails. He'd have felt right at home among Charles Coughlin's congregation.
by wolfwalker on June 18, 2008 6:27 AM
To quote Patrick J. Buchanan from his column regarding his work; "Did Hanson even read it?"
Seems to me, that is only fair.
Perhaps, before making assumptions, and lodging criticisms, one should actually READ the material.
For your edification and education, I'll let PJB explain it himself. Assuming the link works.
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/06/pjb-the-good-war-and-the-terrible-peace/
by Kevin on June 18, 2008 1:13 PM
I have to step in and play Inigo Montoya. Rational actor doesn't mean what is implied here. Rational actor comes from game theory and is defined as a person/group with a set of stated goals whose actions coincide with said goals. That. Is. It.
Hitler was extremely a rational actor. He was also exceedingly evil. The two are mutually exclusive. Being evil does not make one irrational, it just makes one someone who deserves a bullet in the brainpan.
(Just a tip, Kat, there've been times when the US has loudly told the world what we were going to do, what our plans are, and dared them to stop us. Iraq is just the latest example. Axis of Evil? Yup. That isn't irrational. It may be stupid, but it isn't irrational unless one is striving for secrecy in these things.).
Hitler, evil? Si. Irrational? Non. Stupid at times(moving the Panzers away from Hoth in the AGC for example), evil as hell, but not irrational.
I'm not a Buchanan sympathizer, he embarrasses me as a Catholic often, and haven't read any of the reviews or the book. Just speaking to the abuse of language.
by ry on June 18, 2008 1:29 PM
LOL..Ry..not to push your buttons, but I thought I couldn't say "evil". ;)
by kat-missouri on June 18, 2008 1:31 PM
I haven't brought it up because I don't want to spend the time reading the damn book. I have a life and six other fargin' books to read.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 18, 2008 2:19 PM
Can't call something evil? Never said that, and I think one should always be clear as to why and whom one calls evil.
Saying that simply because it is evil that we must go absolutely aggro on their tuckusses? That's conditional, and always is. We didn't go to war with the Nazi Reich because they were evil(hell, we partnered with the equally evil USSR against the NR), but for a host of other factors. I know the propoganda says otherwise, but it wasn't because they were evil.
by ry on June 18, 2008 2:21 PM
Thanks for the link, Kevin; now I don't have to read the book.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 18, 2008 2:46 PM
hell, we partnered with the equally evil USSR against the NR
Did Bill Buckley ever find out? That could be the reason John's not getting invites to post at The Corner...
by
BillT on June 18, 2008 3:36 PM
Did Bill Buckley ever find out? That could be the reason John's not getting invites to post at The Corner...
I dunno. Did Buckley know we're at war with beets too? It could be the beets thing. Wait, we're still at war with beets, right?
by ry on June 18, 2008 3:45 PM
Sigh. Get an Instalanche today and look what we're sinking to... beets.
But yes, we're still at war with beets.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 18, 2008 3:56 PM
Great post and discussion.
I'd say there's a division between the rationality of ones methods and ones goal or philosophy. Expansionist imperialism is rational. Seeking the dream of the perfect race through genocide is not.
I cringe a bit when people invoke Hitler when discussing Ahmadinejad and Iran. While they share a common bond in blatant anti-semitism the two could not be different. Hitler built and ruled an empire. Ahm blusters and snorts and generally makes a fool of himself but he doesn't rule an empire or even Iran. He's a convenient mouthpiece and political tool used by the ruling theocracy. And, I'd opine, the ruling theocracy are much more interested in continuing to be the ruling theocracy than they are in reducing themselves and their country to radioactive ash.
by
Soob on June 18, 2008 4:07 PM
I'd say there's a division between the rationality of ones methods and ones goal or philosophy.
Exactly, Soob. To bust into a corny, but easily gotten available, means of doing this we can look at the Dungeons and Dragons plane of character alignments(at least the 1st ed one). Good and evil exist independent of law or chaos. Chaotics being unpredictable, waaaay zany, overly emotive, and irrational. Lawfuls being very calculating and rational. Whether one uses that prediliction toward chaos/lawfulness for good or evil is independent of being irrational or rational.
"And, I'd opine, the ruling theocracy are much more interested in continuing to be the ruling theocracy than they are in reducing themselves and their country to radioactive ash.
Exactly. Which is why actions otehr than invasion are possible, and by that I mean things other than just another round of economic sanctions.
Sigh. Get an Instalanche today and look what we're sinking to... beets.
(points toward Iraq) Blame Unka Bill! Blame! He's the one who had to be a smart aleck! Unka Bill! He's the one you want to use the Ruler Of Argghhh! on the knuckles of. (scampers for cover(3/4, +2 to AC) and concelament(1/2, 20% chance of miss even if you make your roll)).
by ry on June 18, 2008 4:30 PM
Heh. Sends the Hand of Vecna out after Ry.
Don't make me get the Orb. Or the Eye.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 18, 2008 4:50 PM
PS...Thanks for fixing my spelling John. I was driving to work thinking about "uber" v. "unter" only to discover it was fixed by the time I got here.
by kat-missouri on June 18, 2008 5:09 PM
kat - Haven't checked your e-mail yet, eh?
Blame Unka Bill! Blame! He's the one who had to be a smart aleck!
I didn't *have* to be, I *chose* to be. Just as I now choose to flay you alive and hang your hide on a bramble the next time you grab the last Belgian ale out of the fridge...
by
BillT on June 18, 2008 5:18 PM
Saying that simply because it is evil that we must go absolutely aggro on their tuckusses? That's conditional, and always is. We didn't go to war with the Nazi Reich because they were evil(hell, we partnered with the equally evil USSR against the NR), but for a host of other factors. I know the propoganda says otherwise, but it wasn't because they were evil.
Pardon me, but 40 million people (direct casualties) later, maybe we should have gone aggro on them much earlier because they were evil.
by kat-missouri on June 18, 2008 5:18 PM
...maybe we should have gone aggro on them much earlier because they were evil.
We would have gotten our butts kicked, but good.
In 1940, the Wehrmacht was the most battle-hardened modern army on the face of the planet.
Not only were *we* still training with broomsticks, the only way we could have sent troops across the Atlantic would have been via the Cunard Lines == in steerage.
by
BillT on June 18, 2008 5:31 PM
Bill...I can't see hotmail from work. I'm lucky they let this site pass through the filters.
On the subject of what we could or could not do, I think it all revolves around what we were willing to recognize first and how early. Obviously, it would have meant starting to get on a ramped up war footing in '36 instead of '39 or '40 when we finally declared a national emergency and started drafting men. There is no doubt, everything would have had to come together at the right time. But, there is also no doubt, if we could start doing it in '39 we could have started in '36.
As in all things, it's what we wanted to do when, not whether we could.
by kat-missouri on June 18, 2008 5:46 PM
'Yer using some busted interps of history, Kat. We didn't know about the Holocaust until, what, '44? That kinda defeats the idea of going in earlier because they were evil. Hell, Time had HItler as man of the year, twice! Nobody believed as we do now, with hindsight, back then.
And let us not forget that to do so FDR would've had to convince all but his closest friends to go down a path that would run up an insane level of debt, get hundreds of thousands killed or maimed, and on his say so. That's a pretty tall order, and sans Pearl impossible because he was already doing everything legally possible, including abusing neutrality in the worst way, to affect the outcome.
Even with the Holocaust I doubt you'd get the entire nation to throw down sans PH. The isolationism that was the national gestalt was utterly against it.
Just about everything was against the US getting involved directly before Pearl. If one does not accept that I posit one is not playing in reality.
I now choose to flay you alive and hang your hide on a bramble the next time you grab the last Belgian ale out of the fridge...
Yipe! (Sticks a 50 in the fridge while slinking away quietly)
by ry on June 18, 2008 10:10 PM
Regarding evil and picking fights in which to destroy it...
While it is true that we didn't know about the Nazi holocaust until after the war in Europe was well underway...
We DID know that Stalin and his thugs in the USSR were actively implementing a multi-million person pogrom in all the Russias.
Hell, the NYT pulitzer prize winning reporter Walter Duranty knew of the State sanctioned and implemented famine in the Ukraine in the 30's that deliberately starved to death millions. But he covered it up. That is, he lied and yes, millions died.
We, or rather, our government KNEW of this holocaust, this evil. Yet did nothing but lavish praise on the Kremlin.
So, bang the war drums to invade the USSR or not? It didn't work out so well the first time, White and Green armies notwithstanding.
Hitler was indisputably evil, Stalin was even worse.
Guess which one our Prez admired and affectionately called "Uncle Joe"?
Hindsight in history is a benefit that those actually making the history seldom enjoy.
by Kevin on June 18, 2008 11:16 PM
Roosevelt was a Democrat!
Roosevelt was a Democrat!
Roosevelt was a Democrat!
usw.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 19, 2008 3:12 AM
For Victor Davis Hanson’s book review (read devistating rebuttal), see:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson061608.html
June 16, 2008
Reply to Patrick J. Buchanan
Pseudo-Historian, Very Real Dissimulator
by Victor Davis Hanson
PajamasMedia.com
by Kevin Frei on June 19, 2008 12:49 PM
"Kevin Frei"?
Why, ain't that cute? Somebody's attempting to be snarky...
I'll prefer PJB's take on this issue over this Hanson bloke.
I will also make the observation, that this author, so smug in his knowledge makes this glaring and factually false statement (among others) while touting his credentials.
"When I last looked the United States had not expanded its war on radical Islam by invading democratic India."
India? Hindus-R-Us? Perhaps the 'historian ' should take a lesson in basic social geography 101.
If he just made an oopsie, and meant Pakistan... well, evidence seems to show that we are 'invading' that Muslim country in our war on radical Islam. Though, I thought it was a war on terror, not a war against a religion... hmmmm.
by Kevin on June 19, 2008 3:32 PM
Kevin (G) - while you have been and no doubt will be snarked in this space (that's how you know you're loved, right?) I assure you that "Kevin Frei" is not a snark.
It's Kevin Frei's *name*. Take my word for it.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2008 3:47 PM
"It's Kevin Frei's *name*. Take my word for it."
Hookay, I withdraw my counter-snark regarding a perceived snark.
The rest of my comments stand.
And, as we all love quotes...
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it". B.S.
by Kevin on June 19, 2008 4:28 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 15, 2008
Old guns, new guns. A little gunner zen.
First up, something new... just because I like the pic.

U.S. Marine 1st Lt. Kathryne B. Schilling coaches a woman as she prepares to shoot a pistol during her training to become a Sister of Ferris, June 4, 2008, Ferris, Iraq. The Sisters of Ferris will inspect women for weapons, suicide vests, large amounts of cash and contraband at entry control points. Schilling is assigned to Combat Logistics Battalion 1, 1st Marine Logistics Group. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Cindy G. Alejandrez
Next, something old. John S. an enabler who feeds my habit gun dealer sent me a link to some fascinating pictures taken at Fort Brown, Texas, during the Punitive Expedition/WWI era.
Long time readers of this space will know that the Donovan family isn't very adventurous. I'm a third generation Gunner. Over those three generations, Donovan Redlegs have served, or been involved in the development of, an amazing transformation of the art. My grandfather was there as we were first mastering the art of indirect fire, doing all the basic math as needed for trajectory calculation, etc, where you might spend a day or more doing all the needed math to mass the fires of massed guns on multiple targets. My father bridged the era from the ultimate refinement of manual data computation through to the birth of artillery digital computers. And I span from the end of manual data through the era of the guns as roving independents, capable of massing fires on multiple targets without being massed themselves, and done on the fly.
My grandfather served on guns like these 4.7 inch guns at Fort Brown, Brownsville Texas, in 1916. Where the object of artillery was to get as many guns shooting simultaneously at a target as you could.

A slightly larger version can be had by clicking here. Or get the full size version here.
The Robert Runyon Photograph Collection, image #486, courtesy of The Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin.
My Dad, served guns like this M109 howitzer - brand new when he was commanding a battalion of them in Germany in 1969 (this particular gun is Israeli)... Still trying to mass as many guns as you could, while building them to keep up with the tanks and mechanized infantry, and able to survive on a very lethal battlefield. This is the era I started in.


Heck, we've put the firepower of a battalion of cannon on the back of a single truck.

Now, at the twilight of my time doing things militant, I've been involved in the development of the tactics and doctrine for guns like the NLOS-C, in an era where we're reducing the number of guns, making them capable of being virtual snipers (even the rockets are point weapons now - and shooting artillery at "point targets" was a way to get your knuckles wrapped when I was a Lieutenant), and the guns rove around independently, and are capable of massing fires on their own - in that they can shoot multiple rounds in succession, all timed to arrive at the same time on the target - and be moving before those rounds hit. That's some serious change in less than 100 years, and the lives of three soldiers.
The NLOS-C is *still* a spugly gun.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
- and shooting artillery at "point targets" was a way to get your knuckles wrapped when I was a Lieutenant
Yeah, if you were *bad* at it. I plunked a 105 round into a five-gallon pail on the third adjustment.
Unfortunately, it was Danger *Really* Close and a chunk of steel the size of my forearm decapitated the BC scope...
by
BillT on June 15, 2008 11:10 AM
Looks like the bore evacuator on that M109 needs a new O-ring...
by Neffi on June 15, 2008 11:24 AM
Yeah, it's spugly as anything seen in a video game. The video game generation will take to it.
by Fred on June 15, 2008 12:11 PM
The only thing the Sisters of Ferris lack are some wheels.
by
Chuck Simmins on June 15, 2008 1:09 PM
Since blogger doesn't do track-backs:
Head Noises: Siser of Ferris
I LOVE the picture! Gives one hope.
by
Foxfier on June 15, 2008 1:52 PM
Spugly is what Spugly does.
Brings me back to when I worked for a computer printer manufacturer and when a new printer came out we salesmen had to rate and forecast it:
1. If it was Ugly and worked we could sell it.
2. If it was pretty and didn't work we could sell it.
3. But...if it was ugly and didn't work it was an anchor.
OK...they need to work on the form factor. It looks like they built it from the inside out and once they hung everything the engineers said they needed to make it work, they just bolted plate on it to keep the rain out.
No amount of Candy Apple Red paint, racing stripes and chrome sprocket wheels is gonna pretty that thing up. Looks like the same team that designed the M-113 Personnel Carrier finally got a new job.
by Fishmugger on June 15, 2008 2:56 PM
It looks like they built it from the inside out and once they hung everything the engineers said they needed to make it work, they just bolted plate on it to keep the rain out.
...and that's *exactly* the way military stuff should be built, IMHO. It's designed to hurl sudden, violent death onto the Ranks of the Ungodly- it doesn't need to be *purty*.
Tho, yeah- it's spugly as helk.
by Neffi on June 15, 2008 3:45 PM
And Chuck wins the "Who's gonna bring up Bueller?" contest!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 15, 2008 3:59 PM
Artillery 'point weapons' means the pointy end usually returns to earth first.
Neffi- there's purposeful, functional, etc; here the "builders" abused the privilege.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 16, 2008 3:39 AM
Did I mention it was probably designed to satisfy "Gunners"?
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 16, 2008 3:42 AM
The lovely Sister of Ferris is about to get bitten by the "slide viper" if she doesn't get her weak-side thumb out of the way.
by TheNewGuy on June 16, 2008 4:57 AM
Actually, CAPT H, I'm pretty sure the NLOS-C was designed by a committee.
TNG - I thought the same thing - but in the full size picture, it's more obvious that she's clear of the slide - unless she has a weak grip, then she'll get bit anyway.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 16, 2008 6:47 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 13, 2008
Take My Husband, Please! Draft Evaders of Missouri
[Kat]
While researching Paul Benson's story, I came across some interesting history. It seems that not everybody was willing or desirous of doing their duty during the "Good War" or World War II. Some young men, whose parents owned and operated a farm, were given "farm deferments". Ostensibly to stay home and help with the farm. Everyone was being urged to produce more for the war effort. Others received deferments to work in the "war" related industries manufacturing things like ammunition, planes, tanks and many other things.
Well, some folks thought that it was unfair since not everyone asked for or received such deferments. Others took it upon themselves to report men that they thought were "slackers".
For instance, this letter from a wife who asked the draft board to take her husband, please [spelling as is]:
1772 Mississippi ave.
St. Louis Mo.,
6/7/43
Dear Sir:
This is to notifiy the draft board that I still want my husband inducted in the army.
we have been seperated since some time in Jan 43. and he isn't doing much to help support our two children.
I work at the U.S. Cartridge plant and make $32.24 per week: he works at the same plant and makes $40.00 per week, and is supposed to give me $10.00 per week but only gives me about 20.00 per month.
He is Ralph Edward McGuire
Respectfully Yours
Lucy McGuire
These folks complained, "He wrecked my car, please take him to the army."
He's honory[sic], runs around on his wife, doesn't keep a job and doesn't take care of his kids. Please take him to the army.
Or this one that complained that "we will never win a war like this."
Sullivan mo
april. 17 1943
Local Board.
I am a close nabor of the Griffith Family and I no that them quins (this word is probably supposed to be twins) boys is not doing a thing but loafing around and lets their Dad do the plowing and their is One of the Caldwellls boy to that ant at work I think if the other young men had to go these boys ought to to for it is not more then right for it is a war that have got to be wone and I think if they ant doing any thing they ought to go even if they are quins (again probably twins) and they have got a married boy with one child and he is like the others wont work if they stay out of the army I think you ought to see that they go to work Their names is Willard, and Hillard and Ames Griffith. I see that the others boys around here is at work except the Griffith & Marvin Caldwell, Why they keep then out it is not because they needed them it is because they hated to seen them go. I no a man around here needs his boys to work but they had to go so I dont think that These boy ought to stay out just because their family narsses them I am just a rell Amercian and think you are to so why not make every body do their part we will never win the war like this.
Just Another American
Huh. The one thing that I'm reminded of is the constant little digs by folks like J.F. Kerry about only stupid people end up in Iraq. Any idea how many young men with little education ended up fighting in World War II? Or, how many people with little education did the work on farms and in factories that helped win the war? I'm reminded of the famous phrase from Forest Gump: stupid is as stupid does.
Mr. Kerry was just plain stupid. I would guess that he would have some admiration for some of the young men who were "smart" enough to dodge the draft in World War II.
More funny (and not so funny) letters to the draft board in flash traffic.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
We Have Sons in the Army
July 23, 1943
Draft Board
Potasi. mo.
I would like to report to you "Virgil Allen:, who was recently de-ferred to farm. He never would wark on the farm until a few months' be-for he was eighteen. Lots of days he daesn't get up until noon & brags about how easy it was for him to get aut of the army & does as little farming as he can get by with.
He has a pick up truck & gaes to Shirley swimming in Berriers three or four times a week. In the last two or three weeks he has made trips to Bismark & Winegarden. Now he is planning a trip to St. Louis Highlands. These ore all pleasure trips. How daes he get so much gas? We have sons in the army who work hard & never take any pleasure trips and they are proud to do it but to us here at home it seems a pity such as this should be allowed.
We hope you will consider this matter seriously and we also believe all should be treated the same as it is a few are deferred to farm but are running here & there on pleasure trips as bad as we need farm help.
We feel this is our duty to report this to you & are sure you will do what ever you think is best. you can ask any one who is lives near Allen or gaes to Berriers often & they will report the same to you.
Respect fully yours
Boasties for Uncle Sam.
And you thought that lazing around and sleeping half the day away was only a problem for the latest generation. If they had Nintendo back then, I'm sure that would have been on the list of vices this young man had. If you wonder how this guy had all the gas he could want when everyone else had to start rationing in February 1943, farms were basically exempted from the ration as "war essential". Farmers were given ration cards that would allow them to get as much as 500 gallons a month or more. These folks had a right to be upset.
What constitutes draft evasion? You were born on a farm.
PEARL HARBOR!!! Our country is at war!!! A call to arms! The half-french tiff diggers sons go with out a fuss. He has never had anything but he is glad to give all his all for the freedom he has always known. But you, son of a comfortable farmer [snip]
Your[sic] yellow - you don't want to go and your family is just as bad because they aid and abet you.
Apparently, James Cole had a nice job up in the city and gave it up to go back to the farm in order to get a deferment (according to this lady). The rest of the folks saw him driving around in his car, rarely working, driving up to St. Louis to see his girlfriend and catch a ball game. As has been the case for centuries, this mother asks, "Is this a poor man's son's war? Does the country gentleman's sons go free?"
We tiff digger mothers have hearts too-- our boys are just as precious to us -- some of our sons are reported missing -- yet, as we walk along the road (and we WALK) can eat the dust of a draft evader. [snip]http://www.thedonovan.com/mt-static/images/formatting-icons/bold.gif
Bold
Written for a poor indignant mother.
What's a "tiff digger"? Glad you asked. "Tiff" is another name for Barite. According to this article , "tiff digging" is described as such:
When Alex and Mary Kulongoski bought a 160- acre farm just outside Cadet in Washington County, Missouri, where they had four sons and a daughter, tiff mining was more important than farming in the county. The farmers around them had shallow diggings on their land. Each hole had a hand-made windlass to hoist tiff, a white, chalky mineral, also called barite, and a "rattle box," made like a baby's cradle, to shake the clay off the lumps of barite. The diggers could not sell the stuff to paint and rubber manufacturers without cleaning it.
More letters...
Maybe the army can make a man of him.
This guy was legitimately trying to get a deferment and simply didn't have the records to prove what and who he was because, like many folks of the time, he traded for work and product.
Use some common sense!
He makes his brags how smart he is didnt have to go to the army
My son won't work. Please find him a job.
He's always drunk.
Apparently, Cadet, MO had a lot of lazy, drunks laying around doing nothing. Another one.
You can find more letters here. And that's just one draft board in one county. Imagine how many letters were written around the country to draft boards just like this that read: Take my husband, please!
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
My Dad's job during that late unpleasentness was delivering newspapers. That was considered a critical war-related job. He got extra ration points for tires and gasoline and was draft exempt.
by emdfl on June 13, 2008 5:21 AM
Some people were given "deferments" whether they wanted them or not. One of my grandfathers tried to enlist three times, and was turned down all three times because of his job: a welder at the Oak Ridge weapons plant.
Every man can be a rifleman; but not every man's a welder. :)
by Grim on June 13, 2008 6:08 AM
My father was one of those "draft dodging farmers" Kat points out.
Her dissertation would lead you to believe that they were all the worthless, lazy, drunken sons of wealthy land owners, but in fact, most of them were just like my Dad, young (Dad was 30 when Japan struck) hard working men raised on the farm and getting a start on their own "sharecropping" somebody else's land while dreaming some day to own their own 80 acres.
My father never saw that dream materialize...but he did raise a family of Patriots on a sharecropper's earnings. He was man of God, whose word was his bond, and his handshake more binding than any signature on a contract.
The vast majority of those "draft dodging farmers" went on to build this country into the Agricultural Superpower that it is today.
Quite honestly, Kat, having grown up in the Indiana corn fields 'mongst WWII Vets and "draft dodging farmers", this is the first time I've ever heard the subject brought up.
by R. Jewell on June 13, 2008 7:12 AM
My late father-in-law tried to enlist when Pearl Harbor was hit. He didn't make the cut because he only had vision in one eye.
He went to work at the American Can Company as a plater, a "war-essential" job -- six months later, he was drafted. Sometime during "Torch," his platoon leader found out *why* he fired righty but sighted with his left eye. He got shipped home on a Liberty ship carrying Afrika Korps PWs and spent the remainder of the war at Riley -- shuttling PWs back and forth from the farms.
He got birthday cards from some of of his former charges until just before he died.
by
BillT on June 13, 2008 7:51 AM
Her dissertation would lead you to believe that they were all the worthless, lazy, drunken sons of wealthy land owners, but in fact, most of them were just like my Dad, young (Dad was 30 when Japan struck) hard working men raised on the farm and getting a start on their own "sharecropping" somebody else's land while dreaming some day to own their own 80 acres.
My "dissertation" was simply finding these letters and thinking they were interesting. It is clear from several of the letters if you read them that the issue wasn't whether they really could or couldn't get drafted, but people's perception of those who didn't go.
And, I thought it was interesting that there were at least several young men who had, indeed, played the system.
I don't think pointing that out reflects on anyone personally. I do think some of you have been reading our modern press for so long, you expect that any negative connotations about military issues is some how reflective of the whole. That's clearly on you since I've just spent over a week researching and putting up the story of a young man who died on Iwo Jima. The remaining story of boot camp and his fight to follow next week.
It's history, gentlemen, that's it.
by kat-missouri on June 13, 2008 9:05 AM
Even the farm deferments were not a guarantee, particularly in rural areas where pretty much the whole population was farmers.
My dad, the baby of ten, and his immediately older brother were both drafted the months they turned 18, leaving only Grandma and Grandad to run the farm. All the other eight kids had long left home.
The county draft board had run out of town boys to draft, except their own sons, so they reached out to the farms to make quota. Some of their sons enlisted anyway, so Draft Board Dads' attempts to protect sons via not drafting didn't quite work out...
What I don't understand is whether or not a county draft board could have gone back to the government and gotten out of quotas, based upon the fact that the non-deferred draftable population had been used up. If so, then that county's draft board should have done so, rather than ignore farm exemptions.
Luckily, my dad and uncle came home just fine. My grandparents never forgave the county draft board's actions, though, and the board members were never again welcome in my grandparents' home. And that was a significant social cut, in a low population county.
It is a fascinating history, Kat. Thanks for sharing.
by MAJ Arkay on June 13, 2008 10:11 AM
'playing the system" to avoid Military Conscription is probably as old as time itself....
In fact, it actually developed into something akin to an 'art form"
Many of the letters were unsigned, making them in my opinion no more credible than annonomous blog comments that you find today.
by R. Jewell on June 13, 2008 12:23 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 12, 2008
in A Common Grave, A Common Virtue: Pvt Paul Benson USMC (III)
[Kat]
Pvt Benson was just 18 years old when he died on Iwo Jima, D-Day+7, February 26, 1945. He rests here in Kansas City, Kansas, in a plain grave with a simple marker, below an ever waiving flag of the United States. In the scheme of things, that may best represent Adm Nimitz's words, "Uncommon valor, a common virtue."
I decided that it would be a good opportunity to piece together Pvt Benson's story, the story of Kansas City at war and tell a little bit about the 26th Marines, 5th Division, Iwo Jima.
Part I: Paul Benson in Kansas City on the Eve of War
Part II: Paul Benson Grows Up in War Time Kansas City
Paul Benson Gets Inducted
When Paul was in school at Argentine High, there were no set years until graduation. Each student was promoted a grade or "level" based on their work. Like Paul's female counterpart, Paul probably completed all of his levels and graduated at the age of 17 in 1943. Like many young men his age, Paul was probably anxious to get into the war. He didn't want to be part of the war effort at home in a defense related industry. He might have seen that as doing less than he could since many of the workers were older men or 4F (unfit for military duty) while others were defense essential. Paul's mom might have even worked at a defense related job; one of the many women who helped keep the production lines rolling.
Paul was probably adventurous, too. He probably begged his mom to sign a waiver so he could join earlier. She would have been torn between keeping her boy home one more year, hoping the war would soon be over, and doing what many mother's had done: waiving her boy off at the train station and trying to keep her fears to herself.
Paul was inducted into the USMC, April 5, 1944 in Wichita, KS, Sedgewick Co. just two months and 22 days shy of his eighteenth birthday.
[continued in flash traffic]
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Paul probably went to a local recruiting station and signed up after he turned seventeen in 1943 and then received a letter like this one ordering him to report to Wichita for induction. The train ticket would be waiting for him, but not much else. Paul was probably excited and apprehensive to be leaving Kansas City, probably for the first time.
Paul would have gotten a ride to the Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri and caught a train for Wichita. Either the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe or Missouri Pacific. On the train, he would meet many young men like him on the way to induction or points southeast or west for training. Others would be returning from furlough or heading to their new station on the West Coast.
The military did not offer any food vouchers or provide food on these train rides unless they were doing a mass movement of troops in preparation for training or operations. So, Paul, if he was lucky, would have brought along his own food, like a sandwich wrapped in wax paper and some fruit, or saved a little money from his job. Fortunately for soldiers, all along the train route, big and small towns alike donated money to and manned "canteens" to provide everything from food, drink cigarettes, post cards, paper, pencils, stamps, mending, and even some pretty girls to talk to.
Like this canteen in the little town of Neodesha, Kansas, on the way to Wichita.
The Mo-Pac trains came in only at noon and in the evening 3 or 4 times a week and Mrs. S. E. Simpson was the lady in charge of meeting each one at noon. Glenn Utt furnished a large roll top desk at the Frisco station in which the ladies kept supplies. One woman stayed in the morning and another in the afternoon in case a troop train came in before other workers could get there. This was a necessity because the troop movements were secret and railroad officials could not let the canteen know when a train would arrive. Sometimes for days at a time there would be no trains; then there might be several in one day.
How were they able to meet the trains at all? Through the services of two of the most important people to the canteen - Mrs. Benefield who lived in the last house on south 4th Street and Mrs. Joe McAninch, west of town. When a train passed one of these homes, the lady living there would immediately call Mrs. Johnson, and later Mrs. Starrett, who activated the workers.
Ladies in the community got together, wrote letters, put out fruit jars and asked people they knew to donate to the canteen. Money, playing cards, magazines, books and many more items would be kept in bulk at the station to hand out. The depot and the railroad provided room for storage and serving. Besides providing food and a little entertainment, the ladies (for they were mostly ladies) were also someone the soldiers could talk to and the soldiers were very appreciative. They would often write back post cards thanking the ladies for their kindness:
"I thank you! My Platoon thanks you! The Marine Corp thanks you! And thanks to Jimmy Cagney — Yankee Doodle Dandy. P. S. Tell the girls to write". And this Irishman must have kissed the blarney stone: "Sully" Sullivan addressed his card to "Some Blue Eyed Golden Blond, c/o City Canteen", and invited "There is my address on the front, Honey, how about dropping a line to me. We stopped at your town the other night, a very nice town. I'd like to visit it sometime". I wonder who I that memorable blue-eyed blonde was.
Another wrote, "I come from York City where they offer you most everything, but I must say your offer made us a happy, comfortable bunch." And another wrote Mrs. Starrett, "Your wonderful smile helped a lot to put the boys at ease".
When Paul go to Wichita, he would have had to pass a physical, had his eyes checked and his teeth examined. He would have been in line with 25 to 50 other young men. He might have had his photo taken with others to commemorate the event. Paul would have carried his medical file from section to section. As he passed each section, they would have stamped his papers "passed".
Later, he would have stood again, waiting in rows with the other men. In some cases, the men would be selected for a branch of the service simply by where they stood in line: Army, Navy, Army Air Corp, Marines. Army, Navy, Army Air Corp, Marines. Paul may have specifically enlisted in the marines.
After his branch of service was assigned, Paul was sworn in as a United States Marine.
After his induction, he would have caught a troop train out of Wichita to Los Angeles and then another to San Diego and Camp Pendleton for Marine boot camp. It might have taken between 5 and 7 days for Paul to get to San Diego. When he arrived, he would have taken a small gauge rail to Pendleton and one of the many smaller "camps" within its confines.
For Paul, the real adventure was about to begin.
� Secure this line!
June 9, 2008
The Internet Ate My Pvt Benson Essay
[Kat]
Well, three hours into research and posting, never learning my lesson about saving my work as I go along, I tried to open a web page on the Colt 1911 use in the Marines. The computer froze. Down went my essay and all the research that I now have to recreate about marine boot camp in WWII, leave, weapons, etc, etc, etc.
My apologies for all those waiting to learn how Paul got to Iwo Jima. Stand by for Tuesday.
For those with continuing interest of the history of Kansas City during World War II, check out the nose art of the Kansas City Kitty .
Other renderings can be found here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
You have my sympathy. Back in the day of uni the Importance of the Universe was defined by the Looming Deadline. It being several levels above God, Beer and Sex. I had the misfortune to find my fabled floppy finally fatedly fitting. Oh yes many f words. My only source and was superbly timed just before the hour of reckoning.
Ahh those were the days.... TG they are over.
Footnote: Computers are evil.
First Footed Footnote: Gates is the Master of this Evil. (this is worse than Godwin's law)
Finally Footed Footnote: Is Barb awake to take the bait?
by
Argent on June 9, 2008 7:49 AM
Extra Finally Footed Footnote: Uni=University in Ozspeak.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 9, 2008 7:51 AM
Yes. many, many "f" words.
by kat-missouri on June 9, 2008 9:33 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 7, 2008
Midway, 66 years on.

080606-N-1635S-001 PACIFIC OCEAN (June 6, 2008) The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Gridley (DDG 101) passes between the shoreline of the Midway atoll and the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) commemorating the 66th anniversary of the battle of Midway. The Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group is on a routine deployment in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility operating in the western Pacific and Indian oceans. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Joshua Scott (Released)
The Navy has a nice website on the subject of Midway - click here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Ah, Midway. One of the most interesting battles of the Pacific War, IMHO, for a great many reasons.
Not least of which is that there's still new stuff to learn about it, even sixty-six years after the fact and forty years after Walter Lord wrote his masterful account Incredible Victory. Five years ago, two professional historians followed up on a chance question from an amateur historian and discovered that the conventional account of the battle in virtually every American source was half wrong, because they all relied on Mitsuo Fuchida's eyewitness account Midway: The Battle that Doomed Japan for the Japanese side of the battle, and Fuchida lied in his book. The resulting book, Shattered Sword, is a minute-by-minute retelling of the battle on the Japanese side, and delves deeper into the details of aircraft carrier operations than any other book I've ever read.
by wolfwalker on June 7, 2008 8:32 AM
I love that picture of Gridley. She looks, ah, menacing.
Our warships oughtta look fierce, and I'm glad she does.
I like Herman Wouk's take on the battle, in his book "War and Remembrance", in which he dedicated several (black-bordered) pages to listing the names and home towns of the men in the torprons. Imagine flying a Douglas Devastator at oh, maybe 90 knots for a minute or three straight and level, against carriers doing thirty knots, with no fighter protection, and, uh, we know how it ended.
Evverbody, find the Wouk book just to read the names of those men.
Yes, I, too, am a slow-to-grow-up romantic.
Make the most of it, and ppfhhgrffhhh!
by
Justthisguy on June 7, 2008 7:24 PM
But, but, but, Wolfwalker! Fuchida was a Methodist, just like me! We wouldn't lie about important stuff, the way those cheating Baptists do!
by
Justthisguy on June 7, 2008 7:41 PM
It was even worse than that, JTG. The Devastator (such a miserably inaccurate name!) had to make its torpedo run at no more than 100 knots, at an altitude of about 150 feet. They were sighted some twenty miles out from the Japanese carrier force, so their run-in was closer to fifteen minutes than five. On top of all that, the torpedoes they were lugging sucked, and the pilots knew it. The USN's Mark 13 aerial torpedo wasn't as bad as the Mark 14 submarine torpedo (whose suckiness remains legendary even today), but it was in no way a reliable weapon.
Forty-one went out. Six came back. Only three remained flyable. They knew the odds when they launched, but they went anyway. It humbles me to think of those men, it really does.
by wolfwalker on June 7, 2008 9:42 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 6, 2008
D-Day + 23,376
[Kat]
Today is the 64th anniversary of D-Day when Allied Forces landed on Normandy Beach. Ace of Spades remembers and reminds us what could have been with the unread message of failure that Eisenhower had prepared prior to the invasion. Unlike many generals I could name today, Eisenhower was fully prepared to take responsibility for any plan he had enacted and its outcome. He had predicted at the outset that the Allied Forces might suffer up to 70% casualties. He briefed that reality to the leaders of the free world in an honest assessment of the probabilities of success.
Even though each of those leaders gave their consent, recognizing the desparation of the situation and the need to get back on the continent in force to defeat the Nazis, he believed that the weight of any failure would land squarely at his feet. But, beyond that, being the man who was about to order many other men, young and not so young, to their possible and probable deaths, he felt that weight more acutely than any other.
I always believed, more than just a morale booster, the reason that Eisenhower walked among the troops before the invasion, asking their names and where they were from, was so that he could remember. Remember them, remember the cost of war, "lest we grow to fond of it" and be reminded that, whatever the cause, whatever the purpose, they were not numbers, but men with names and faces.
Allied forces suffered nearly 25% casualties, KIA and WIA, not nearly as many as predicted, but enough out of a 160k strong force to make you realize that was no insignificant number. We should realize as well, within a week of that invasion, thousands of families received little yellow telegrams informing them that their son had been wounded or killed.
Thousands. For one day. And every day after as the Allies pushed into France and Germany.
Today, over 1500 American veterans of WWII die every day. Take a walk in the garden of stone and you will see the white marble rows growing with their names.
Like Eisenhower, when we see these men, we should ask them their names and their stories so that we, too, can remember.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Kat, THANK YOU! Let us NEVER FORGET! One day, I was in the hospital. A surgeon, who was about to do surgery on me the next day. I was in his office waiting to go through the pre-surgical appointment. I noticed a small plaque on the wall stating that he was an Army Ranger who was in the Normandy D-Day invasion. The information was later verified as true. There was so much going on at the time of that first visit, The visit was my only focus. But on the last post-surgical visit, after the exam and the discussion of the results, it was time for me to leave. I asked for one additional minute, I said, "The first time I came here, I noted a plaque. It states, that you were in the D-Day Normandy Invasion. I just want to thank you, for all that you have done and continue to do." I stood up and shook his hand and respectfully left his office. This all happened about 14+ years ago.
by Grumpy on June 6, 2008 4:59 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
Someone you should know...
This Wednesday he came to Rotary, moving slowly with his cane, moving through the line to get his badge, buy a pot-drawing ticket, get lunch.
One small step after another, he made his way to his table. Just another old man in his 80's who has been a pillar of his community these many decades.
65 years ago, however, he was a volunteer. He was a Jedburgh, though he didn't know it at the time.

64 years ago, he boarded an airplane and flew to France - like a lot of other hardy young men. But instead of jumping into Normandy to help isolate the invasion beaches, he and two others jumped into occupied France, in order to tie down significant German forces so that they never *got* to the beach, and in many cases, never got into the fight in the Cotentin at all.

From the book Operation Jedburgh by Colin Beavan -
“Any questions?” Mockler-Ferryman asked.
“Yes, sir,” one of the Jeds piped up. “How many Germans are there in France?”
“Not many over half a million,” came the weary answer.
A tense silence followed. “Oh, that’s all?” shouted one of the brash Americans at the back, and all of the Jeds, even the most austere of the French, laughed hilariously.

I won't tell you that Bill Thompson was that American - but I'm going to ask him next Wednesday, while he's still around to ask.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Yes, please do.
I've been thinking about hanging out at the VFW and AL a little more often with my recorder. I think there would be great stories to be heard.
by kat-missouri on June 6, 2008 10:14 AM
Damn cool. DAMN cool
by AFSister on June 6, 2008 4:36 PM
Another view, in part, of the Jedburghs is found in Roger Hall's "You're Stepping on My Cloak and Dagger". Hall joined the OSS early in WW2, and spent part of his time there as an instructor, including the Jedburgh's time in training. Parts of it left me sore from laughter. (And bothered the librarians; I spent altogether too much time in college down in the basement reading obscure books.)
by steveH on June 7, 2008 12:20 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 5, 2008
In A Common Grave, A Common Virtue: Pvt Paul Benson, USMC (II)
[Kat]
Pvt Benson was just 18 years old when he died on Iwo Jima, D-Day+7, February 26, 1945. He rests here in Kansas City, Kansas, in a plain grave with a simple marker, below an ever waiving flag of the United States. In the scheme of things, that may best represent Adm Nimitz's words, "Uncommon valor, a common virtue."
I decided that it would be a good opportunity to piece together Pvt Benson's story, the story of Kansas City at war and tell a little bit about the 26th Marines, 5th Division, Iwo Jima.
Part I: Paul Benson in Kansas City on the Eve of War
Part II: Paul Benson Grows Up in War Time Kansas City
Paul, like many young men his age, would have been hard pressed not to be affected by the war efforts. Everywhere he looked, everyone he knew, everything he did related to war. Where Paul lived, [triangle] he would have been able to see many of the war time activities going on all around him [star].
[continued in flash traffic]
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Kansas City was bustling with war activities. Military and other defense personnel were everywhere. The Federal Building in downtown Kansas City, Missouri provided weather training for women in the Weather Bureau and Midland Radio School provided training under contract for military radio operators. Many of them stayed at the Hotel Commonwealth at 12th and Broadway in Kansas City, Missouri near the north end where the current Bartle Hall Covention Center now stands. Many young soldiers who stayed there sent post cards to their loved ones. Like this one from Cpl Pressley, US Army, 1943 letting his family know that he was "still here".
In 1942, Kansas City turned off the water to all of it's fountains to help the war effort by saving electricity. While at the same time, the Kansas City chapter of the American War Mothers, founded in 1917, raised money to have a fountain dedicated to all those who served in WWI[pic].
Kansas City at large had the second largest Civil Defense Corps in the United States in 1943. Paul, being a patriotic young man, may have very lwell became a member of the local defense corps as a messenger or assisting the the air warden with insuring blackout rules were followed. He definitely would have taken part in the in the nine state wide test blackout on December 4, 1942. Factories around town sounded their whistles and horns to signify "1 minute warning" to blackout.
Several major war time industries were located in and around Kansas City including the Darby Steel company in the West Bottoms, Kansas City, Kansas, not far from where Paul Benson lived. The Darby Steel Company made LCTs or Landing Craft Tanks. The factory turned out one a day and floated them 1,000 miles down the Kansas River to the Missouri and the Mississippi to reach New Orleans, prompting them to be nicknamed "Prairie Ships".
Paul could have biked down 22nd St to Park Dr and down to Kansas Highway 32, just two miles away, that runs along the Kansas River to watch the LCTs being floated. One day, in the future, Paul would go shore on Iwo Jima on an LCT made in his home city. That was in the future. In 1942, he would have also seen many trains carrying tanks, artillery, ammunition, supplies and many men on their way to the war.
The Kansas Ordnance Plant near Parsons, Kansas employed over 6,700 people and focused on building artillery shells and other explosives. Remington built a plant in Independence, MO that manufactured 200 million rounds of ammunition and the Sunflower Ordnance Plant, just south of Kansas City, KS manufactured smokeless powder and propellant.
The Kansas City area grew considerably in population as defense workers travailed by train to join the efforts here. Paul's mom or step-father might have even worked in one of the many factories. Many women in Kansas City did their part in the war effort like this young lady who worked building B-25s.
B-25 Bombers were being built by the Kansas City Aviation Co not far from where Paul lived in the Fairfax industrial area. The Fairfax factory turned out 6,608 B-25s during the course of the war. Paul would have seen B-25s take off from Fairfax Airport for their first test flight. Paul would have certainly heard about Doolittle's Raid on Tokyo in 1942 and may have felt some pride in his city for helping to build the machine responsible for the first strike against the Japanese homeland and avenging the attack on Pearl Harbor. It may have prompted Paul to play "bomber pilot" with his friends.
In early 1942, newspapers began to report that all Japanese are being moved to internment camps. There were few who knew that Germans, too, were being rounded up and sent to internment camps.
Paul would have seen a lot of men and women in uniform. Troop trains passed through Kansas City, Kansas on their way to Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri or leaving Union Station and heading to points west and south, taking newly inducted troops to their training stations. At its peak in 1945, the Union Station saw over 678,000 travelers, most of them military personnel on their way home from the war. Troops traveled from training in Texas, through Kansas City and on their way to New York where many troops embarked for Europe and North Africa. Others caught the train out to Ft Leavenworth or on to Junction City, KS to Ft Riley or south to Wichita and on to Camp Pendleton in San Diego or San Francisco. Just like they did in WWI the local Red Cross, the USO and local volunteers operated a canteen that took care of the soldiers going to and coming from war. This postcard from Pvt Thomas Melvin, thanked Mrs. Marie Rowland for her hospitality:
Nov. 15, 1943. Esteemed Mrs. Rowland: No I can't keep it to myself -- I've got to tell you what I know. You are doing a swell job! And be sure, we boys appreciate your sincere efforts.
My trip, hitch-hiking back to camp, was pretty tedious...but I did get here! Thank you ever so much for making my pass spent in K.C. a time long to be remembered! Cheerio! Yours, Thomas.
There were also many troops stationed in and around Kansas City. He would have seen uniforms of all the services. The United States Naval Reserves and other Navy operations took place right here. South of Kansas City, the US Naval Air Station Olathe, Kansas, that opened in 1942, housed the Naval Air Primary Training Center. Future astronaut John Glenn graduated from the first training class. Prior to the opening of that base, the NAPTC was conducted at the Fairfax Airport in Kansas City, Kansas. Paul would have seen flights of the bi-planes training cadets to be fighter pilots and bombers.
Ft Leavenworth trained over 19,000 officers that went on to lead 23 infantry, airborne and cavalry divisions in World War II.
Paul, like many young boys his age, was probably interested in baseball, the national past time. He might have attended local ball games hosted by the Works Progress Administration between the Naval Air Station and the Army. He may have went down to the Grenada, if he had enough money, and watched a movie with his friends like Billy the Kid Rides again. The program would have started with a cartoon like Bugs and Daffy and then catching the most recent newsreel before the main feature.
Local radio carried war time programming. WHB hired Elinor Fox before the war began. When new regulations from the federal government regulated what could be played, Elinor Fox updated her "Women in the News" program to include women working in the many war time industries.
In 1942, Elinor Fox’s “Women in the News” began at 8:30 a.m.,19 still sponsored by the AG Grocer. “I’d interrupt my superb prose with three cans of green beans,” she smiled. On March 24, the theme was “‘V’ For Victory.” She opened:
Again good morning everyone. The women of America are working in a victory campaign to gather ten million books for Uncle Sam’s armed forces—will you lend a hand, too?
Her woman in the news that day was Miss Dorothea Hyle, Director of Publicity for the
Kansas City Public Libraries.
Radio made it difficult to avoid the effects of the war during 1943 and 1944. WHB devoted an 18‐hour day on April 12, 1943, just ten days before Paul was inducted into the Marines, to sell War Bonds. For the Third War Loan drive, WHB paraded through downtown on a “Bond Wagon” with orchestras and smiling members of the WAVES and WACS. WHB, like other stations, continually urged conservation of electricity, gasoline, food and any material used in the war industry, such as tin cans, rubber goods and old rags. Recruiting for the Coast Guard and Merchant Marines was included with Selective Service information. WHB urged support of the USO. And, following the wartime code, discouraged the spread of rumors.
Paul would have heard other war time broadcasting like the "War Bond Show" or "Staff Frolic" straight from the Kansas City Canteen for the USO. There were also weekly broadcasts called "Your Navy Speaks" along with many more efforts to support the war, recruit men and women for military and civil defense and many more.
Paul might have been a Boy Scout or maybe just took part in the war efforts by helping to collect scrap iron or other much needed resources. He might have helped sell war bonds or collect books for the bookmobile to lend out to service men and women in the area.
Other young men in the neighborhood, just a few years older than Paul, would have hurried down to the local recruiters to enlist or received their draft notices to appear at a local board for physicals and assignment to the Army (including Army Air Corp) or Navy (including the Marines). Within the first 24 hours after Pearl Harbor, 150 men had enlisted at the Navy recruiting station.
He would have also seen young women in their WAC, WASP or WAVES uniforms as they went to their local administrative jobs with the military or defense. Forty young women were assigned to the Olathe Naval Air Station.
He might have also heard that there were Prisoners of War housed just north of Kansas City in Liberty. These POWs were sometimes brought down to the local stock yards to work or used as labor for local farmers.
Like this young woman of the same age, he would have experienced rationing.
We got some sort of coupon to use when purchasing new shoes. Shoe rationing was started February 9, 1943, according to an article in the Independence Examiner. Each person could buy three pair of leather shoes a year. There were other shoes available that were of imitation leather and they were ugly and you didn’t have to have a coupon to buy them.
Each person in our family was issued a food ration book and the head of the house (my Father) got a gasoline ration book. The Government issued the ration books. Meat, sugar and butter were rationed. Each stamp would allow you so much meat, so many pounds of sugar, etc. or so many gallons of gasoline. These stamps were of different colors.
If you had a friend or relative living on a farm, you may have been able to get extra gasoline from them, as they could get an unlimited amount as they were responsible for feeding the nation.
When we wanted to visit my brother that was in the Air Force at a camp close by, neighbors that didn’t have an automobile gave my Father some of their gasoline ration stamps so we could make the trip.
Everywhere that Paul looked, he would have seen posters urging rationing, more production and joining one of the services like the United States Marines. Even the trains got in on urging people to buy war bonds.

There were parades like this Armistice Day Parade featuring troops and even local community parades[(c) 1942] that always featured a patriotic theme.
He would have heard or read about Wake Island, Guam and Guadalcanal. The Marines would have been some of the toughest and best in his book. He might have even dreamed of wearing the blue uniform or fighting the "Japs" in the jungles. The Battle of Coral Sea, the Battle of Midway and many others.
All around, as he went about his days going to school, helping his mom, playing with friends or helping with the war effort, everything would have been about the war.
He might have even dreamed of one day putting on the uniform of his country and going to war. In his dreams, war was romantic. If he thought of it as dirty, he thought of it like the dirt the actors wore in the movies. It would always wash off at the end of the day. Bombs were far away and thirst would always be quenched. With all the war production going on in Kansas City, bombers, shells and ammunition were always plentiful. There were so many military men passing through, there were always enough troops for the battle. It was always the enemy who died or the other unlucky guy. If one of the good guys "bought it", there was little blood and pain was fleeting in the face of glory.
If he thought of his mother's feelings on the subject, he probably thought of her as weeping picturesquely into a kerchief, accepting a medal or certificate for his actions, proudly and stoically speaking of his bravery and service. Just like those other mothers on the newsreels. He never pictured her alone, behind closed doors, weeping uncontrollably over a yellow telegram from the War Department with the words, "Mrs. Florence Placke, We regret to inform you..."
For Paul, war was something to look forward to and he was determined to do his part.
[Part III - Paul Benson Goes to War]
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
June 4, 2008
In A Common Grave, A Common Virtue: Pvt Paul Benson, USMC
[Kat -several part series]
"Among the men who fought on Iwo Jima, uncommon valor was a common virtue." - Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN, 16 March 1945
On Memorial Day I waited for my mom to straighten flowers on my cousin's grave in a civilian cemetery in Kansas City, Kansas. Four generations of our family are buried there along with other family and friends from our extended relations. I walked around the small circle of headstones that surrounded a flag pole. Large elm trees guarded the perimeter of this small circle of land. Two main roads in the cemetery intersected near the circle with another semi-circular road passing the rear boundaries creating a circular spit of land. The largest trees stood near each of the intersecting roads; a good way to keep cars from accidentally driving over the graves.
As I passed each headstone and read their story, I noted that most of them were either men who served in the military or family members of the same. One headstone, slightly blackened with age, caught my attention. Someone had recently placed a flag and a small sprig of flowers by the grave. It read, Pvt Paul Benson, 26th Rgt, 5 Div, July 22, 1927 - February 26, 1945.

His date of death was before the war ended and his regiment, 26th Marines, 5 Division, seemed familiar. I downloaded the picture late in the week and decided to do a search to see if I could find Pvt Paul Benson's story. I could only find one link to Pvt Benson: a list of the names of those who died on Iwo Jima.
I knew there had to be more to Pvt Paul Benson's story than a plain headstone and someone obviously cared enough to put flowers on his grave. Pvt Benson was just 18 years old when he died on Iwo Jima, D-Day+7, five months shy of his 19th birthday. He wasn't married. He had no children, but he had lived more than many men in that short time. And, he had served his country in a battle that helped end the most horrific war in the short history of his nation and, possibly, in the history of man kind.
He rests here in Kansas City, Kansas, in a plain grave with a simple marker, below an ever waiving flag of the United States. In the scheme of things, that may best represent Adm Nimitz's words, "Uncommon valor, a common virtue."
I decided that it would be a good opportunity to piece together Pvt Benson's story, the story of Kansas City at war and tell a little bit about the 26th Marines, 5th Division, Iwo Jima.
Paul Benson in Kansas City on the Eve of War
Paul Benson would have been 14 when the news came that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. He lived at 22 S. 22nd St, Kansas City, Kansas with his mother Mrs. Florence Placke. His family probably heard it on the radio like many people of that era. Like September 11, though there were many eyewitnesses and live reports, the details were sketchy and sometimes completely wrong as news broadcasters posted bulletins about other attacks. People would have gone on about the day though many would slowly gather and stay near the radio later in the evening, waiting anxiously to know what the President was going to do as the magnitude of the attacks began to sink in.
Paul would have been at school the next at Argentine Middle-High School on 22nd and Ruby, Kansas City, KS [pic (c) 1950] day when President Roosevelt gives his "Day of Infamy" speech at 12:15 pm EST and congress declares war. While the school probably did not turn on the radio for the students, teachers and administrators would have listened intently while the students continued to study. School might have been called early as the announcement sunk in.
While the teachers were solemn, the students might have just been happy to leave early. Then again, the attitude of the teachers and others might have been reflected by the students. Older students about to graduate might have talked excitedly about going down to the recruiting station and enlisting as soon as possible. The younger students Paul's age might have talked among themselves, wondering what it means and prating young men's bravado about seeking revenge for the attacks.
Later in the day after doing a few chores and hanging out with his friends, he might have been sitting at the table eating dinner with the family, listening to the radio give updated reports on numbers of casualties and parts of the President's speech. His Step-father or mom may have poured over the newspapers with accounts of the attack. There's little doubt that the lives of many were about to change.
As the war preparations sped up, Paul and his friends probably played "war" in their back yards and fought over who would be the "dirty Japs" and "Nazis". He might have played baseball at Clifton Park or City Park nearby.
Everywhere he would have seen and heard the cry: "Remember Pearl Harbor".
[Part II: Paul Benson Grows Up in War Time Kansas City]
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
keep it coming Kat.
by RetRsvMike on June 4, 2008 7:48 AM
Fantastic! Give us more!
by
lela on June 4, 2008 11:47 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 2, 2008
Who Said That?
[Kat]
Apropos of nothing and everything all at once, a little Monday Morning Trivia to get your brains moving while I work up a little local military history.
Who said:
Weakness cannot cooperate with anything. Only strength can cooperate.
Answer below the fold.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
May 23, 2008
Brig Gen Jimmy Stewart
[Kat]
Jimmy Stewart, yes, that Jimmy Stewart, would have been 100 yrs old on May 14. Libertas of Liberty Film Festivals has several links with some facts about Stewart's military career.
Such as, he was the first Hollywood star to sign up for the military in 1940. He retired from the Air Force Reserves as a Brigadier General. Or, as Libertas highlights for us:
He eventually became a Colonel, and earned the Air Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Croix de Guerre and 7 battle stars. In 1959, he served in the Air Force Reserve, before retiring as a brigadier general.
Medals awarded: Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross with Oak Leaf Cluster, Air Medal with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Commendation Medal, American Defense Service Medal, European African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with 3 Service Stars, World War II Victory Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, French Croix de Guerre with Palm, Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Yeah, Jimmy Stewart actually flew into battle. Several times.
Check out Libertas for more info.
Jimmy Stewart Quotes:
“I hate them! I absolutely hate them! Whether right or wrong, their country was at war and their country asked them to serve, and they refused and ran away. Cowards, that’s what they were.” - On teenagers who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War
“I suppose people can relate to being me, while they dream about being John Wayne.”
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I have always loved Jimmy Stewart - a Pennsylvania boy made good :-) He was born in Indiana, PA - just a few miles from the town where I grew up.
A fine American, much missed.
by
Barb on May 23, 2008 2:36 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 6, 2008
The ANZUS Corridor at the Pentagon.

ANZUS Corridor Dedication Ceremony
Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England will host the ambassadors of Australia and New Zealand at a ceremony dedicating the new Pentagon corridor themed to honor the security treaty among Australia, New Zealand and the United States known as ANZUS, Tuesday, May 6 at 11 a.m. EDT, on the second floor of A-ring, between corridors eight and nine.
The new ANZUS Corridor also honors the 100-year history among Australia, New Zealand and the United States. The corridor exhibits several hundred artifacts that commemorate significant historical events beginning with the ANZUS Treaty to the Global War on Terrorism.
The ANZUS alliance has existed since 1951. It was originally sought by Australia and New Zealand to prevent a repetition of the circumstances that led to World War II. The alliance has evolved subsequently into a component part of the interlocking system of alliances linking the Western states. Collectively, these alliances deter aggression and prevent an outbreak of global conflict by creating mutually reinforcing links between the respective national interests and security capabilities of the Western states.
Today, the Red Ensign of Australia and the Blue Ensign of New Zealand (because if I flew the Kiwi Red Ensign, Murray would build a trebuchet with enough reach to arc Up Here from Down There and smash the flagpole.) will ripple from the Castle staffs.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Can I have an eight figure grid reference for... wait. Never mind, carry on.
You want to fly Australias merchant navy flag thats your business but the girls wear the blue one making it the hotest flag outside Gaza and the West Bank.
by Murray on May 7, 2008 12:24 AM
I gotta ask this one. Do you actually have the blue one?
by
Argent on May 7, 2008 4:04 PM
Yes. I do. And don't tell Murray - but I have the Red Ensign for Kiwi-land, too. I just know better than to tell him when it's flying, lest the Kiwi SBS/SAS show up.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 7, 2008 4:51 PM
We don't have an SBS and you DON'T want to meet our SAS. A lot of Taleban have, go ask them... oh wait, you can't.
And I know where you live John... its North America somewhere, I'll find you. Can't be that many places methodically claiming to be an Australian merchant ship.
by Murray on May 7, 2008 8:11 PM
Well John you have my erm Our Royal Permission to fly the blue one one day. You know you're a serious history nut when ppl from the country are learning the flag's history from you.
Ahh Murray when you pray hard enough to be with Allah how can He deny but send His little Angel's messages on their way?
by
Argent on May 8, 2008 8:53 AM
Argent - in the auld days, the blue ensign was the military ensign, and the red ensign was, as Murray declaims, flown by the merchant fleet.
Technically, it was also the flag flown by civilians.
The Ensigns:
1. White Ensign - flown by naval vessels and shore institutions, the Royal Yacht Squadron when escorting the Queen, and there are a few places/people authorized to fly the White because of a long-standing Naval connection.
2. Blue Ensign - flown by the State.
3. Red Ensign - flown by civilians, including the Merchant Marine. As I understand it, Canada's soldiers in the first world war fought under the Canadian Red Ensign, used before the adoption of the Maple Leaf flag.
I chose to fly the Red as I'm a civilian under those rules. I could, on Trafalagar Day, fly the White Ensign, as Brit rules provide that anyone may fly the White on that day. When I fly the flag to honor Canadian WWI dead, I fly the Red.
Because Murray has threatened my life and well being, I don't ever fly the Red Kiwi (at least not and post about it...).
Should I ever host any of the local Brit, Kiwi, or Canadian officers attending the school or here as liaisons, I will fly the appropriate Blues, and the Maple Leaf for the Canadian.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 8, 2008 9:29 AM
Hostages pray to god for salvation, god sends the SAS.
John the Canadian Red Ensign was in fact their national flag until their French element got all bitter. No Australian has ever considered the Australian Red Ensign as their national flag.
When the RN ceased using red white and blue divisions they kept the white (Nelson, the RN wont do anything unless Nelson did it, said it or tripped over it), red went to the merchants and blue to government departments including the colonial office.
The first national identifiers were in fact the blue ensign with an NZ painted on it and the Aussies did something similar.
Don't make me break out my father the 37 year Navy sig and WO Yeoman of sigs on this one.
by Murray on May 8, 2008 3:29 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 5, 2008
That’s the funny thing—I can’t understand it. They were fighting fools."

Today was Cinco de Mayo - an observance mostly observed in the US, and not in Mexico. It also marks the day that Battery Way, the 4 12-inch M1890 Seacoast Mortars on Corregidor, started their longest, greatest day.
Their baptism of fire came on 29 April, 1942, when the guns, up until recently deactivated but now hurriedly reactivated on the initiative of Coast Artilleyman Major "Wild Bill" Massello, were brought into action being fired in anger for the first time.
As the Japanese had celebrated Emperor Hirohito's birthday by treating the defenders of Corregidor to a artillery barrage of circa 10,000 rounds, they found themselves stunned when Battery Way opened up and fired a total of 80 rounds against Japanese forces concentrated near Cabacen.
It's a great story - and rather than essentially rewriting (and pretty much thereby plagiarizing) the webarticle of Eric Sprengle, who did all the research - I'll leave you with this tidbit to make clicking the link worth your while...
Battery Way received word of the concentration of Japanese boats and landing barges, and the gunners ran to man the mortars. Massello broke out the antipersonnel shells. They were thin-walled shells weighing 670 pounds, practically all TNT. They had a fuse 6 inches long, a complicated affair that unwound a tape as it went. The slightest little touch could set these monsters off, but their blast had a lethal radius of 500 yards. Massello had been saving them for just this occasion. Rubble was swept from the tracks leading to the last two mortars, shell and powder bags rammed home, and the guns fired on the coordinates. At the same time the big guns on Fort Drum opened fire and at a range of 20,000 yards poured shell after shell on the water craft of the Japanese second wave with deadly effect. On Fort Hughes, the mortars manned by the men of the USS Mindanao joined in, and the Japanese were caught flat footed and exposed.
At about 3:00A.M, on orders from Lieutenant Colonel Norman Simmonds, the fire commander, Battery Way shifted its fire directly onto the Japanese beachhead at North Point. However, some of the 670-pound projectiles, fell very close to the marines and soldiers containing the Japanese at Water Tank Hill. Reluctantly, Colonel Bunker had to order Simmonds to cease fire.
After this, for the remainder of the morning of 6 May, Way fired almost continuously at Bataan and on the landing barges, getting away a round approximately every five minutes. The Japanese replied with counter battery fire which Massello described at "terrific," causing steadily mounting casualties among the gunners. Yet as soon as one crew was knocked out by a direct hit in the pit, another crew would dash from the safety of the bombproof magazine to take its place. Corporal William A. Graham’s gunners fired for an hour before Japanese salvo wounded four of his men and put a piece of shrapnel through his lung. Graham said, "Well, boys, that’s my ticket but you guys keep on firing." He died shortly after. The next crew immediately took over. One the noncoms, Sergeant Walter A. Kulinski recalls with wonderment the bravery of the men. "I have never in my life seen men like that crew … they were wounded, but they wanted to fire those guns." One man continued servicing the piece although his stomach had been torn open. "You couldn’t keep them down. That’s the funny thing—I can’t understand it. They were fighting fools."
Honor Major Massello and his Redlegs of "Erie" Battery, 60th Coast Artillery, who manned the mortars of Battery Way, by reading their little-known story. It's a story of courage, innovation, and adaptation, characteristic of American soldiers with their backs to the wall.
To read that story, which is hosted at the website Corregidor.org: click here to read Major William "Wild Bill" Massello" by Eric Sprengle. H/t, JTG
I'm setting this post to publish at 23:30, 5 May. It just seems... apt.
For an taste of what Colonel Massello thought about things later in life - check out this interview.
On 6 May, 2002, 60 years after the battle, a memorial was dedicated at Battery Way to Colonel Massello.
If you'd like a better version of the pic that opens this post: Click here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Fort De Soto, Florida has the only four 12-inch seacoast rifled mortars (model 1890 mounted on 1896 carriages) in the continental United States.
http://www.fortdesoto.com/twelveinchmortars.php
by
Cannoneer No. 4 on May 6, 2008 6:05 AM
TM 9-456 12-INCH SEACOAST MATERIEL
by Cannoneer No. 4 on May 6, 2008 6:22 AM
John,
Thanks so much for your post. As the great niece of "Wild Bill" Massello (my grandfather was his brother, who was also stationed in the South Pacific with the Navy during this time), my family and I thank you for your story and your reminder of observance. Uncle Bill was a great man, and was not only a military role model but a family one, and he is missed every day.
All the best,
Melissa
Melissa Massello
Boston, MA
by
Melissa Massello on May 6, 2008 9:11 AM
Thanks veryverymuch, Sir. And double-extra thankyews to #4 for finding the manual. I have the PDF open in another window at this very moment, just perseveratin' all over it.
As Melissa Massello confirms, I've long thought that when one wants to point out an obvious example of what "kewl&manly" means, he can not go far wrong when pointing at Major Massello.
Hmm, must put on Alford CD, and cue up "Voice of the Guns" and "The Mad Major."
by
Justthisguy on May 6, 2008 2:41 PM
"Where do we find such men...."
I still remember reading a book on Corregidor when I was in 7th grade (1969) and being fascinated with the story.
A great story which needs to be better told by our Army. We focus on the Death MArch and MacArthur's leaving. Need more stories like this.
by Albany Rifles on May 7, 2008 9:04 PM
I gave this a link at The High Road, and bumped the post a little later after nobody responded. Kids, these days!
Nobody responded, again. I did quit, then.
Owhell, it got 154 views, so maybe somebody got some eddicashun.
Oh, BTW, it's Battery Geary which still has the last round not yet fired, in the gun since 1942.
They were just gettin' ready to shoot that piece when a large Nip shell found the magazine.
[Just to let you know, JTG - I'm pretty sure just about all of those people showed up and at least looked at the pictures...-the Armorer]
by
Justthisguy on May 8, 2008 10:59 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 2, 2008
Heh.
"The obvious models for intervention were Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Soviet General Staff planned the Afghanistan invasion based on these models. However, there was a significant difference that the Soviet planners missed. Afghanistan was embroiled in a civil war and a coup de main would only gain control of the central government, not the countryside. Although participating military units were briefed at the last minute, the soviet Christmas Eve invasion of 1979 was masterfully planned and well-executed. The Soviets seized the government, killed the president and put their own man in his place. According to some Russian sources, they planned to stabilize the situation, strengthen the army and withdraw the majority of Soviet forces within three years..."
"...Invasion and overthrow of the government proved much easier than fighting the hundreds of ubiquitous guerrilla groups. The Soviet Army was trained for large-scale, rapid-tempo operations. They were not trained for the platoon leader's war of finding and closing with small, indigenous forces which would only stand and fight when the terrain and circumstances were to their advantage."
So, doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Wanna guess the source?
It's from The Other Side of the Mountain: Mujahideen Tactics in the Soviet-Afghan War. Written by former Afghan Army Colonel Ali Ahmad Jalali, and Lester Grau, an analyst at the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Published by the USMC Studies and Analysis Division, USMC Combat Development Command.
In 1995.
It's what I'm currently reading.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Have you read his previous book, The Bear Went Over the Mountain? Told from the Soviet's side. Some of the battles are the same ones in The Other Side.
by Blackhawk on May 2, 2008 6:17 PM
Sounds like a very good book. But be careful. While the setup you describe sounds similar to what confronted the U.S. in Iraq; i hope the book clearly defines what the Soviet goals were. Remember, the Soviets had been planning or leading up to this for a long time. The tactical move was swift, and probably not planned for that exact time; but they had been approaching it for some time. If you look at the Soviet writings from the 60's and 70's; they did the only verifiable population census and "knew" that to dominate that would have to kill and make refugees of 5 million of the population. Which they did. They also wanted control: the natural gas; the gems; and the access to the warm water ports. They also were able to put missile and bomber assets at Shin Dhan--from which to take out Diego Garcia, among other targets.
All I'm saying is that in comparing similities between force structure; tactics etc... make sure you have a complete view of comparative goals as well. That will give the lessons of the two conflicts much more meaning.
by don on May 2, 2008 8:02 PM
One shouldn't read too much into it, Don. Iraq 2003 and Afghanistan 1979 are not complete analogues. It was just... the similarities are interesting - and some of them - the focus on the coup-de-main approach (the essence of Rumsfeld's concept of war) and how it didn't achieve the results we expected (because of what *did* turn out to be underlying, but not obvious, parallels - and the difficulty in swapping mindsets. We were ultimately more flexible, I think, and have done a better job, thus far, with raising the bar with indigenous forces, which is where the Soviets foundered.
Blackhawk - yes, I actually have both.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 3, 2008 7:04 AM
These "by-the-gallon" comparisons are odious.
History reminds us what the price of gasoline USED to be, and no amount of comparing gasoline pricing to the price of 18-year old Scotch single-malt Whiskey is going to change history.
Just for grins, what is the LOWEST price any of you ever paid for gas?
For me, it was 17.9 cents per gallon, in a little independent station right behind the Annheiser-Busch brewery in St. Louis, in 1963.
So, please, PLEASE, P.L.E.A.S.E. stop giving us these comparisons, they don't mean a thing, and they distract one from careful consideration of what should be done about the major issues involved with petroleum marketing.
by
Rivrdog on May 4, 2008 12:04 AM
Sorry, man, but "Coup de main" mean "HELPING HAND",
probably what the commies had in mind for their
fellow local subversive in Kabul under King Daoud...
So, "Grand Coup" will mean Masterful or
daring strike,
"Mauvais coups" are criminal acts by scumbags.
So the Soviet invasion is both a "Mauvais Coup" and a "Grand Coup"...
With a "Coup de Main" from idiotic friends like
the Russians, it is far worse than having ennemies.
You end up hanging with your balls cut off
and your intestines on the ground...
by
Ming the Merciless on May 4, 2008 4:46 PM
Ming - from the French, coup-de-main means "blow of the hand." In military parlance, it meant assault by "other than artillery."
The official DoD definition is: "(DOD) An offensive operation that capitalizes on surprise and simultaneous execution of supporting operations to achieve success in one swift stroke."
Without addressing the merits of the rest of your comment... because it's late and I'm tired, I'll will stand by my usage of the term.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 4, 2008 10:00 PM
Two more titles on the subject that are worth reading are "the Bear Trap" by Yousef & Adkin and "Hidden War" by Borovik. Assume you're familiar with "Feast of Bones" Fiction but well researched. (Of course I'm biased as my platoon Sgt. in Grenada offered a case of beer to anybody who got a Soviet, perforated or no.)Like the blog.
by Andrew on May 5, 2008 1:34 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
April 25, 2008
ANZAC Day

Today is ANZAC Day, the Australia-New Zealand equivalent to Memorial Day.
Today, the Australian and New Zealand flags will fly above the Castle.
New Zealand Website on ANZAC Day.
The Australian Equivalent.
ANZAC (Australia New Zealand Army Corps) Day commemorates the opening of the Gallipoli Campaign with the landings in Suvla Bay. Gallipoli was the brainchild of Winston Churchill. It was an attempt to force the Dardanelles and reach the Black Sea, freeing up the Russian Black Sea Fleet and opening up new routes of supply and a new thrust at the Austrians and Germans via the Balkans. Churchill really had the hots for the idea that Italy and the Balkans represented the "soft underbelly" of Europe. He was to be all for going in that way during WWII, as well. Sometimes, one wonders if Winnie (the "former Naval Person") understood the terms "mountainous terrain" and "cross-compartmented" as used by military guys looking at the dirt they have to fight over. Ah, he must have had some idea - having fought in Africa at Omdurman and in the trenches during WWI.
The use of ANZAC troops at Gallipoli, along with the treatment and use of Commonwealth troops in France, marked the high tide of Britain's command and control of Commonwealth Forces. The propensity of British Generals to use non-UK troops for the really bloody work, while at the same time treating them as second-class citizens, caused the command relationships to be much different in WWII. Especially since, pound for pound, the Commonwealth soldiers were in main, better quality troops than those from the UK (exceptions on both sides abounding, of course). Like it or no, the colonials were, if nothing else, generally healthier than their UK counterparts.
Regardless, all the soldier's quality was oft-times squandered by execrable generalship.
In case there is any doubt how Australians felt about it, this picture is of the Sydney Memorial.

For the Turks? This was a moment of great pride for them, marking as it did the end of a long slide to obscurity and mediocrity, and cemented Ataturk's reforms and the establishment of a secular state - and gave the Army the imprimatur of the guardian of the state's secular nature - though that hasn't always gone well... and there are signs it isn't going well now.
The Arsenal at Argghhh! has several items with an ANZAC connection. Our WWI-era Vickers machine gun is an ex-Turkish gun - and by the serial number is *not* one of the ones provided to Turkey in 1940 (to keep them neutral) but is in all probability a captured gun, reworked (the Turks were always tinkering with their weapons, trying to stretch their service life) to the later standard.
Hi-res, click here, here, here, and here.
Second, we have a M1893 Turkish Mauser, which is quite possibly (by age and ship date to Turkey) but unverifiably a Gallipoli veteran. This rifle sports a undoubted Gallipolii veteran: a Sanderson-made M1907 bayonet, captured by the Turks and reworked to fit the Mauser. We also have a 2nd Military District bayonet (Australian) that has been through the same treatment. However, since invading at Gallipoli was a Brit idea, it's the Brit bayonet that hangs on the Turk rifle and gets its picture up to give proper credit where it is due.
Hi-res, click here.

Last, but not least, are the dog-tags. Body recovery being tough in the conditions under which the campaign at Gallipoli was fought, when Aussie troops went 'over the top' many would leave a bayonet or stick stuck in the sandbags or walls of the trench, with their dog-tags hanging from 'em. If, after the battle, they were still there...

For the Commonwealth soldier, the equivalent of Taps is the Last Post.
Accordingly, now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam of the fallen of the Australia New Zealand Army Corps. And their bretheren who have fallen before and since, oft-times alongside we Yanks. (Insert snarky comment regarding timeliness from Murray)
And if anyone surfing in from Turkey or elsewhere knows where I can get a legal version of the music the Turkish Army uses as an equivalent to Last Post and Taps, I'll add it, as well. Here at Argghhh! we generally blame the leaders, not the fodder, and so have no problem honoring the dead of both sides of most fights.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
A FYI, Eric Bogle has recorded a song The Band Played Waltzing Matilda about the Galipolli Expedition. There are a number of versions out there by him and others, some with slides that may be a good fit for your remembrance.
BTW, the way the War Memorial in Canberra is inspiring.
by Charlie on April 25, 2008 7:19 AM
I know the song, Charlie - thanks.
And the band played "Waltzing Matilda,"
As the ship pulled away from the quay,
And amidst all the cheers, the flag waving, and tears,
We sailed off for Gallipoli.
....
Waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda,
Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me?
And their ghosts may be heard as they march past by the billabong,
Singing, who'll come a-Waltzing Matilda with me?
I can also sing "The Green Fields of France" but not with the perfect voice of Bogle!
by
John of Argghhh! on April 25, 2008 7:38 AM
Comrades,
Here's to my grandfather, Eugene Okeefe, a machine gunner with the Australian Army at the Western Front. He volunteered and did his bit, and eventually passed away a half-century later from the effects of being gassed.
And another to his daughter Patty, my late mother, who worked as a teletype operator at McArthur's HQ.
Good on ya both.....
by AW1 Tim on April 25, 2008 8:09 AM
Yes we will remember them.
ANZAC Day is built on the remembrance of the ANZACs but it has extended beyond WWI veterans to all, even those involved with this recent war. It's not really about war, the good or bad of it. Should we or shouldn't we etc. Sidestepping such arguments means it's well accepted by most Australians though not really that heavily attended.
It's about recognizing the service and the suffering too these men and civilians went through and kind of giving thanks. A little like Remembrance Day.
Because of it's national spirit, ANZAC day is also a kind of secondary Australia Day and a reminder of our connection to the Commonwealth nations of NZ and the UK in particular. So perhaps it has a military funeral feel together with the joy of living the free people we are. It can be a difficult day for veterans but well worth it.
by
Argent on April 25, 2008 9:00 AM
Thanks for remembering your Australian allies!
by
James Swanston on April 25, 2008 3:49 PM
One mustn't be too hard on Winston. His mother was American after all.
Willie Apiata donated the VC he won in Afghanistan to the country for Anzac Day where apparently the NZSAS is building bridges... with extreem predudice.
by Murray on April 27, 2008 6:57 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
April 23, 2008
Fox Connor's Rules of War for a Democracy.
The relatively unknown Major General Fox Connor was a mentor to both General's Eisenhower and Marshall, and was highly thought of by General of the Armies "Blackjack" Pershing.
One of his enduring legacies (and one enshrined in the Powell Doctrine) was his three principles of war for a democracy:
· Never fight unless you have to;
· Never fight alone;
· And never fight for long.
This topic was the subject of a lecture that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates delivered at the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, on Monday, 21 April. In this lecture, he discussed the current fights in Iraq and Afghanistan using those principle as the lens of his discussion.
He does not offer answers, as much as he offers insight, and he says to the audience of cadets and faculty:
In discussing Fox Conner's three axioms, I've raised questions and provided few, if any, answers, and that's the point. It is important that you think about all this, not just at the Academy but throughout your military careers, and come to your own conclusions.
Emphasis mine.
In addition to that discussion, he had another one - one relevant to some of the goings on of late in the officer corps and without. Active duty officers and retired, like me.
He discusses the importance of candor - but an enlightened candor, cognizant of the position in society and government occupied by the leaders of those who bear arms for the Nation:
Marshall has been recognized as a textbook model for the way military officers should handle disagreements with superiors and in particular with the civilians vested with control of the armed forces under our Constitution. So your duties as an officer are:
· To provide blunt and candid advice always;
· To keep disagreements private;
· And to implement faithfully decisions that go against you.
As with Fox Conner's lessons of war, these principles are a solid starting point for dealing with issues of candor, dissent and duty. But like Conner's axioms, applying these principles to the situations military leaders face today and in the future is a good deal more complicated.
And here is the Secretary of Defense, telling his most junior leaders to stand their ground when it's important:
Here at West Point, as at every university and company in America, there's a focus on teamwork, consensus-building and collaboration. Yet make no mistake, the time will come when you must stand alone in making a difficult, unpopular decision, or when you must challenge the opinion of superiors or tell them that you can't get the job done with the time and the resources available – a difficult charge in an organization built on a “can-do” ethos; or a time when you will know that what superiors are telling the press or the Congress or the American people is inaccurate. There will be moments when your entire career is at risk. What will you do? What will you do?
These are difficult questions that you should be thinking about, both here at West Point and over the course of your career. There are no easy answers.
But if you follow the dictates of your conscience and the courage of your convictions while being respectfully candid with your superiors while encouraging candor in others, you will be in good stead for the challenges you will face as officers and leaders in the years ahead.
Defend your integrity as you would your life. If you do this, I am confident when you face these tough dilemmas, you will, in fact, know the right thing to do.
Heh. It's easy to say, hard to do. I have an early OER in my file that reflects the price you can pay for standing your ground on an issue of integrity.
He closes with some important reminders for everybody - things we can forget in the heat of the moment. And imposes rules that the serving leader must abide by, even if politicians can ignore them at whim:
The Congress is a co-equal branch of government that under the Constitution raises armies and provides for navies. While you read about the intense debate over Iraq, you need to know that members of both parties now serving in Congress have long been strong supporters of the Department of Defense and of our men and women in uniform. As officers, you will have a responsibility to communicate to those below you that the American military must be nonpolitical and recognize the obligation we owe the Congress to be honest and true in our reporting to them, especially when it involves admitting mistakes or problems.
The same is true with the press, in my view, an important guarantor of our freedom. When the press identifies a problem in the military, our response should be to find out if the allegations are true – and if so, say so and then act to remedy the problem, as at Walter Reed; if untrue, then be able to document that fact. The press is not the enemy, and to treat it as such is self-defeating.
As the Founding Fathers wisely understood, the Congress and a free press, as with a nonpolitical military, assure a free country – a point underscored by a French observer writing about George Washington in 1782. He wrote, “This is the seventh year he has commanded the army and that he has obeyed the Congress. More need not be said.”
The entire text of his remarks are in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry. I commend them to you in their entirety. The thoughts and examples that link the excerpts are every bit as useful as the excerpts - and let's be honest - the excerpts reflect my predjudices and views, you should process his remarks through your own filters.
The more I know about Secretary Gates, the more I feel he was *exactly* what the Services needed after Secretary Rumsfeld's tenure. Thus far, by my lights, he is one of the better Secretarys to occupy the position.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Evening Lecture at West Point (U.S. Military Academy - New York)
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, U.S. Military Academy, New York, Monday, April 21, 2008
Thank you. Thank you, General Hagenbeck.
First things first. Congratulations on beating Navy in lacrosse. (Cheers, applause.) Army football will be at Texas A&M in College Station on September 27th. (Cheers.) When the two teams last played in San Antonio two years ago, y'all took 10 years off my life, years I can't afford. I expect it'll be another great game, and I think I'll stay away in a safe place, like Baghdad. (Laughter.)
And in normal speech, I'd thank y'all for coming, but I know full well that this evening is not exactly optional – (Laughter) – and my apologies. (Laughter.) So I'll be content with thanking you for staying awake, or at least trying to, given the schedule that y'all have here.
Of course, falling asleep in a lecture or a class is one thing. Falling asleep in a small meeting with the president of the United States is quite another. But it happens. (Laughter, applause.) I was in one Cabinet meeting with President Reagan where the president and six members of the Cabinet all fell asleep. (Laughter.)
But former President Bush created an honor to award the American official who most ostentatiously fell asleep in a meeting with the president of the United States. This was not frivolous. The president evaluated candidates on three criteria – (laughter) – first, duration – (laughter) – how long did they sleep? Second, the depth of the sleep; snoring always got you extra points. (Laughter.) And third, the quality of recovery – (laughter) – did one just quietly open one's eyes and return to the meeting, or did you just jolt awake – (laughter) – and maybe spill something hot in the process? Well, the award was named for Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft who was the first President Bush's national security adviser. He was, as you might suspect, the first awardee, and, I might add, won many oak leaf clusters. (Laughter.)
I actually regret a lot that I will not be here for the commencement of the class of 2008 because of an overseas commitment, but I am honored and grateful to have the opportunity to speak with you this evening. And in fact, I think this is better than commencement, because at commencement the firsties – by then near second lieutenants – would be only thinking about how fast they could get off post. In this way, I get to speak to all of you at least once for about 35 minutes or so – just for those of you who are checking your watches – and while I am secretary of Defense, and I have every confidence you can make it, just keep nudging the person next to you.
This evening's talk is the culmination of a day spent on the road. And I've already made a bunch of headlines at the Air University at Maxwell, criticizing the Air Force. So, now it's the Army's turn. But it is always a welcome duty to be away from Washington, D.C. The faculty should have issued a warning by now that most of you, if you stay in the Army long enough and do everything you're supposed to in your career and are successful, you will one day be punished with a job in the Pentagon.
Some of you may have already heard the jokes and stories from your instructors about the sheer size of the building and the bureaucracy.
The late newsman David Brinkley told a story about a woman who told a Pentagon guard she was in labor and needed help in getting to a hospital. And the guard said, "Madame, you shouldn't have come here in that condition." And she said, "When I came here, I wasn't." (Laughter.)
Even the great General Eisenhower was flummoxed by the experience of making his way around the Pentagon. Soon after returning to Washington, he made the mistake of trying to return to his office all by himself. He later wrote, quote, "So hands in pockets and trying to look as if I were out for a carefree stroll around the building, I walked…and walked and walked, encountering neither landmarks nor people who looked familiar. One had to give the building his grudging admiration. It apparently had been designed to confuse any enemy who might infiltrate it." (Laughter.)
No doubt many of you have studied Eisenhower in your time here. Last year I read Partners in Command, a book by Mark Perry. It is an account of the unique relationship between Eisenhower and General George Marshall, and how they played a significant role in the American victory in World War II and laid the foundations for future success in the earliest years of the Cold War. Eisenhower and Marshall are, of course, icons, legends etched in granite. Their portraits hang in my office.
But one of the things I found compelling in Partners in Command is how they were both influenced by another senior Army officer who is not nearly as well-known and in fact, as a reader of history, I had never heard of.
His name is Fox Conner, a tutor and mentor to both Eisenhower and Marshall. Conner and Marshall first became friends when they served together on the staff of General "Black Jack" Pershing during World War I. And in the 1920s, Eisenhower served as staff assistant under Brigadier General Conner in the Panama Canal Zone.
From Conner, Marshall and Eisenhower learned much about leadership and the conduct of war. Conner had three principles of war for a democracy that he imparted to Eisenhower and Marshall. They were:
· Never fight unless you have to;
· Never fight alone;
· And never fight for long.
All things being equal, these principles are pretty straightforward and strategically sound. We've heard variants of them in the decades since, perhaps most recently in the Powell doctrine.
But of course, all things are not equal, particularly when you think about the range and complexity of the threats facing America today, from the wars we are in to the conflicts we are most likely to fight. So tonight I'd like to discuss with you how you should think about applying Fox Conner's three axioms to the security challenges of the 21st century, the challenges where you will be on the front lines.
“Never go to war unless you have to.”
That one should only go to war as a last resort has long been a principle of civilized people. We know its horrors and costs. War is, by its nature, unpredictable and uncontrollable. Winston Churchill wrote in January 1942: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe that any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter… Once the signal is given, the statesman is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
In a dictatorship, the government can force the population to fall in behind the war effort, at least for a time. The nature of democracy, however, limits a country's ability to wage war – and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed with perhaps the exception of World War II, every conflict in America's history has been divisive and controversial here at home. Contrary to what General Patton said in his pep talks, most real Americans do NOT like to fight.
Consider the conflicts today. Afghanistan is widely viewed as a war of necessity – striking back at the staging ground of the perpetrators of the September 11th attack. The Iraq campaign, while justified in my view, is seen differently by many people. Two weeks ago I testified, in front of the Congress on the Iraq War. I observed that we were attacked, at home in 2001, from Afghanistan. And we are at war in Afghanistan today, in no small measure, because we mistakenly turned out backs on Afghanistan after the Soviet troops left in the late 1980s.
We made a strategic mistake in the endgame of that war. If we get the endgame wrong in Iraq, I told the Congress, the consequences will be far worse.
Truth to tell, it's a hard sell to say we must sustain the fight in Iraq right now and continue to absorb the high financial and human cost of the struggle, in order to avoid an even uglier fight or even greater danger to our country in the future. But we have Afghanistan to remind us that these are not just hypothetical risks.
Conner's axiom – never fight unless you have to – looms over policy discussions today over rogue nations like Iran that support terrorism; that is a destabilizing force throughout the Middle East and Southwest Asia and, in my judgment, is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. And in fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels. But the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat – either directly or through nuclear proliferation.
And then there's the threat posed by violent jihadist networks. The doctrine of preemption has been criticized in many quarters, but it is an answer to legitimate questions. With the possibility of proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical materials, and the willingness of terrorists to use them without warning, can we wait to respond until after a catastrophic attack is either imminent or has already occurred? Given the importance of public opinion and public support, how does one justify military action to prevent something that might happen tomorrow or several years down the road? While "never fight unless you have to" does not preclude preemption, after our experience with flawed information regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, how high must the threshold of confidence in our intelligence have to be to justify at home and abroad a preemptive or preventive war?
Conner's second axiom was "Never fight alone."
He recognized from the onset that the way World War I ended – and particularly the terms of the Versailles Treaty – made another major conflict with Germany almost inevitable. Victory would require a strong partnership of the Anglo-American democracies, and the most successful Army officers would have to adapt to working with allies and partners. Eisenhower and Marshall executed this concept brilliantly in World War II, despite the fact that, as one historian wrote about Allied generals, Eisenhower had to deal with, "as fractious and dysfunctional a group of egomaniacs as any war had ever seen."
Nonetheless, as Perry writes, “Eisenhower was a commander who believed that building and maintaining an international coalition of democracies was not a political nicety…but a matter of national survival.” And he brought this concept to the founding of NATO.
But what do you do when, as is the case today with NATO in Afghanistan, some of your allies don't want to fight; or they impose caveats on where, when and how their forces may be used; or their defense budgets are too small as a share of national wealth to provide a substantial contribution? Not counting the United States, NATO has more than two million men and women under arms, and yet we struggle to sustain a deployment of less than 30,000 non-U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and we are forced to scrounge, hat in hand, for a handful of helicopters.
In August 1998, after the terrorist bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, I wrote an op-ed in the The New York Times about terrorism and national priorities, and I noted that taking a more aggressive approach to terrorism would, in virtually all cases, require America “to act violently and alone.” And even after September 11th and a string of attacks in Europe and elsewhere, the publics of many of our democratic allies view the terror threat in a fundamentally different way than we do – and this continues to be a real obstacle with respect to Afghanistan and other issues.
But as Churchill said, the only thing worse than having allies is not having them at all. They provide balance, credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world. And in the case of Afghanistan, one should never discount the power of the world's wealthiest and most powerful democracies coming together – as they did in Bucharest three weeks ago – to reaffirm publicly their commitment to this mission. Nor, above all, should we forget the superb performance in combat and the sacrifices of allies like the British, Canadians, the Australians, the Danes, the Dutch and others. And I would note with sympathy that last Friday, the same day that the general took command of the Dutch forces, his son, a lieutenant, age 23, was killed in Afghanistan.
Just about every threat to our security in the years ahead will require working with or through other nations. Success in the war on terror will depend less on the fighting we do ourselves and more on how well we support our allies and partners in the modern Muslim world -- moderate Muslim world and elsewhere. In fact, from the standpoint of America's national security, the most important assignment in your military career may not necessarily be commanding U.S. soldiers, but advising or mentoring the troops of other nations as they battle the forces of terror and instability within their own borders.
Finally, Fox Connor said, "Never fight for long."
According to Perry, General Connor believed that “American lives were precious, and no democracy, no matter how pressed, could afford to try the patience of its people.” Early on, Connor instilled the idea in both Eisenhower and Marshall, on finding the enemy, fighting the enemy, and defeating the enemy all within a short period of time.
In World War II, the American people had already begun to lose patience by the fall of 1944, when the lightning dash across the plains of France following D-Day gave way to a soggy, bloody stalemate along Germany's western border. And that was only two-and-a-half years after Pearl Harbor.
Eisenhower no doubt had this in mind when he became president during the third year of the Korean war. He believed that the United States – and the American people – could not tolerate being bogged down in a bloody, interminable stalemate in Northeast Asia while the Soviets menaced elsewhere, especially in Europe. Eisenhower was even willing to threaten the nuclear option to bring that conflict to a close.
It has now been six-and-a-half years since the attacks on September 11th, and we just marked the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. For America, this has been the second-longest war since the Revolution, and the first since then to be fought throughout with an all-volunteer force. In Iraq and Afghanistan, initial, quick military success have led to protracted stability and reconstruction campaigns against a brutal and adaptive insurgency and terrorists. This has tested the mettle of our military and the patience of our people in a way we haven't seen in a generation.
At the turn of the 21st century, the U.S. armed forces were still organized, trained and equipped to fight large-scale conventional wars, not the long, messy, unconventional operations that proliferated following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The same traditional orientation was true of our procurement procedures, military health care, and more. The current campaign has gone on longer and has been more difficult than anyone expected or prepared for at the start, and so we've had to scramble to position ourselves for success over the long haul, which I believe we're doing.
A drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq is inevitable over time – the debate you hear in Washington is largely about pacing. But the kind of enemy we face today – violent jihadist networks – will not allow us to remain at peace. What has been called the “Long War” is likely to be many years of persistent, engaged combat all around the world in differing degrees of size and intensity. This generational campaign cannot be wished away or put on a timetable. There are no exit strategies. To paraphrase the Bolshevik Leon Trotsky, we may not be interested in the long war, but the long war is interested in us.
How America's military and civilian leadership grapples with these transcendent issues and dilemmas will determine how, where and when you may be sent into the battle in the years ahead.
In discussing Fox Conner's three axioms, I've raised questions and provided few, if any, answers, and that's the point. It is important that you think about all this, not just at the Academy but throughout your military careers, and come to your own conclusions.
But in order to succeed in the asymmetric battlefields of the 21st century – the dominant combat environment in the decades to come, in my view – our Army will require leaders of uncommon agility, resourcefulness and imagination; leaders willing and able to think and act creatively and decisively in a different kind of world, in a different kind of conflict than we have prepared for for the last six decades.
One thing will remain the same. We will still need men and women in uniform to call things as they see them and tell their subordinates and their superiors alike what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.
Here too Marshall in particular is a worthy role model. In late 1917, during World War I, U.S. military staff in France was conducting a combat exercise for the American Expeditionary Force. General Pershing was in a foul mood. He dismissed critiques from one subordinate after another and stalked off. But then-Captain Marshall took the arm of the four-star general, turned him around and told him how the problems they were having resulted not from receiving a necessary manual from the American headquarters – Pershing’s headquarters. And the commanders said, “Well, you know, we have our problems.” And Marshall replied, “Yes, I know you do, General…but ours are immediate and everyday and have to be solved before night.”
After the meeting, Marshall was approached by other officers offering condolences for the fact he was sure to be fired and sent off to the front line. Instead Marshall became a valued adviser to Pershing, and Pershing a valued mentor to Marshall.
Twenty years later, then-General Marshall was sitting in the White House with President Roosevelt and his top advisers and Cabinet secretaries. War in Europe was looming but still a distant possibility for an isolated America. In that meeting, Roosevelt proposed that the U.S. Army – which at that time was ranked in size somewhere between that of Switzerland and Portugal – should be the lowest priority for funding and industry. FDR's advisers all nodded. Building an army could wait.
And FDR, looking for the military's imprimatur to his decision, said, “Don't you think so, George?” And Marshall, who hated being called by his first name, said, “I'm sorry, Mr. President, I don't agree with that at all.” The room went silent. The Treasury secretary told Marshall afterwards, “Well, it's been nice knowing you.” And it was not too much later that Marshall was named Army chief of staff.
There are other, more recent examples of senior officers speaking frankly to their civilian senior officers. Just before the ground war started against Iraq, in February 1991, General Colin Powell, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, met with the president, first President Bush. I was there in the Oval Office. Colin looked the president in the eye and said words to this effect: “We are about to go to war. We may suffer thousands of casualties. If we do, are you prepared to drive on to victory? Will you stay the course?” Colin wanted the President to face reality. The President gave the right answer.
I should note at this point that in my 16 months as secretary of Defense, I have changed several important decisions because of general officers disagreeing with me and persuading me of a better course of action. For example, at one point I had decided to shake up a particular command by appointing a commander from a different service than had ever held the post. A senior service chief persuaded me to change my mind.
On trips to the front, I've also made it a priority to meet and hear from small groups of soldiers ranging from junior enlisted to field-grade officers, and their input has been invaluable and shaped my thinking and decisions as well. All in senior positions would be well-advised to listen to enlisted soldiers, NCOs, and company and field-grade officers. They are the ones on the front line, and they know the real story.
More broadly, if as an officer – listen to me very carefully – if as an officer you don't tell blunt truths or create an environment where candor is encouraged, then you've done yourself and the institution a disservice. This admonition goes back beyond the roots of our own republic. Sir Francis Bacon was a 17th century jurist and philosopher as well as a confidante of the senior minister of England's King James. He gave this advice to a protégé looking to follow in his steps at court: “Remember well the great trust you have undertaken; you are as a continual sentinel, always to stand upon your watch to give [the king] true intelligence. If you flatter him, you betray him.” Remember that. If you flatter him, you betray him.
In Marshall's case, he was able to forge a bond of trust with Roosevelt not only because his civilian boss could count on his candor, because once a decision was made, FDR could also count on Marshall to do his utmost to carry out a policy – even if he disagreed with it – and make it work. This is important because the two men clashed time and again in the years that followed, ranging from yet more matters of war production to whether the allies should defer an invasion on the mainland of Europe.
Consider the situation in mid-1940. The Germans had just overrun France and the battle of Britain was about to begin. FDR believed that rushing arms and equipment to Britain, including half of America's bomber production, should be the top priority in order to save our ally. Marshall believed that rearming America should come first. Roosevelt overruled Marshall and others, and came down on what most historians believe is the correct decision – to do what was necessary to keep England alive.
The significant thing is what did not happen next. There was a powerful domestic constituency for Marshall's position among a whole host of newspapers and congressmen and lobbies, and yet Marshall did not exploit and use them. There were no overtures to friendly congressional committee chairmen, no leaks to sympathetic reporters, no ghostwritten editorials in newspapers, no coalition-building with advocacy groups. Marshall and his colleagues made the policy work and kept England alive.
In the ensuing decades, a large permanent military establishment emerged as a result of the Cold War – an establishment that forged deep ties to the Congress and to industry. And over the years, senior officers have from time to time been tempted to use these ties to do end runs around the civilian leadership, particularly during disputes over purchase of large major weapons systems. This temptation should and must be resisted.
Marshall has been recognized as a textbook model for the way military officers should handle disagreements with superiors and in particular with the civilians vested with control of the armed forces under our Constitution. So your duties as an officer are:
· To provide blunt and candid advice always;
· To keep disagreements private;
· And to implement faithfully decisions that go against you.
As with Fox Conner's lessons of war, these principles are a solid starting point for dealing with issues of candor, dissent and duty. But like Conner's axioms, applying these principles to the situations military leaders face today and in the future is a good deal more complicated.
World War II was America's last straightforward conventional conflict that ended in the unconditional surrender of the other side. The military campaigns since – from Korea to Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq today – have been frustrating, controversial efforts for the American public and for the American armed forces. Each conflict has prompted debates over whether senior military officers were being too deferential or not deferential enough to civilians, and whether civilians, in turn, were too receptive or not receptive enough to military advice.
In the absence of clear lines, of advance or retreat on the battlefield, each conflict has prompted our nation's senior civilian and military leadership to seek the support of an increasingly skeptical American public, using a variety of criteria and metrics – from enemy body counts to voter turnout and more. Then as now, the American people relied especially on the candor and the credibility of military officers, in order to judge how well a campaign is going and whether the effort should continue.
Candor and credibility remain indispensable, because we will see yet more irregular and difficult conflicts, of varying types, in the years ahead; conflicts where the traditional duties of an officer are accompanied by real dilemmas – dilemmas posed by a non-linear environment made up of civilian detainees, contractors, embedded media and an adversary that does not wear uniforms or obey the laws of war; an adversary that could be your enemy on one day or, as we've seen in Iraq's Anbar province, your partner the next.
Many of you have gone over some of these scenarios, in ethics classes, or heard the accounts from returning veterans; a situation where, for example, a beloved platoon sergeant is killed by a sniper shot believed fired from a house by the side of a road. When the soldiers arrive, the sniper's gone. But the old lady, who lives in the house, is still there. The battalion and brigade commanders pass down orders to demolish the house – to teach the enemy's sympathizers a lesson and take away a possible sniper position. The platoon leader conducts an investigation and concludes this course of action is counterproductive. So the lieutenant makes the call not to destroy the house. And his CO stands by him. This is a true story from Iraq – a campaign that has been dubbed the “Captain's War” because, as in any counterinsurgency, so much of the decisive edge is provided by the initiative and the judgment of junior officers.
When you are commissioned, it will all too quickly be your judgment and your leadership that your soldiers will rely upon. As you prepare for this awesome responsibility, learn all the lessons you can learn here, from heroes with real-world experience and wisdom in and out of the classrooms – people like Master Sergeant Reginald Butler, NCO Tac Company D-3.
And speaking of lessons learned, I should note that during my time as secretary, I have been impressed by the way the Army's professional journals allow some of our brightest and most innovative officers to critique – sometimes bluntly – the way the service does business; to include judgments about senior leadership, both military and civilian. I believe this is a sign of institutional vitality and health and strength. I encourage you to take on the mantle of fearless, thoughtful, but loyal dissent when the situation calls for it. And agree with the articles or not, senior officers should embrace such dissent as healthy dialogue and protect and advance those considerably more junior who are taking on that mantle.
I wrote my first and far from last critique of CIA in a professional journal in 1970, four years into my career. Without the support of several senior agency officers, my career would have quickly been over.
Here at West Point, as at every university and company in America, there's a focus on teamwork, consensus-building and collaboration. Yet make no mistake, the time will come when you must stand alone in making a difficult, unpopular decision, or when you must challenge the opinion of superiors or tell them that you can't get the job done with the time and the resources available – a difficult charge in an organization built on a “can-do” ethos; or a time when you will know that what superiors are telling the press or the Congress or the American people is inaccurate. There will be moments when your entire career is at risk. What will you do? What will you do?
These are difficult questions that you should be thinking about, both here at West Point and over the course of your career. There are no easy answers.
But if you follow the dictates of your conscience and the courage of your convictions while being respectfully candid with your superiors while encouraging candor in others, you will be in good stead for the challenges you will face as officers and leaders in the years ahead.
Defend your integrity as you would your life. If you do this, I am confident when you face these tough dilemmas, you will, in fact, know the right thing to do.
I'll close with a few words to all of you but especially to the class of 2008. Soon you will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I have taken that oath seven times in the last 42 years, the first when I enlisted in 1966 and the last when I became secretary of Defense. I want to encourage you always to remember the importance of two pillars of our freedom under the Constitution: the Congress and the press. Both surely try our patience from time to time, but they are the surest guarantees of the liberty of the American people.
The Congress is a co-equal branch of government that under the Constitution raises armies and provides for navies. While you read about the intense debate over Iraq, you need to know that members of both parties now serving in Congress have long been strong supporters of the Department of Defense and of our men and women in uniform. As officers, you will have a responsibility to communicate to those below you that the American military must be nonpolitical and recognize the obligation we owe the Congress to be honest and true in our reporting to them, especially when it involves admitting mistakes or problems.
The same is true with the press, in my view, an important guarantor of our freedom. When the press identifies a problem in the military, our response should be to find out if the allegations are true – and if so, say so and then act to remedy the problem, as at Walter Reed; if untrue, then be able to document that fact. The press is not the enemy, and to treat it as such is self-defeating.
As the Founding Fathers wisely understood, the Congress and a free press, as with a nonpolitical military, assure a free country – a point underscored by a French observer writing about George Washington in 1782. He wrote, “This is the seventh year he has commanded the army and that he has obeyed the Congress. More need not be said.”
Finally, we hear a good deal about men and women who volunteered for military service in the wake of the September 11th attacks. For you Firsties, your admissions applications for the academy would have come due early in 2004. By that point, it had become clear that Iraq as well as Afghanistan would be long, grinding and complex campaigns. Your decision to come here and the decision of all the Academy classes that have followed was made with the knowledge of almost certain deployment to distant and dangerous battlefields, with the likelihood of more tours to follow. Each of you – with your talents, your intelligence, your record of accomplishments – could have chosen something easier or safer and of course better-paid. But you took on the mantle of duty, honor and country, passed down the Long Gray Line of men and women who have walked these halls and strode these grounds before you, and for that you have the profound gratitude and eternal admiration of the American people.
It is undoubtedly politically incorrect for me to say, but I feel personally responsible for each and every one of you, as if you were my own sons and daughters. And so my only prayer is that you serve with honor and return home safely. And I personally thank you for your service from the bottom of my heart.
Thank you. (Applause.)
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I have an early OER in my file that reflects the price you can pay for standing your ground on an issue of integrity.
BT, DT. My rebuttal was, according to the reviewing officer (an O-6), precise, concise, objective and irrefutable (ten pages of supporting documentation, including three LOCs from the CG on the *very* matter in question). The OER also *remained* in my 201 file, and is probably still there, accumulating a nice patina of mildew...
As far as McGovern and his comments go, he's still the same addlepated invertebrate he was forty years ago...
by
BillT on April 23, 2008 11:32 AM
Much of the press in America aids, abets and enables the enemy's Morale Operations against the domestic target audience. The cognitive dissonance caused by having no capability or intention of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against domestic enemies deludes some Regulars into denying the existence of such.
Irregulars are under no obligation to wear those blinders.
by
Cannoneer No. 4 on April 23, 2008 2:40 PM
The law affects those Regulars, too. Something I'll maunder on about tomorrow.
by
John of Argghhh! on April 23, 2008 3:51 PM
The Law affects all upon whom the Law Makers and Law Enforcers and Lawyers and Judges select for the honor of being made an example of pour encourager les autres and all who are deterred by such examples.
Some would-be persuaders-changers-influencers are only subject to the same Laws as the general population and are further beyond the reach of retribution than others.
by
Cannoneer No. 4 on April 23, 2008 5:03 PM
I haven't forgotten John - still thinking :p
by
Cassandra on April 25, 2008 6:01 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
April 19, 2008
April 19 - Oklahoma City Bombing
[Kat]
I didn't realize it was here already. Today is the anniversary of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. My Pet Jawa has more.
April 7, 2008
An American Journey
"There are only two important things in life: the people who you love and who love you, and your country."
Take a close look at that group of pictures above. They're all of the same person.
He grew up in an abusive household, one in which his drunk of a father shot his mother after they had divorced when he was eight... and before they remarried when he was ten. As an adult, he was a baseball player--Rookie of the Year, World Series MVP, a member of the great New York Yankees post-WWII teams. He's famous today for broadcasting baseball games on CBS and San Diego Padres radio. In fact, he's in the broadcasters' wing of the Baseball Hall of Fame. And...
He's a highly-decorated dive-bomber and fighter pilot, veteran of WWII and Korea. A Marine Corps colonel.
But according to his colleagues and friends, you wouldn't know any of that from entering his home. They report it contains no displays of baseball awards or artifacts from his famous teammates, no medals or "I love me" wall as some veterans have, no pictures or plaques from his ongoing broadcasting days. When he is spoken of by those who know him, instead of talking about his achievements, they use the word "gentleman" a lot. "Not a nicer guy around," is often heard, too--both from colleagues and fans. And in his life of 32 years as a San Diego celebrity, the worst thing anyone has ever said about him is that he has a habit of being married to younger women. But hey, when you're 83 years old, most of the women out there are younger!
Getting him to talk about himself is a challenge to those who have interviewed him. He jokes about being a terrible baseball player, and prefers instead to talk about how lucky he was to know the other people on his team. He doesn't talk about being a Marine, and he acts as if he's amazed to find himself in the Baseball Hall of Fame. But after years of "nagging" from his wife, he has finally put it all on paper for the rest of us.
Meet Jerry Coleman, beloved broadcaster of the San Diego Padres (from listening to him call games for 20 years, I assure you that interview is vintage Jerry--in his humility, gentlemanly behavior, and humor). His long-time broadcast partner Ted Leitner gets away with calling him "Colonel," but I suspect Ted has a special dispensation. To the rest of us he's just our favorite Padres broadcaster, our guide to the game, Mr. Malapropism, and another amazing example of that "Greatest Generation."
A tough childhood amid the Great Depression, baseball in the heyday of Maris and Mantle, service in WWII and Korea, and life in the paradise of Southern California... enough for at least three quintessentially American lives... and still going strong. As soon as I can scrape together the shekels, I'm buying this.
[Update: cross-posted at Fuzzilicious Thinking]
March 26, 2008
Gollum Watches TV. It’s PBS so it’s OK. (Review of the ‘Bush’s War’ documentary from Frontline.)
The last two nights PBS has been showing a documentary called ‘Bush’s War’on Frontline. It was a two part doc run over two nights, with the first night covering the run up and the second night covering the aftermath. I know what many people are going to say, ‘It’s PBS ergo it is liberal minded, BDS trash.’ Not quite, and, honestly, not really.
On the whole, no, I didn’t like this. I found this to be rather contrived and predictable in its treatment. I’d call it journalism but not real documentary making, and I’d definitely never call this a good historical chronicle of events. Liberals will watch this and feel justified in their daily five minute hates. Conservatives will watch and be even more convinced that PBS is nothing but a liberal mouth piece. People who didn’t pay the greatest of attention will be left with a flawed and incomplete view of what happened and why, though better than what they had on their own dime. I may not have liked it, and sorry for being all Terry Teachout here, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth watching. It is worth watching. It is detestable at points, and maybe misleading at some others by my estimation, but it is worth watching for the many things it does do well (even if I don’t include them in my highlights). It does present some arguments that some of us on the rightish side of the aisle might not be able to easily answer, disprove, or set aside. For that it is worth watching.
There is a lot worth sitting thru the 3+ hours of this documentary to see. I cannot go into all the things I liked or disliked here (John’d kill me if I wrote a 10 pager (‘My bandwidth, my beautiful bandwidth!’), plus I simply don’t want to write that much about it.). Highlights include things like why Cheney may have had reason to distrust CIA and answers about the Atta in Prague story. There are nuggets here worth watching for. I, and you, may not agree with the total treatment but it is worth watching. It definitely goes out of its way to show things as controversial and to delve into office politics heavily, which I didn’t really go for. That turned it into nothing more than power politics and pecker waving contests, and I don’t believe much is ever that simple.
It is worth watching simply to have a single, coherent primer of what the dominate narrative about the Iraq *is*, right or wrong that narrative may be.
The short of it is that it does seem to follow a preset script and the Iraq War a bad thing and that there are definite villains of this play we are supposed to hate (boo Rumsfeld, essentially). The short of it is a reason not to watch. The long of it, the volume of data and other events surrounding the how and why, is a reason to watch.
(The long of it is below the fold.)
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
There are villains that this documentary wanted to ‘get’. They just happened to be VP Cheney and SecDef Rumsfeld instead of President Bush and the entire Administration. Quite honestly, this worked more like a hit piece on them than an indictment of President Bush. At their feet was laid almost all the blame for the run up to war, including claims of fudging the intelligence and ‘Curveball’, and the mishandling of the post takedown of Saddam. Rumsfeld, most heavily Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Yoo take the heat for Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and things over which there is debate over like ‘is it torture’ and should Taliban or other insurgents be considered POWs. These are the villains. Cheney is Darth Sidious/Emporer Palpatine, and Rumsfeld is his acolyte, sort of, Darth Vader who has things so drastically wrong at every turn.
I was actually quite surprised at the treatment of just about everyone else in the current Administration. President Bush is not a villain or a war criminal in this. A weak man maybe, someone mislead by those closest to him, and dominated by Cheney but not a villain. Dr. Rice gets a mixed treatment. She’s given a ‘weak nancy-girl’ treatment in the first installment but given kudos for pushing the Administration toward the ‘Clear, Hold, Build’ strategy and for taking on Rumsfeld after being made SecState. She’s given a lot of kudos for that. SecState Powell is treated like a sage who should have been listened to, but wasn’t. Surprisingly the flaws in everyone but Cheney and Rumsfeld are not taken as a pathway to denounce them as war criminals. They are portrayed as flawed, tragic, or unready for prime time individuals, but not evil. People caught up in events beyond their control or erroneous lines of thought, but not evil.
There is an assumptions underlying how this documentary’s first night unfolds that I don’t and never will agree with. One of the most prominent being the proposition that the War on Terror is solely about al Quaeda. Rumsfeld and Cheney, our villains, push for a broader conflict in the ME, or seek to satisfy some bizarre jones to attack Iraq, but the CIA wants to keep it only about bin Laden and aQ. I’ve always rejected this. Why? For the best formal reasoning read Dr. Tom Barnett’s books and blog. In a nutshell: because turning this into retributive raids or manhunts doesn’t end the threat. We did Libya, and still got attacked. Did Sudan, the infamous cruise missile diplomacy. Still got attacked. We tried the first WTC attackers in civilian court, and attacks still continued. Whack-a-mole and targeted manhunts all thru the 70’s to the late 90’s and it only gets worse. No, the solution to the problem of Islamicist ideology driven terrorism has to be larger and more complicated than simply hunting for OBL and taking down the Taliban because if that’s all it was we’d never have had a bin Laden because we did that in the 80-90’s (Libya et al.) to seemingly no effect. So, right there, I find a major flaw in this documentary. They’re pushing people who looked to the problem of int’l terrorism as a bigger problem than just bin Laden and labeling them traitors or people with, possibly evil, ulterior motives for the broader view. Since that’s a very critical assumption, underlying much of the first night’s case, it is a crippling disagreement.
The second night is by far the weakest in my opinion. It showed a real lack of knowledge by the documentarians of what Rumsfeld was trying to do. They really try to play it as strategy summed up in nine words: “Do it small. Get out fast. Screw the aftermath.” Rather simplistic, and also tosses aside what they laid out as the plan going in for the aftermath, yes, they admit that there was a post Saddam plan drawn up before the invasion, the first night (Achmed Chalabi). Something they spent a good twenty or thirty minutes on the previous night. That constitutes a continuity problem in my eyes. Honestly, Barnett does it best. Rumsfeld was right, and wrong. He had it 100% right on how small we could go to take down Iraq but was 100% wrong on the post conflict reconstruction being able to be done by the same sized force. The documentarians take the tack that Rumsfeld’s a grandstanding idiot, mostly.
The second night follows a chronology that could have been taken straight from the New York Times staff writers. It does present the first Battle of Fallujah in terms I’d not considered in the past, and bases their claims on interviews of ‘insiders’ (but not faceless, nameless ‘highly placed officials’). But, even here, it doesn’t look like they’re willing to go much outside their preset script. They deserve credit for trying a multidiscipline treatment of event, but they still take a preset position and are unwilling to deviate from it (the insurgency became indomitable after that because there were too few troops in Iraq, and it’s Rumsfeld’s fault).
By far I found the weakest bit of this whole thing was the panel of people they interviewed. It seemed stacked to me. Much of the commentary was done by some of the harshest critics. Where were the critics but not opponent type people? Did Barnett get called but turn them down? I’m not saying that they should’ve put Jonah Goldberg on there, but couldn’t someone like Max Boot or Mark Steyn---people who present cases for other rationales for doing Iraq---have been put on there? Now that would have put the real question to the people: is it or isn’t it part of a larger campaign, is the WOT only a big name for what amounts to ‘Get bin Laden!’? Some of the people they got were excellent choices. Andrew Krepinevich being one example, COLs Hammes and McMaster being others of the dozen or so out of the 50 or so people who offer commentary that are experts instead of journalists who really lend something substantive to the doc. Unfortunately the experts don’t get as much time as the journo’s and book writers do. I’d much rather have listened to dueling accounts of what happened and why between Col HR McMaster and Col Hammes or Gen Keating than listen to Ricks deride the strategy of the Gen casey tenure as ‘war tourism’.
One of the best, if painful, elements to this was the documentation of Rumsfeld’s role in ‘energetic interrogation’ implementation. They did this one well, if somewhat melodramatic. They laid they case, they showed the documents, they didn’t trot out someone un-named source. This was straight up reporting.
Worth watching. Gollum can’t give a number of ‘yes my preciousssssessss’ or anything like that on this. It is too complex for that kind of treatment. I’d watch it again. I want to watch it again. But that doesn’t mean I liked it or agreed with much of it. I know, it’s PBS, but it is worth the time.
--ry
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I think Stephen Den Beste's summary of why we went to war in Iraq is one of the best I've seen so far:
http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml
by fdcol63 on March 26, 2008 7:39 AM
I also watched the Frontline piece and it is worth the time. In the theory that you have to pan a lot of dirt to find a nugget this piece should be one of a number of sources. But yes, it was more like a docudrama then a true documentory.
by Fishmugger on March 26, 2008 8:48 AM
why did we go to war in Iraq? Because I said so.
by kat-missouri on March 26, 2008 9:39 AM
Ryan, The bottom-line is this, I agree with "Kat-Missouri". It really comes down to this- Because, Grumpy said so." But it is equally true, NONE of us have the facts! Everything has been intentionally blurred. Therefore, we have a whole series of different docudramas, this would include the whole military-veteran blog world, including this one. I am not saying you are liars or are trying to deceive anybody. You are dealing with perceptions. Even the people who are there only see a microcosm of the whole real picture. Many could accurately say this whole blog world is nothing more than a glorified op-ed piece. In the final view, these men will answer to the old "Hag" herself, her name is History. There will be a day when all of this will hang out in the open for all to see, totally and factually, with no spin.
by Grumpy on March 26, 2008 12:46 PM
You think there's no spin in History?
by
Trias on March 26, 2008 1:12 PM
For a fascinating read on the subject, I would highly encourage everyone to read Yossef Bodansky's The Secret History of the Iraq War.
I found it to be a thorough study on the rat's nest that was/is Iraq.
by Boquisucio on March 26, 2008 1:26 PM
Historians tell only the unvarnished, verifiable, uninfluenced truth, Trias!
Don't undermine my confidence!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 26, 2008 2:07 PM
No. this war will be spun so badly in history, no one will know what's real or not, not even if they put it "all out there". Our grandchildren will look back and think we were crazy, uber-hubris near nazis that over responded to the death of a tiny number of our citizens by giving our oil hungry and imperial government the go ahead to trample on some poor nation that we had alternately wanted to blow to pieces and annex to our country for over a decade for its oil wealth under the guise of getting the people who attacked us on 9/11.
Which will also have deep caveats about the probability that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the government in order to start the war in the first place.
I want to write McMillan and demand that, under the Iraq war, when they are explaining why we went to war, they should put my picture and the words "I said so." Someone should take the responsibility and stop dumping it all on the administration like some horrifically bloody scape goat.
Helllloooo???? I hope they write in those books how the Iraq war started out with 70% support. Of course, if they do, they will write that American citizens believed Saddam ordered 9/11.
History was already written in the newspapers. You just have to marvel at the bizarre parallel universe we live in. I can't decided which of us actually went down the rabbit hole.
Saddam will be a martyr to imperial dreams.
by kat-missouri on March 26, 2008 3:07 PM
As we start going down the path of history, "She" will reveal all of the truth. Kat, you are right, people will try to spin it. The old saying many years ago was, "When politicians die, they don't bury them, they just screw them into the ground." The question becomes, "Is it a right handed thread or a left handed thread?" But as we grow older, we see things differently. There was another old saying, "He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it, repeat it and repeat it over again until you learn." D.O.D. made a policy change to disregard history, military and other types. In truth, this is like disregarding the 800 pound gorilla in the room. This is the most arrogant moronic move a human can make.
by Grumpy on March 26, 2008 4:07 PM
Somebody said "History is written by the winners" I guess nobody cares what the loosers think. At least there will be more sources for historians when this chapter is written and not just the front page of the NYT. Well...if they can make sure the Sandy Bergers of the world ain't stuffing history down the front of their pants.
I try to read different accounts so I can determine what was to have supposed to maybe happen. My father made me read British accounts of the Revolution when I was young just to make that point. Lordy but we were not nice people.
And..to get this off my chest...if it was just for oil...Canada and Mexico are next door and Chavez sits just around the corner. With what we have in country; we use very little from the middle east.
Don't go starting anything while I'm fishing in the Bahamas. I need to get back here. I promised my grand children to be out for trout season.
by Fishmugger on March 26, 2008 5:03 PM
My father made me read British accounts of the Revolution when I was young just to make that point. Lordy but we were not nice people.
Nope, we sure weren't. For the most part, we refused to stand and fight unless we had an advantage in position or numbers and we had our sharpshooters target the officers *on purpose*, which was the height of Bad Sportsmanship in EuroWarfare back in the day.
We're *good* at guerrilla and counter-guerrilla warfare, whenever our doctrine doesn't get in the way...
by
BillT on March 27, 2008 5:59 AM
BTW, my branch of the family had combatants on both sides during that scrap, so we usually refer to it as "Our First Civil War"...
by
BillT on March 27, 2008 6:14 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 9, 2008
Suara Auru: Chief Warrior
[Kat]
Suara Auru
BIALLA, Papua New Guinea - The Japanese fighter caught the American pilot from behind, riddling his plane with machine-gun rounds. The left engine burst into flames. It was time to bail out.
He yanked on the release lever but the cockpit canopy only half-opened. He unbuckled his seat belt, rose to shake the canopy loose and was instantly sucked out.
Swinging beneath his opened parachute, he plunged toward a Pacific island jungle of thick, towering eucalyptus trees, of crocodile rivers and headhunters, into enemy territory, and into an unimagined future as a hero, "Suara Auru," Chief Warrior, to generations of islanders yet unborn.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Thank you much, for linking this.
Woody
by Oran Woody on March 9, 2008 3:45 PM
What Woody said, Kat. This is a great story.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 9, 2008 4:43 PM
Thank you, Kat. What a terrific story!
by MissBirdlegs in AL on March 9, 2008 6:09 PM
That was lovely. Thanks for linking it...
by
Casey Tompkins on March 10, 2008 1:36 AM
I'll add my thanks to the others here: what a wonderful story, Kat.
I wrote something a few years ago for a Toronto paper for the 60th anniversary of D-Day. One of the things I talked about was how losing our WWII veterans was affecting our society. Not just because of the war they fought and won on our behalf, but because of how so many of them lived their lives after that seminal experience as a young person. We're losing their unparalleled generational track record of community and public service.
Oh, there are some in the current generation who are made of the same stuff as those from sixty years ago. With his service clubs, community work, charitable work, and even committee work for a local politician, I'd number this site's owner as one of them. But there aren't as many of those type of people in this generation as there were in my grandfather's.
I applaud Fred Hargesheimer, and I wonder where we'll be when the last of his generation has left us.
by
Damian on March 10, 2008 9:45 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 6, 2008
Tuesday's Timewaster.
If you need to catch up - go here.
So, whatziss?

Those of you who were going down the tractor/bulldozer route were correct, though it's not one that ever made it into US military stocks.
It's a "Shervick." A tractor built by the Vickers company at the request of the British government after the end of WWII, deliberately using components of suddenly excess Sherman tanks. It was a swords-to-ploughshares project of the British government. In 1945, Europe was in a shambles, especially it's agriculture and industrial sectors, heavily damaged and impacted by 7 years of war across some of it's most fertile areas, the destruction of a goodly portion of it's transportation infrastructure, and the bombing efforts on the german munitions industry was concomitantly a bombing effort on it's agri-chemicals industry and overall industrial capacity.
One of the programs conceived to help alleviate this was the "Groundnut Scheme." Groundnut being apparently what the Brits call peanuts. Under this plan, peanuts were going to be grown in East Africa to offset the huge shortage of oils and fats in Europe while Europe's infrastructure was being rebuilt. During the first year’s operations, the plan was to clear150,000 acres for cultivation. There was a problem - regular agricultural equipment was not robust enough to defeat the 10-ft high Kongwa thorn bush, and besides, was needed in Europe to rebuild their agriculture - so recycling tanks seemed a good idea.
Hit the Flash Traffic/Extended entry for the rest of the story.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
In September 1947, the British Government approached Vickers-Armstrongs to explore the idea of converting surplus US-built M4 Sherman tanks into industrial tractors capable of the work needed for peanut plan. They were to initially convert 500 the first year, rising to 1,000 the year after.
The task involved complete dismantling of a Sherman Mark III tank and the inspection, cleaning, and overhaul of the track assembly and differential units.
The suspension unit in the Shervick removed one of the three original twin bogies of the Sherman and welded grousers (extensions to the track to increase width, decreasing ground pressure) to each track. A completely new frame was manufactured comprising floor and top flanged side plates with box-section cross-members on the front and center of the body. The centre box girder was extended on each side of the tractor and ended in two, heavy, square flanges to which the main attachment for a tree-dozer and stump-puller was welded.
The power plant was a General Motors, two-stroke, six-cylinder diesel (one of the types fitted to the Sherman tank, a variety that mostly went to the Russians). A new transfer drive unit was fitted to the engine flywheel housing and this had the double function of providing primary gear reduction between the engine and gearbox of 2 to 1, and also a power take-off to drive a winch and other auxiliary equipment.
In the event, the Shervicks were not able to take on the brush alone, having to work in three-vehicle teams, with two Shervicks towing a chain between them, to rip out the brush and trees, and a third to attack the really stubborn ones.
For more details of this Brit colonial venture - check out The Tanganyikan Groundnuts Scheme.
It just struck me as... interesting.
So, did anyone read this far?
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Yes, I made it all the way to the end.
I figured it was one of those tanks-to-plowshares deals, although the only picture I'd seen previously was of a WW1 tank so converted (IIRC).
Cheers!
by
Consul-At-Arms on March 6, 2008 11:27 AM
Heh. Been up for almost 12 hours, and one person read all the way to end (and is willing to admit it).
Heh. (scribbles note to self)
by
John of Argghhh! on March 6, 2008 4:40 PM
Yup, read to the end. My only question is: Do you have one being restored in the castle motor pool?
by
Dennis on March 6, 2008 5:23 PM
Yes read it to the end, but didn't see it till the late afternoon due to work commitments.
The next question was how succesful was the project? Was Vickers able to convert the tanks and did they work as advertised? If so, then it would be one of the few central planning projects that worked (even if it was thought up by a Western Government). If the project didn't work for what ever reason then its another reminder why central planning just doesn't seem to work to well.
by
Andrew on March 6, 2008 6:18 PM
Yepp, I read it all too.
There were a number of simple conversions performed in Australia to create heavy duty bulldozers for scrub clearing. I think a large number were Churchills, and I used to pass an abandoned one regularly when I was younger. I guess the price of scrap steel these days has done for them!
While looking for a picture of the Churchill, I came across what seems to be a very interesting website dealing with WWII - here
The most interesting idea for post-war recovery in the agriculture sector was thought up by the US. To help the Greeks restart their farms after the war killed most of the horses and donkeys that were used for plowing etc., they supplied them with mules. These were huge compared to the donkeys previously used, and they were self-limiting. They couldn't be bred from, and by the time they died, the Greek economy was probably ready for (hopefully US) tractors.
by
SezaGeoff on March 6, 2008 6:46 PM
Dennis, sadly no. The only one I've seen still in existence is a wreck in the Netherlands.
Might be some in Africa... but I wouldn't bet on it.
Andrew - while you read it to the end - you didn't' click the link to the groundnut project. Your predjudice regarding central planning is still intact.
Geoff - I keep investing in the lottery - if that ever works for me, I'm going to graft myself to Jacques Littlefield and get his leavings...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 6, 2008 6:57 PM
Yep, read all the way. Photo set off my curiosity but, have no armor background.
Also read it the first time I had Internet today.
by Old Dog on March 6, 2008 7:52 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 4, 2008
All Your Historeez Are Belong To Us: The Civil War on Film
[Kat]
First, a great interactive map of Sherman's March to the Sea.
When you get your history from the movies, you get what you paid for: lost.
Friday night, I was watching "Glory" with my youngest brother (who isn't that young, just "younger"). Frankly, I love that movie. Not because it is the most historically accurate, but because I rather like movies with a simple message, that, while touching on some aspects of man's duel nature even while he tries to be his best, still draws the line between bravery and cowardice, honor and disgrace, heroes and villains.
The same way I always love John Wayne movies. His westerns and his war movies. Call me a philistine or a rube, what have you, but these kinds of movies speak to me more than any movie called "Chocolate" ever did.
I also love historical period pieces that try to convey something about the clothes, the attitudes and day to day life of the people in that period. Someday, someone is going to make a movie about our time and young people will marvel at the "ancient" technology and ideas that were the beginning of their own.
[continued in flash traffic]
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
And, if you're interested in the Civil War, particularly the photographic and painting art that came out of it, this movie has a lot to say for it. Not because it shows the actual paintings, but the director managed to translate some great allegorical, iconic images into actual film scenes. Like the image of the 54th Massachusetts dressed in their spiffy new blue uniforms, brass shining, white gloves gleaming, marching off to war. Paintings and prints of such images can be found in many Civil War art collections and on historical posters, newspapers and pamphlets from the abolitionist movements including such great supporters like the Loyal Publishing Society. These were used to recruit black men into the newly created "colored" troops in the Union Army.
Four other images in the film that were straight off of iconic paintings, prints and monuments about the 54th and other black regiments were: Morgan Freeman standing on the parapets of Battery Wagoner, waving the flag; Col. Shaw (Matthew Broderick) being shot, surrounded by his black troops; towards the end, post Shaw's death, Carey Ewes character, surrounded by black troops in "action" positions, rifles with bayonets "at the charge", flags flying behind their heads (right before they are blown away by rebel cannon movie image); and, finally, the final image of Shaw's body being thrown in the trench with his black troops, a black soldier thrown on top of him, their positions as if sleeping at peace - brothers in blood.
Those are great images, but, as I noted, allegories. There were no polaroid or hand held video cameras. As many know, eyewitness accounts during battle are sometimes unreliable and often varied. Newspaper accounts were useful, but sometimes sensationalized. Thus, artists would use these allegories to represent the battles. Creating, in the end, some of the mythology of American history.
"Glory" was not a documentary. The movie, using iconic, allegoric images, was an allegory in and of itself, attempting to represent the advent of black troops into Union forces, their motivations, their tribulations, their bravery and, in the end, the contribution of black Americans to our nation, our freedom. If you can appreciate those facts, the movie is some great entertainment set in an historical period that might actually make people interested in that time and the people.
An interesting conversation with my brother who is not a history buff. The film leaves off with images of Shaw and his black troops being thrown into a ditch by the still remaining rebel troops. My brother asked me what happened to the other "white troops" that the general had promised would come behind the 54th.
The movie left out some considerable pieces of the battle in order to focus solely on the courage of the 54th in leading the assault on Wagoner. One of the things that it left out was that the 54th was not alone in assaulting the fort. Neither did it explain that one of the important factors was the waxing and waning of the tide across the only spit of sand that led to the fort. The fort itself was surrounded by water and marsh lands (swamp) on three sides continuously and on four sides when the tide was in. That's why it was called "Morris Island". After the battle had raged on for some hours, the tide began to come in and cut off those troops from safe and quick retreat. While the water was not so deep it couldn't be forded, it caused slow going through wet, sucking sand.
Six thousand Union soldiers were used to assault the fort along with the 54th, over two days of bombardment and assault. Of the six thousand, 1515 casualties were taken. Over two hundred from the 54th alone that accounted for half of their forces, including Col. Shaw. Sgt Willaim Carney was awarded a belated Medal of Honor in 1890 for his bravery during the assault. Carney carried the flag up the parapets and urged the 54th on into the fort. He was wounded three times, but refused to drop the flag or allow it to be captured by enemy forces. He was finally able to withdraw, bringing the flag with him.
What you could take from the movie was the reality that the fortifications and bunkers at Wagner were so well designed that nearly 12 hours of bombardment had done little to attrit forces, destroy weapons or significantly damage the fort's walls (a good representation in the movies of the less than glorious survival in such a fort can be seen in "Cold Mountain" with Jude Law and Nicole Kidman). The frontal assault of any fort in the age of gun powder is suicidal and a serious waste of forces unless, as on D-Day, the objective is so important, the casualty rate becomes acceptable. The taking of Charleston was important, but not necessarily the need to take Wagner. It was one of several strategic blunders that General Gilmore undertook during the Civil War (see Oulestee, Fl).
Eventually, Gilmore decided to circumvent Wagner and Morris Island. The fort turned out only to be important to protecting the harbor and city from invasion or bombardment from the sea, not necessarily protecting it from assault from land. While Gilmore had to explain the loss of forces at Wagner in reports, he was never punished or relieved from duty. With the kinds of losses each side was taking at many battles, Gilmore's losses were a drop in the bucket.
My brother also asked, based on the movie's representation, if the white troops had left the black troops to die due to some form of racism that allowed Gilmore to sacrifice them readily to save white troops. As noted, the movie does not portray any white troops with the 54th other than some NCOs and officers. I went over the truth of the battle again and noted that there may have been a concern about racism in the assault, but it was more likely that Shaw wanted to combat the over all general racism within the Union Army and the "soft bigotry" of the North by undertaking to lead a suicidal mission. Whether it was Shaw's plan to show the over all equality of the black troops to the white troops or simply to show that his troops were equal can only be inferred by his letters. Whether he had a grand strategy or not, the death of so many of his black troops along with their bravery in continuing to assault the fort under horrible conditions did, in fact, move the Union Army to accept more black recruits and units. It also led to some mitigation of the anger among northern citizens that so many whites were dying for the freedom of inferior black men. Here, the black man was fighting for himself.
However, it took many more wars for military strategist to realize that trench warfare and frontal assaults on fortifications was no longer effective. German's opened the Battle of France by circumventing the Maginot Line. Equally, the acceptance of black troops as effective fighting forces by the general military and public took even longer before institutionalized segregation was finally ended.
I still love the movie, "Glory". It had some great historical perspective, fantastic imagery and told artfully the condition of the black freeman who fought in the union army. But, it is a movie and it is important to remember that when watching any movie and attempting to divine history from art.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Don't give up on movies with "Chocolate" in their name. I too am a huge John Wayne fan, but there is one "Chocolate" movie that I am sure will meet your standards. Especially the part about being a period piece and having a simple message
"Like Water For Chocolate"
by
Maggie on March 4, 2008 1:04 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
February 7, 2008
Someone We Should Have Known: Robert Angus Barry
[Kat]
On February 6, I read in the Kansas City Star that Robert Angus Barry had passed away February 4, 2008. I didn't know him, but, as I read his obituary, I realized that we should.
He attended Central High School, Kansas City Junior College, and Central College, Fayettesville, MO. He married Dorothy Pope on December 13, 1940. During World War II he served as a B- 17 pilot with the 8th Air Force, flying 30 missions over Europe. He was awarded four Bronze Stars, four Air Medals, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Presidential Unit Citation. Returning to KC after the war he worked several years for the Jack Jones Lumber Co. before buying out Mr. Jones and forming the Barry-Gann Lumber Co.
Read that: 30 missions, four Bronze Stars, Four Air Medals, The Distinguished Flying Cross and the Presidential Unit Citation. To be a bomber pilot and receive the DFC, a man would have had to fly into hell, stare into the face of death and, if he was lucky, his plane didn't fall apart even with plate sized holes in the wings and fuselage from "flak you could walk on", all the fuel didn't leak out from same holes, a strong wind kept him flying in the right direction and he eventually made it back to base, saving the lives of his crew. Or, he could be lucky like this story about Col. Vincent Fonke
Gunfire barraged the B-17. Flames engulfed its right wing, and an engine was knocked out. The plane was losing altitude fast, so Fonke ordered his eight-man crew to to bail out.
Fonke was the last to jump. Seconds later, the plane exploded.
I looked for Mr. Barry's story on various sites. I looked up his name. I looked and could not find anything written about him. But I knew that couldn't be the end of the story. Not just a paragraph in the paper and a bare listing of his medals. So, I started searching backwards, starting with a short history of the Eighth Air Force.
(continued in flash traffic)
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
The Eighth Air Force was constituted on January 28, 1942, just 53 days after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The plan was to build up forces to attack the German interior. Under the command of Major General Carl A. Spaatz, Major General Ira C. Eaker, and Lieutenant General Jimmy Doolittle, the hero of the 1942 B-25 air raid on Tokyo. It included such notables as then Lt. Col. Curtis LeMay. Even Clark Gable flew five combat missions with a B-17 bomber group and went on to make many training films and short films about the fearless men in the Mighty Eighth.
The Eighth recorded a number of "firsts". On July 4, 1942, six American crews joined six RAF crews on the first American mission to bomb Germany. Of the six crews, two were lost, foretelling the cost the Eighth would pay to smash the German military industry. On August 17, 1942, at 1500 hours, the first B-17 Flying Fortresses took off on their first strike against Germany.
One year later, August 17, 1943, in Operation Argument, later known as "Big Week", was launched to destroy the Luftwaffe and any supporting industries. Lt Col Curtis LeMay led the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission with 147 bombers. The first deep penetration attack against German industry without a fighter escort (P 47s did not have the range to fly the entire mission). While many targets were destroyed, the mission lost 60 bombers. Deep attacks were postponed for five months until escort coverage was established.
The Eighth was the first to fly day time bombing raids into Germany. They also flew cover over over Normandy on D-Day, supported the Air Borne invasion of the Netherlands and directly attacked German troops in the Battle of the Bulge. According to the Mighty Eighth Air Force Museum history page:
The Mighty Eighth compiled an impressive record in the war. This achievement, however, carried a high price. The 8th AF suffered half of the U.S Army Air Forces’ casualties in World War II (47,000-plus casualties with more than 26,000 deaths). The Eighth’s personnel also earned 17 Medals of Honor, 220 Distinguished Service Crosses, 850 Silver Stars, 7,000 Purple Hearts 46,000 Air Medals. Many more uncounted awards were presented to the 8 AF veterans after the war. There were 261 fighter aces and 305 gunner aces in the Eighth in World War II, and 31 fighter aces had more than 15 or more aircraft kills.
Somewhere in these numbers was Mr. Robert Angus Barry.
A number of Eighth Air Force units, flying B-17s, received the President's Distinguished Unit Citation including:
351st Bomber Group: A total of 311 missions were credited. Out of 279 B-17 Flying Fortresses, 124 were lost in combat.
The 351st received a Distinguished Unit Citation (DUC) for exceptional performance on October 9, 1943 when an aircraft factory in Anklam, Germany was accurately bombed despite extremely heavy flak and intense resistance from Luftwaffe fighters. The group received another DUC for participating in the successful attack of January 11, 1944 on aircraft factories in Oschersleben and Konigslutter in central Germany.
The 381st bombardment group The Group received a Distinguished Unit Citation for performance on 8 October 1943 when shipyards at Bremen were bombed accurately in spite of persistent enemy fighter attacks and heavy flak, and received a second DUC for similar action on 11 January 1944 during a mission against aircraft factories in central Germany.
The 306th bombardment groupWithout fighter escort and in the face of powerful opposition, the group completed an assault against aircraft factories in central Germany on 11 January 1944, earning a Distinguished Unit Citation (DUC) for the mission. Participated in the Big Week intensive campaign against the German aircraft industry, 20-25 February 1944. The group earned another DUC for effectively bombing an aircraft assembly plant at Bernberg, Germany on 22 February, even though escort fighters had abandoned the mission because of weather.
And the 91st Bomber Group Its first mission to a target in Germany occurred January 27, and it earned the first of two Distinguished Unit Citations on March 4 when it continued an attack against the marshalling yards at Hamm, Germany, after all the other groups had turned back because of poor weather conditions. On April 17 the group led the Eighth Air Force on its first mission against the German aircraft industry, attacking Bremen. German fighter reaction was intense and sustained, and the Eighth lost twice as many bombers as on any previous mission. The 91st had six B-17s shot down, all from the 401st Bomb Squadron.
Approximately 5,200 crewmen flew combat missions for the 91st from 1942 to 1945. 19% were killed or missing (887 KIA and 123 MIA) and 18% (959) became prisoners of war. 33 others were killed in flying accidents. [snip]
The fatalities in the 91st Bomb Group, equivalent to an infantry regiment in numbers of combat personnel, exceeded the killed-in-action of more than half (47) of the Army's ground force divisions, and equalled or exceeded the rate of killed-in-action in the infantry regiments of 35 others. Only seven divisions (all infantry) had killed-in-action rates higher than the 91st BG
Included in this famed group was the Memphis Belle, the first B-17 and crew to complete 25 missions and live to tell about it. Images of the 91st bomber group missions and crews at Sam Halpert's Page.
We didn't know Robert Angus Barry, but we know the stories of men like him. Mr. Barry came home, raised a passel of kids, bought a business and spent 67 years with his wife Dora. I bet, if he'd been asked, those were his greatest accomplishments.
God's Speed, Mr. Barry and Thank You!
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
The USAAF doctrine back then required cast-iron balls.
You had to settle down on a straight and level course, to allow the bombsight to achieve a solution. The Germans knew this, and set up flak batteries with pre-computed solutions for that.
I do believe that official United States Army Air Forces doctrine, for bomber pilots and bombardiers, concerning anti-aircraft artillery, was, "Ignore it."
And they did, and stayed on the bomb run, straight and level, more often than not.
by
Justthisguy on February 7, 2008 3:09 AM
P.s. Many, many times more often than not.
by
Justthisguy on February 7, 2008 3:30 AM
P.p.s This is one of the many reasons I think that Hal Clement was really super-double-extra kewl&manly; I mean, he was the arguably best SF writer who ever lived, and a brave bomber pilot, too!
by
Justthisguy on February 7, 2008 3:45 AM
If you're ever down Savannah way, stop by and visit the museum of the Mighty Eighth.
They were men.
by Grim on February 7, 2008 5:37 AM
Its sounds like Robert Angus Barry and the 8th Air Force did grievous damage to the enemy which shortened the War.
I aways learn some thing at this fine site. Here are some interesting facts I learned about the 8th Air Force:
At its peak, the 8th AF could dispatch more than 2,000 four-engine bombers and 1,000 fighters on a single mission. For these reasons, the 8th AF became known as the "Mighty Eighth".
See: mighty eighth
The Americans flew heavily escorted missions against airframe manufacturing and assembly plants and other targets in numerous German cities including; Leipzig, Brunswick, Gotha, Regensburg, Schweinfurt, Augsburg, Stuttgart and Steyr. In six days, the Eight Air Force bombers based in England flew more than 3,000 sorties and the Fifteenth Air Force based in Italy more than 500. Together they dropped roughly 10,000 tons of bombs.
During Big Week the Eighth Air Force lost 97 B-17s, 40 B-24's, and another 20 scrapped due to damage. The Fifteenth Air Force lost 90 aircraft and American fighter losses stood at 28. Although these numbers are high in absolute terms, the numbers of bombers involved in the missions was much higher than previously, and the losses represented a much smaller percentage of the attacking force. The earlier Schweinfurt missions cost the force just under 30% of their aircraft, for the Big Week it was under 7%...
Big Week bolstered the confidence of U.S. strategic bombing crews…By the end of April, the Luftwaffe was a broken force. With the Luftwaffe a spent force, the hundreds of fighters available to the Allies were now turned loose on German supply lines, railroads, trucks, and practically any other target.
See: Big Week
The 306th Bombardment Group was activated on March 1, 1942… Took part in the first penetration into Germany by heavy bombers of the Eighth Air Force on 27 January 1943 by attacking U-boat yards at Wilhelmshaven. Sgt Maynard H. Smith received the Medal of Honor for his actions on 1 May 1943. When the aircraft on which he was a gunner was hit by the enemy and set on fire, the sergeant threw explosive ammunition overboard, manned a gun until the German fighters were driven off, administered first aid to the wounded tail gunner, and extinguished the fire. Without fighter escort and in the face of powerful opposition, the group completed an assault against aircraft factories in central Germany on 11 January 1944, earning a Distinguished Unit Citation (DUC) for the mission.
See: Flying Training Group
The 351st arrived at Polebrook on April 15, 1943 and departed June 10, 1945. It flew 9,075 sorties, dropped 20,778 tons of bombs, fired 2,776,028 rounds of ammunition, and destroyed 303 enemy aircraft. A total of 311 missions were credited. Out of 279 B-17 Flying Fortresses, 124 were lost in combat.
See 351st Bomb Group
The name Curtis LeMay stands out when talking about the Eighth Air Force. In fact, LeMay stands out as one man who did very grievous damage to the enemy in both Germany and Japan.
Although his tactics were dangerous they produced results.
He bombed German industrial cities, bombed Japanese cities, mined Japanese harbors, was involved in the Berlin Air lift and was a sword in the side of the Soviet Union as commander of the Strategic Air Command.
The bombing of Japan stands out.
[b-29s]
Curtis LeMay had been sent to the Marianas to get results… Then came the radical decision by LeMay. The planes would go in at 10,000 ft. He ordered the removal of bomb bay fuel tanks claiming by not going to altitude they would not need the gas. All .50 cal. Guns would be removed, and all ammo. With no guns the gunners did not need to go. They would approach at night, low, not in formation but singly, each plane now carrying twice the previous bomb load…
How many Americans would be killed in an invasion of Japan? It was to be a huge gamble… On March 9, 334 B-29s took off from Guam, arriving in Japan under good weather conditions. The planes were stacked up from 4,900 ft. to 9,200 ft. They dropped one 500 pound cluster of fire bombs every 50 feet. The target area was 3 by 5 miles, containing a large industrial complex, however each square mile held over 100,000 civilians. The bombs fell, and within thirty minutes the resulting fires were out of control, driven by 40 mph winds. Tokyo, hit by strings of incendiaries, became a holocaust. Water boiled in the canals after the temperature reached over 1800 degrees F. For three hour the B-29s kept coming…In only five raids the B-29s wiped out 32 square miles in four major cities. The population of Tokyo dropped to half as panic stricken civilians fled. Washington was finally satisfied that fire bombing was the answer to crushing the Japanese, and sent LeMay a list of 33 additional Industrial targets…
See: The Firebombing
I don’t know if we will ever see another Robert Barry or another Curtis LeMay.
by
Ledger on February 7, 2008 6:16 AM
A true American hero who did his job. Lived his life Quietly and died the same way. Truly the Greatest generation. rest in peace American hero. Bless his family and friends
by Spanky on February 7, 2008 8:41 AM
Just a note on the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission. That 60 aircraft lost was 600 men. On. One. Mission.
God bless them. And everyone else that geared up and went on every mission that came down after that one.
by
Pogue on February 7, 2008 9:15 AM
Bless you, Mr. Barry; you are truly one of the Brave!
by lela on February 7, 2008 11:32 AM
Yeah, Pogue, kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it.
by kat-missouri on February 7, 2008 12:16 PM
Two of my Profs in College flew in Bomber Command.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on February 8, 2008 1:02 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 29, 2008
Milblogging: Francis Lieber and the Loyal Publication Society
[Kat]
In the spirit of the Military Blogging Symposium that the owner of the this blog will attend on January 29, those who may read and those who are simply interested in the subject of the historical relations of blogging with the legacy of the citizens' press and communications from the front, I thought I would post on a little history. One could say, the real heritage of "milblogging".
While some bloggers liken blogging to the Pamphleteers of the Revolution, that comparison must be made with all humility. Blogging certainly compares in some degree to the free citizen presses of the day. It is a free wheeling environment where ideas and stories are written by any citizen with the desire and access to a computer. Blogging may be the culmination of the original "free market of ideas". Trustworthy sources get linked and passed around while liars and scammers are debunked. We definitely take advantage of the inheritance left to us by those original pamphleteers under the first amendment: freedom of expression.
We are fortunate that, at least here in the United States, we have very few of the worries that our forefathers did regarding arrest, imprisonment or death for anything we might say. In other countries, not so much. Those who have been persecuted as well as various attempts to silence bloggers through legal maneuvering or the contempt expressed by established media, simply reminds us to jealously guard this freedom against all encroachments.
For milbloggers though, it may be that our heritage is most closely associated with a more recent historical event. At least, "recent" if you count a century and a half.
Continue reading Francis Lieber and the Loyal Publication Society in Flash Traffic
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
In 1863, the Civil War was at a bloody stand still. Neither the South nor the North seemed to make enough progress to create the conditions for victory. There seemed to be little possibility for one decisive battle to end the war though each army had made several attempts to destroy the other. News from the front was scarce. Letters from friends and family were passed around or read out loud at gatherings. Reports in established newspapers touted a never ending list of casualties, destruction and pending defeat of the Union cause. Good news was far and few between.
In congress, many proclaimed the war could not be won. They advocated ceasing military action and making a political agreement with the Confederate States. The first rush had turned into depression in the North as the realization set in that this was not going to be a short war.
Enter Francis Lieber and the Loyal Publications Society. Francis Lieber is best known as the father of modern day laws of warfare. At the request of the Union government, he wrote an extensive essay regarding the practices of war, the treatment of prisoners, civilians and property. This eventually became known as the "Lieber Code" and was disseminated as General Order #100 to the Union Army.
This code of conduct was adopted by militaries around the world as well as the International Red Cross, andthe Hague Conventions. The Hague Conventions led to the adoption of the Laws of Warfare. Lieber's Code also influenced the Geneva Conventions.
At the height of the Civil War, Lieber was keeping a correspondence with Gen. Halleck. Among their correspondence, Lieber often complained of the lack of good news and reports of decisive actions coming from the front. The Lincoln administration had not developed any official information programs or put forth much effort beyond Lincoln's occasional speeches and letters to various editors or public officers that were then published for general edification.
At the same time, the South had put together a tremendous propaganda effort including writing, publishing and distributing books supporting their views on economics, politics, the constitution and slavery. These were widely distributed in the North and South. Regular editorials and prepared reports were sent to numerous papers across the country. Prepared materials were provided to politicians, organizations and individuals including foreign papers where they hoped to gain support for their cause. The Confederates had their own state run propaganda paper called The Index.
The Confederacy also sent numerous envoys to foreign nations presenting their cause as a case for liberty, rights and economy, astutely avoiding any mention of slavery that had already been outlawed by many nations. Lincoln barely put together an assembly of four "diplomats" of varying degrees of capability that attempted to combat the propaganda, dissuade support or interference by those nations and maintain existing treaties on such national interests as trade and sovereignty of the United States.
The blockading of the South not only effected Southern trade and economy, but also that of many European nations. As the Confederate book on "King Cotton" noted, over 5 million people in England relied on cotton from the South. For economic purposes alone the Confederates believed that England should support their efforts to remain economically and politically viable, even with the use of slave labor.
Lincoln could not totally ignore the impact of the blockade on other nations, but he also needed to insure that the United States remained whole, without interference and that, once the war was over, the United States could continue good relations with these nations. A war might be won, but survival of the nation would depend on continuing trade and developing economics to recover from the devastation of war.
The Lincoln Administration's lack of a coordinated information program left a huge hole in the Union's psyche that was quickly being filled up with ever depressing news and Confederate propaganda. This left the task of spurring and maintaining support for the Union and the war to largely private citizen organizations that created patriotic citizen groups in cities across states such as the Union League.
The Union League of Philadelphia was established in 1862 to organize and recruit Union supporters on behalf of the war effort and President Lincoln's policies. Other Union Leagues quickly sprang up across the north following the same practices. These organizations would present speakers to other groups and events, organize patriotic events, print literature supporting the Union and raise money to supply the troops and care for the wounded.
In New York, Francis Lieber, along with other well known Unionists and Abolitionists, formed the Loyal Publication Society. In the beginning, the society simply scanned existing newspapers and broadsheets for "good news" to be collated into one pamphlet and distributed among the troops and citizens. The organization would quickly contact the papers for the type setting before it was broken up and print it on their own paper.
Soon they expanded to printing original essays and speeches on broad subjects ranging from slavery, black men in the army, the Union cause, rebutting Confederate propaganda or political speeches as well as rebutting reports from various newspapers including the Chicago Times and the New York Tribune. The tracts would also reprint soldiers' letters and essays as "Voices from the Army".
One such publication rebutted the ever present dirge that it was only the poor who were fighting and dying for nothing more than the capitalist rich men in the north. The practice of accepting payment in lieu of drafting, wealthy and middle class men paying other men to take a draftees position along with anti-draft and nativist proclamations of discrimination had led to riots in New York and other cities.
In addressing these organizations and the cries of discrimination, the publication printed an essay describing the calls as such:
They have labored to spread the idea that every man who came to the United States and became a citizen, acquired ipso facto a right to lifelong ease, comfort and prosperity and that any action on the part of the Government, in defense of honor and existence, which curtailed the smallest of a working man's comfort, was a fraud and an imposition.
They rejected those claims and instead called all men to "take up" their "duty", insisting that there was no promise of leisure and only the ability to pursue their dreams.
"We guarantee him freedom of mind and body, and promise him wealth and honor in proportion to his merits. But, we warn him, when he comes here, it is not to roam over rich pastures and chew the cud, a fat ox among fat oxen. He comes to be a freeman in a free community, jealous of its honor, of its integrity and of its glory, prepared to make whatever sacrifices, down to the last drop of blood, to preserve every one of them without stain or blemish.
Democrats who had whole heartedly crossed the line to support the Union and made no claims of defeat were attacked verbally and in print by other party members. In rebuttal, a piece of an address given by the Union Democracy War Party of Indiana was reprinted under "Country, Not Party":
Reproachful names have no terrors while the broad banner of our republic, the emblem of civil liberty, is over us, and we hold up its standard. We stand by our government, seeking no favors from it and pledging no support for individuals in it and we will uphold it a the chosen type of our country and freedom during this attempt to destroy it. Our duty is to "our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country". If that country falls, we ask no shield from its fate.
In another tract, they printed rebuttals to articles in foreign papers as well as re-printing foreign articles that supported the Union. In this tract, was a short essay called "The Limits of Patriotic Criticism" on the difference between loyal criticism of the government and declamations of enemies within.
The criticism of one who is friendly to the Government, and who is anxious that it shall succeed and be preserved, and who points out its errors that they may be corrected, is wholly different from the denunciation which seeks to bring the Government into contempt and render it odious to the people, thereby withdrawing from it its life, when struggling in battle with a powerful enemy.
Many of these self organized citizens groups, publications and their topics would sound very familiar to milbloggers today. The tools of the free press and the names of the organizations may have changed, but the sentiments have remained the same: to support the country in a time of war, rebutting claims by opponents, refuting false claims of intended casualties or recruiting practices, addressing issues with the government and war strategy with "patriotic criticism". Even including discussions about religion in public life and the government.
The article, "Outside", Oct 1863, discusses a movement in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to have an amendment added to the Constitution acknowledging the United States as a Christian nation. The Loyal Publication Society replied:
We find the above in many of our exchanges, and the movement is regarded as one very worthy and proper. We would suggest that the best way for us, as a nation, to recognize and acknowledge God and his Sovereignty, would be in conforming our national action and character to those eternal principles of Justice, Freedom and Humanity. Until we do this, any outward and formal acknowledgment would be a pretense, and would not "clearly show that we are a Christian people."
Some people considered Francis Lieber to be a "fanatic" for his unwavering support of the Union and President Lincoln, even in the face of acts that continue to be challenged as unconstitutional. He wrote an essay that appeared in a Loyal Publications Society pamphlet on Presidential Powers During War Time that was rebutted by an opposition group that had formed to protest Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and various acts of arrest and court martial by military authorities.
The Loyal Publication Society continued throughout the war and sometime after. Several Union League organizations existed for several decades after the war, promoting civic duty and becoming active in politics. The Philadelphia Union League is one of the few that still exist today.
In times of war, it has not been unusual for citizens to band together, either through established government organizations or through volunteer citizen groups, in order to sustain morale among themselves, promote patriotism among other citizens and provide assistance to the soldiers. It has been true since time immemorial. It's been true in this country during every war. What seems to change is not the need or the desire, but simply the means by which communication and organization are reached.
The internet has allowed ad hoc groups and individual citizens to organize across thousands of miles, sharing ideas within light seconds and self publishing to hundreds and thousands of readers at such a reduced cost as to make citizen publishing what the founders of this nation could only dream about.
While many milbloggers and their supporters did not necessarily start out as "war-bloggers", the need to support fellow soldiers, family, friends and like minded citizens became an imperative. What started out as individuals seeking their own voices became a real effort to support the troops, support the war effort and support the country. Milbloggers stand on the shoulders of such men as Francis Lieber and the Loyal Publication Society who showed the power of citizen volunteers in information warfare and maintaining national morale in a long war.
Other documents of the Loyal Publication Society:
New York Times Ad for Purchase of Publication Pamphlets, 1864
New England Loyal Publication Society Broadsides, scanned images
McClellen or Lincoln? An appeal to German Americans to support Lincoln's re-election.
Loyal Publication Society, #28: Death of Slavery
Biography of Francis Lieber
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
A case could be made that the huge hole in the Union's psyche was caused less by the failure of Lincoln's strategic communications campaign and more by the realization that violently coercing previously sovereign States to remain in a Union that no longer enjoyed the consent of the governed pretty much upset the whole apple cart.
by
Cannoneer No. 4 on January 29, 2008 10:39 AM
I wondered who was going to be first with that slant... my money was on Jim C.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 29, 2008 11:04 AM
you know, every time someone brings up that whole "states' rights" thing, they always fail to mention the word "slavery".
Next time some state wants to challenge a power of the federal government, you might want to make sure you have the right cause.
by
kat-missouri on January 29, 2008 11:28 AM
The actual ability of states to challenge the power of the Federal government was decided by force of arms. The vanquished still debate the righteousness of their conquerors. Now it no longer matters how right the state might be in any disagreement with the Federal Power.
Did any Abolitionist strategic communicators explain why they didn't just buy slaves and free them up north?
by
Cannoneer No. 4 on January 29, 2008 11:57 AM
Interesting point, there, #4, given that the government had forbidden the importation of new slaves at that point. Good premise for an alternative history piece.
Since I've not mentioned it of late, and we have new eyes visiting the Castle this week - I believe the correct side won the Civil War. But, that like all wars, for good purposes or ill, it took on a life of it's own, independent of the original cause, and there were a lot of unintended consequences, some good, many bad.
I also note, that absent the issue of slavery, the Federal government's stated policy on issues like this in the modern era would seem to indicate that the Federal government could not resort to arms to hold on to separatist areas.
Especially if there were to be an ethnic slant to things.
Something to keep in mind, when pondering the Aztlan and La Raza movements, and the predilection for the elites in society to currently promote ethnic balkanizing over cultural assimilation.
Which doesn't mean you have to become white, christian, and, oh, protestant - simply that you become *American* donating the good about where you came from to the general welfare, and leaving behind that bad - especially the bad that created the conditions that you strove to escape.
I would note that also applies to Northeasterners and Californians who come to heartland to escape the over-priced, over-regulated, and over-crowded Blue paradises to come wreck our property values by overpaying for land and housing... (though not so much of late, eh?) and then promptly agitating our legislators to introduce all those policies (the concept of which you find comforting, the reality of which you are fleeing) that created the conditions you fled here from...
Come here, be a Kansan, don't make this place into San Francisco... because if SF is so great... why'd ya leave?
And I say that as a guy who likes San Francisco as a concept, and a place to visit... but you (literally) couldn't pay me to live there.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 29, 2008 12:17 PM
Well, you must have been confused on two subjects:
1) the Abolitionists in Congress had proposed a bill to give reparations for the "cost" of each slave freed, but that was blocked, both by the slavers and by those who were too frugal with government money in the face of a long, deadly and expensive war.
2) Don't you think its a little egregious to talk about having to "buy" slaves to set them free? We are talking about human beings here, not a horse or some inanimate piece of property. Not to mention, that would never have ended the institution of slavery, but simply supported it my another means while the slave holders found another way to expand or maintain that horrid device.
3) I'm always interested in those who lament the "use of arms" to settle states rights as if something else was going to happen after the rebels opened fire on Ft. Sumter. Not to mention that whole 10 years or so before that when the various citizen factions raided each other and killed each other. War was already here. The issue was already being contested by arms.
Like I said, though, you can't divorce the issue from slavery.
by
kat-missouri on January 29, 2008 12:23 PM
But, interesting, Cannoneer, I thought maybe you would find the history of a "citizens" organization combining to fight off enemy propaganda. I never thought we'd end up talking about states' rights and slavery over that subject.
by
kat-missouri on January 29, 2008 12:52 PM
*whew* I thought Kat was going to get into a "Bleeding Kansas" mode there for a moment...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 29, 2008 12:59 PM
Some people were valuable property in 1860, kat. Some people still are. That's egregrious.
Judging people of 1860 by the standards of 2008 makes it difficult to attribute their unwillingness to surrender their property and impoverish themselves for the cause of freedom to anything other than selfishness, wickedness, or whatever meaness one wishes to accuse them of. They're dead, and whoever dares defend them is politically incorrect and vulnerable to charges of racism.
So, the essence of Lincoln's strategic communications campaign is that slavery was so egregregious as to justify everything he did to end it, and anybody who thinks otherwise is bad, and people with unwelcome questions should just shut up.
by
Cannoneer No. 4 on January 29, 2008 1:27 PM
kat, you ass u med that I considered the Confederacy the enemy.
by
Cannoneer No. 4 on January 29, 2008 1:36 PM
that was "enemy" in general, not regards to the confederacy. as in a people struggling in war and organizing to win it. just a thought and a lesson.
What you assume is that there is some other argument that was being made and you made it.
Let me quote some of Lincoln's debates with Douglas:
There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. But finally you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the slave States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of it. You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You all know that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook to introduce that system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as they could for the system of gradual emancipation which you pretend you would be glad to see succeed. Now I will bring you to the test. After a hard fight they were beaten, and when the news came over here you threw up your hats and hurraed for Democracy.
Sorry, but evil is evil and people on one side had every intent to end it and people on the other side had every intent on keeping it. But, again, people want to pretend that there was something more noble in defending states rights than the question of slavery. Pardon if I disagree.
continuing from Lincoln:
It is the eternal struggle between these two principles-right and wrong-throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
by
kat-missouri on January 29, 2008 2:55 PM
That would be the seventh debate.
by
kat-missouri on January 29, 2008 3:04 PM
In 1845, Robert Matson brought five of his slaves, Jane Bryant and her four children, into Illinois--a free state--to plant and harvest crops. In 1847, he planned to take these slaves back to Kentucky, a slave state. The slaves, believing they were free because they were in a free state, sought refuge with Hiram Rutherford and Gideon Ashmore. But in Matson v. Bryant et al., they were declared runaways and carted off to the local jail, eventually to be sold to the highest bidder.
Ashmore sued to free Bryant and her children. Matson hired Lincoln, who argued in court that slave owners could use their slaves for labor in Illinois as long as the slaves were in transit.
by
Cannoneer No. 4 on January 29, 2008 3:31 PM
American political history since the founding has been divided into two great camps – the Hamiltonians (beginning with Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and on to Lincoln) who favor a highly centralized state; and the Jeffersonians (beginning with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John C. Calhoun, John Randolph, and Andrew Jackson) who espouse a limited, decentralized, constitutional government constrained by state sovereignty. One camp sought to have a Republic that respects and protects individual liberty and property; the other, to establish an Empire where the ends justify the means and the individual is subservient to the state. The American Civil War was a pivotal event for these opposing views of government. Abraham Lincoln prevailed and set the stage for the United States to become an American Empire. We, in 2002, are living with the results – -- Donald W. Miller, Jr.
I do not believe either of us is going to end up agreeing with the other on this, kat. There are 144-year old ruins along the path of Sherman's Bummers that speak to me as eloquently as Bleeding Kansas speaks to you.
by
Cannoneer No. 4 on January 29, 2008 4:04 PM
Hmm...am I supposed to suddenly believe that Lincoln's ruminations on slavery and its evils is now moot because he argued in reference to an existing law in the constitution that allowed the man to go back to Kentucky with this odious "property" while not institutionalize slavery as a permanent part of Illinois?
If anything, it proves that he had no original intent to use the government to force the issue and it was all an excuse by the rebels to secede, take power and spread their terrible economic practice of using slave labor.
Evil is as evil does. Couch it as "states' rights" all you want. Still evil.
by
kat-missouri on January 29, 2008 4:28 PM
Folks, having had to live in Southern FL for about half of my life, and had my ears reamed by the corkscrews of the Michigan accents and my sensibilities offended by the arrogant attitudes of the Northeastern funny people,
I damn' betcha that all four of my great-grandfathers joined up to fight against the USA not for any love of slavery, nor from political theories, but as an opportunity to Kill Yankees!
My Dad's, the smarmy Methodist side, may have tried to believe some moral justification for it, but I betcha my Mom's side, the one with all the Marines, did it for the lulz! (at least, at first)
by
Justthisguy on January 29, 2008 11:30 PM
P.s. This is why the presence of Irishmen in the world tends to make wars bloodier: Any real Irishman will at least entertain the idea of a fight being lulzy, so most significant fights for a long time have had significant Irish participation on both sides, e.g., the American War Between The States.
Now, as a _Scots_-Irish person, I think thats just crazy. Refrain from violence alla time, until it just drives you nuts, and it's hot lithium deuteride, baby!
by
Justthisguy on January 30, 2008 12:40 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 22, 2008
Internet Snipe Hunt, concluded.
Here's our ship, as she appears today:

One of her former foes, the Russian cruiser Aurora, still survives, and in better condition than our mystery ship.

But she was not, as suggested:
The USS Illinois,

nor the USS Olympia.
g
Or the HMAS Cerberus,

nor was it the USS Oregon.

Not the USS Texas,

Or "The Concrete Battleship," Fort Drum in the Phillipines.

JTG got it in one. The HIJMS Mikasa. Built by Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness, and similar in design to the British Majestic class, she was Admiral Togo's flagship at Tsushima, and is considered one of the three most significant historic warships still in existence, along with the HMS Victory and USS Constitution.
The last of the pre-Dreadnoughts still in existence, albeit not afloat. She's been land-bound for a long time. The picture of her in the post is reputed to be, as was noted by several commenters, of her during the time between her being badly damaged by US Naval aviation during WWII and then disarmed under the provisions of the surrender, and prior to the beginning of her restoration, as noted by Robert, via an effort involving Admiral Chester Nimitz, as Olaf noted. Restored by a man who had done his level best to sink the entire Imperial Japanese Navy during WWII. Apparently the restoration effort is on-going, and she has lots of non-original parts, some scavenged from similar Vickers-built ships such as the Chilean Almirante Latorre which were scrapped in Japan.
A good selection of pictures of the Mikasa are available here at Midway Sailor.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Darn and I thought Mikasa was a maker of fine porcelain dinner wear and fine silverware.
by JimC on January 22, 2008 8:20 AM
Well, they are. 8^ )
But they didn't make fine warships. That would be Vickers in this case. Though I'm thinking the men who manned her might have had a twee bit to do with it...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 22, 2008 8:36 AM
Clearly, I am losing my touch for sarcasm.
by JimC on January 22, 2008 3:24 PM
I'm immune to you. Besides, one of the most fun ways to deal with sarcasm is to... embrace it.
You've been pwned.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 22, 2008 3:38 PM
Easy ID. Of course I spent a couple years homeported in Yokosuka...
by
DJ Elliott on January 22, 2008 7:54 PM
Which is why I opined in the original post that sailors might have an advantage.
That said, plenty of sailors got it wrong, too.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 22, 2008 8:33 PM
Thankew, thankewverrimuch.
by
Justthisguy on January 23, 2008 4:14 PM
Nimitz had something in common with Yamamoto. Neither of them had ten complete fingers, after some time as grown-ups. Yamamoto lost his parts at Tsushima;
Nimitz, I think, wrestling recalcitrant machinery in a submarine torpedo boat.
by
Justthisguy on January 23, 2008 9:09 PM
The only reason Nimitz didn't lose his hand in that submarine's engine room was that the gear jammed on his USNA ring...
by
DJ Elliott on January 24, 2008 4:52 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 19, 2008
Internet snipe hunt
Okay, let's have an internet snipe hunt.
Sailors will have a possible advantage here.

Larger version can be had by clicking here.
A hint: Where once there were many, there is only one.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Hey - Dat's The Sand Pebble's Bigga Sistah.
Seriously - Didn't the U.S. fortify Manila Bay with Shore Artillery Batteries of that design?
Oh and I took that picture along the banks of The Putumayo at the fore-lone Colombian Naval Base at Puerto Leguizamo.
by Boquisucio on January 19, 2008 9:59 AM
I'm going to say HIJMS Mikasa, as she was in the fifties. Obviously not an armored cruiser, as there are two of those left. The four asymmetrical mounts for the biggest of the secondary guns also say "Mikasa!" to me.
by
Justthisguy on January 19, 2008 11:43 AM
Well, I'm not a Sailor..........
But am I headed in the right direction if I guess that the ship in question was originally part of the Great White Fleet? Perhaps the USS Illinois (BB-6)?
by
Maggie on January 19, 2008 12:45 PM
There's more than one component of the Great White Fleet still in the water, Mags -- Olympia lives at dockside in Penn's Landing, Philly.
by
BillT on January 19, 2008 2:47 PM
I agree with JTG.
... Sponson mounts.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on January 19, 2008 3:16 PM
Oh, Boq? Mikasa es su casa. Sorry, I couldn't stop myself.
by
Justthisguy on January 19, 2008 4:24 PM
Its not Mikasa.
I vote Manilla pre WWII.
by
CDR Salamander on January 19, 2008 5:45 PM
I did not think the Olympia was part of the Great White Fleet.
by
Maggie on January 19, 2008 5:57 PM
CDR, do you think that's USS Oregon?
by
Justthisguy on January 19, 2008 6:57 PM
It's the Mikasa after WW2 and before she was restored in the late 1950s. The only surviving pre-dreadnought battleship in the world.
by Robert Traina on January 19, 2008 7:39 PM
I have read of an attempt to use concrete as a building material for larger ship... Could it be one of those?
by
Sgt. B. on January 19, 2008 8:13 PM
HMVS Cerberus
by
Cannoneer No. 4 on January 19, 2008 8:53 PM
In keeping with the "Where once there were many, there is only one," theme, I'm going with the USS Texas, BB-35...the last of the surviving Dreadnoughts
by
Fallen' Angel on January 20, 2008 6:37 AM
HMVS Cerberus
Nope. Cerberus was a *monitor* -- low deck, no sponsons, both turrets installed on the superstructure. She was sunk in Port Phillip Bay in 1926 as a breakwater.
by
BillT on January 20, 2008 8:06 AM
Another vote for the Battleship Mikasa.
Pic here looks like it was taken in that period of post WWII, and before Nimitz helped get her restored in '58.
It looks a lot different today than that picture for sure.
Last pre-dreadnaught era ship and one of the three great historical warships of the World.
by OlafTheTanker on January 20, 2008 9:56 AM
Well, it's not the USS Drum, in the Philippines...
So it must be the Mikasa, but before the restoration... All the pieces and gun holes are in the right place, even with the hut built over the rear gun.
Either that or it's a trainer remnant, or a design mock-up, though unlikely...
by
SangerM on January 20, 2008 11:38 AM
HMVS Cerberus
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on January 20, 2008 1:55 PM
Info to me that proves this is the Mikasa, sitting in permanent harbor in Yokosuka, Japan.
See that distinctive shaped concrete area to the right in the pic provided?
Coincidence?
by OlafTheTanker on January 20, 2008 3:43 PM
Well?????????
by
Maggie on January 21, 2008 11:04 AM
Deep subject?
CHeers
by J.M. Heinrichs on January 21, 2008 1:31 PM
Not Mikasa nor Olympia. Appears to be moored within the USA. Why, note parking spaces against barbed wire fencing at left. Dark circle to lower right of vessel could be disappearing barbette of coastal defense gun type. Note individuals embarked in athletic event or PT - white t-shirts and mixed in with personnel in darker shirts. I will guess WWII when a lot of old ships were converted to moored command posts - even Constellation, in Baltimore harbor now, served in this capacity.
by
Citizen Deux on January 21, 2008 7:59 PM
Answered here.
by
John of Argghhh!~ on January 22, 2008 9:40 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 6, 2008
Let's have some fun.
With this pic, as a change of pace from the usual form of whatzis.

For those with little technical inclination - Captions!
For those with some technical/historical inclinations - there is a plethora, (a PLETHORA I say!) of interesting little tidbits abounding in this photo. Some are historical, some will seem anachronistic, other, just... informative.
Have at it.
I'll tie it all up in a explanatory post later in the week.
No spring-butts! Give other people a chance, too. If you discover the motherlode of info on the subject, post an interesting bit that hasn't been posted, and leave something for the others to contribute. This is a "play well with others" execise, not a "Lookit what a genius I am!" exercise. No posting links, either. Make the others work for their pats-on-the-back.
Lessee how this goes for a lazy Sunday.
And see who can follow directions...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
WRONG TANK! WRONG TANK! Lots of Blue-on-Blue casualties.
by Slick Rick on January 6, 2008 10:07 AM
Really would hate to see my dog in that situation.
by Slick Rick on January 6, 2008 10:11 AM
hmmm... a well-used T34/85... is that doggie carrying a satchel charge?!! Oh, this would never fly here in Boulder County!
by Neffi on January 6, 2008 10:11 AM
You see a tank...
...doggie sees the mother of all fire hydrants.
by Blackhawk on January 6, 2008 10:43 AM
I think I might title that "man's best friend gets thrown under the bus, so to speak."
Might be fun to try with pigs if we ever get into a ground war in Iran.
by Chris M on January 6, 2008 10:57 AM
OK, you trained me to track. Now can I go home?
by rikkochet on January 6, 2008 11:04 AM
This is sad. I hang out here too much. One flipping Google search and I find the exact photo in the first link. {sob} Where did I go wrong?
by
Bad Cat Robot on January 6, 2008 11:04 AM
Heh. It's about the only photo out there on Google for this subject.
Hence why I said you can only drop in tidbits, not a whole story.
Aside from the story of the dogs, my attention was attracted by the tank. Rare version you almost never see pictures of.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 6, 2008 11:16 AM
What's unusual about the tank is... it's a decoy tank. It's purpose is to attract dogs with tiltrod AT mines strapped to their back.
by
jim b on January 6, 2008 11:30 AM
Haw!~ Good one, Jim!
by
John of Argghhh! on January 6, 2008 11:40 AM
On second review, I'm not too impressed. Any crewmember can grab a manpack radio and do a little dismounted recon.
I'll withhold judgement until I see him on the tank range to see if he's got mad gunnery skillz or if he pooches the Bravo 3 Swing engagement.
by Blackhawk on January 6, 2008 1:12 PM
Wouldn't that more correctly be;
Red-on-Red casualties?
Nyet! Nyet! Bad dogski, bad dogski!
Arfski, bow-wowski! Tailwagski, boomski!
And so, yet another brilliant Soviet R&D wonk receives a one way ticket to glorious Siberia paid for by the people...
by Kevin on January 6, 2008 1:35 PM
Oberleutnant Friedrich von Skott-Tomas Boechampp swerves his Herr Bradlee Armored Fighting Car at a stray dog in the outskits of Tobruk.
by
Tim on January 6, 2008 1:38 PM
I believe this is an early version of the little know.... Mike Vick's dog training simulator
by Spanky on January 6, 2008 2:08 PM
Jefe, what is a plethora?
by
Barmy Mama on January 6, 2008 3:02 PM
Why,El Guapo?
by
John of Argghhh!!! on January 6, 2008 4:39 PM
Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.
:XD
by
Barmy Mama on January 6, 2008 5:58 PM
El Guapo, I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education, but could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
by
John of Argghhh!!! on January 6, 2008 6:28 PM
Best.
Movie.
EvAR!
I'm glad I'm not the only one who automatically thinks, Three Amigos! whenever I read/hear the word 'plethora'.
by
Barmy Mama on January 6, 2008 6:51 PM
I don't know if it's the *best* movie, but it's certainly up there in my pantheon.
Oh - excess, superfluity. More specifically, a very large amount of something, especially a larger amount than you need, want, or can deal with.
Just so you know, El Guapo, that I, Jefe, *do* know what what a plethora is!
And why *is* it raining Gringos, anyway? I know why it was raining iguanas in Florida... it was cold and they were in a torpor - what's with the damn gringos?
by
John of Argghhh!!! on January 6, 2008 7:15 PM
Hummmmmmmm...... not a T34-85. which makes this a early model please note 76.2mm gun
by Eric on January 6, 2008 8:59 PM
To let's see the tank is an early model Mexican 'Plethora 85". They had a paucity of them.
The dog's name is El Guapo, and when Mexican tankers spot one they all chant, "Santo Frijoles!!!".
by
jim b on January 6, 2008 10:07 PM
General Patton's ugly pet dawg being trained to "fetch" tanks. Note the primitive electric shock collar.
by John S. on January 6, 2008 11:23 PM
General Patton's ugly pet dawg being trained to "fetch" tanks. Note the primitive electric shock collar.
by John S. on January 6, 2008 11:24 PM
So... at last I get to see a picture of the famed, but horribly misguided Russian K-9 AntiTank Martyr Brigade. Back in the 80's I read somewhere about this experimental concept where they trained little sukies to run under German Panzers. At which time, it was hoped that their satchel charges would detonate under Fritz's and Hanz's Legs. An early attempt at wireless Milan Missiles.
The concept never got fielded, as sukies didn't reliably throw themselves under roaring PzIII undercarriages.
Or maybe it was Rin-Tin's granddaddy who convinced the Ruskies to drop the ill begotten project.
by Boquisucio on January 7, 2008 6:50 AM
Cats were used also as messengers in the russian army they were only fed at the comand post and then taken into battle by couriers who would release them with notes to the comand post.
by Spanky on January 7, 2008 7:01 AM
...and shame shame shame on blackhawk in his note above. to even SUGGEST that a crewman should actually DISMOUNT(!!!) with a radio and stroll about the grounds away from his beastie!
(i weep)
by MajMike on January 7, 2008 7:46 AM
I wonder if this Unknown Pooch is a member of the Labor party... or a student, maybe?
by NinjaFluff on January 7, 2008 10:09 AM
Menshevik, I think.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on January 7, 2008 3:45 PM
Voice bubble from tank:
Igor, pass me that open ration tin of corned beef of yours right flippin' now!
by fred on January 8, 2008 10:46 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 26, 2007
H&I Fires* December 26, 1944...
Lieutenant Colonel Creighton Abrams, commanding the 37th Tank Battalion, spearheads the 4th Armored Division relief of the 101st Airborne holding the town of Bastogne.
And this soldier earned the Medal of Honor in Italy.
JOHN ROBERT FOX was a first lieutenant assigned to Cannon Company, 366th Infantry Regiment, 92nd Infantry Division in Sommocolonia, Italy, when he earned his Medal Dec. 26, 1944.
Enemy soldiers dressed as civilians had infiltrated the town that elements of the regiment occupied the night before. The Germans began a full-scale attack about 4 a.m., under an artillery barrage. Outnumbered, the infantry force withdrew, but Fox and his observer party chose to remain on the second floor of a house to direct friendly artillery fire.
By 8 a.m. the attack had progressed to the point where he called in fire near, then onto his own position -- demanding it over the objections of the artillery unit. His body was later found among those of about 100 German soldiers.
After the war, a monument was erected in the city to honor eight Italians killed in the barrage, and one American soldier -- Fox.
As ever. there is more to the story of Lieutenant Fox.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
"His body was later found among those of about 100 German soldiers."
Now _that_ is giving a good account of yourself, and even better if you can arrange for violence to fall on them from far away while doing so.
by
Justthisguy on December 27, 2007 12:21 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 18, 2007
18 December, 1944.
Soldiers of the Big Red One jam the Germans on the northern shoulder of the Bulge.


The 26th Infantry moves up to block the Germans. Read about it here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I have seriously mixed feelings about the picture of the demolished bridge. That's a really cool stone-arch bridge. I wonder who destroyed it, the Germans or our folks.
Blowing stuff up is fun, but bad in general, I think. One should strive to capture rather than destroy when doing war, I think.
Waste is bad, Mmmkay?
by
Justthisguy on December 18, 2007 7:25 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 17, 2007
December 17, 1944. The Ardennes


Want some detail? Click here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I've never understood the strategic validity of the Germans' objective in the Ardennes Offensive.
The objective was supposedly to split the Allied front and drive into the Allied rear, all the way to the English Channel. But why? The Germans had long since lost control of that strategic water (if they ever had it, some say they never did). So, the final objective for their troops, if successful, was to get get into a position where they couldn't sustain themselves, all they could have possibly gained would have been immediately lost as the Allies shifted laterally along the Channel to reposition. It also meant that when defeated, the Wehrmacht would have been in France and Belgium, neither of which were especially favorable places for the Germans to have ended their war at.
The Ardennes campaign used a LOT of resources, resources which could have bought that "negotiating time" that the German General Staff wanted.
Were I the High Commander, I would have used ALL those resources to make the Rhine an even more impenetrable barrier, and not inconsequentially, keeping all my forces within the Fatherland. A quick look at history shows that the Rhine had done more to protect Germany over the years than any military resources, so the military combined with the natural barrier would have been their best bet.
by
Rivrdog on December 17, 2007 11:52 AM
Rivrdog, the answer can be summed up in one word: Hitler.
Operation Wacht am Rhein, which became the Ardennes offensive, was entirely Hitler's brainchild. He conceived it, he developed it, he ordered his generals to implement it. Several of the senior German generals fought for the strategy you suggest, while others favored a smaller offensive to relieve Allied pressure and perhaps achieve a negotiated settlement by destroying a number of Allied divisions without unduly risking the German defensive capability. But Hitler wanted to re-create the dramatic, crushing German assault of spring 1940, and would settle for nothing less. He was too nuts to understand that the Wehrmacht of November 1944 was nothing like the Wehrmacht of four and a half years earlier.
by wolfwalker on December 17, 2007 12:01 PM
Well, good thing you weren't Hitler then, Rivrdog.
Hitler's strategic intent was to split the Allies, and try to force another Dunkirk on the Brits.
Yes, it would have left his forces dangerously exposed, but he felt that the Brits, without a secure base of supply (taking Antwerp would have cut the Brits off from Normandy) would have had to withdraw precipitously.
There is some merit to the idea - by that time in the war, the Brits were at the end of their tether when it came to usable manpower, and the loss of any significant amount of their mechanized combat power in a sea-borne evacuation would have been un-recoverable for quite some time.
As his Generals knew, but Hitler would not/could not acknowledge, the Brits could mount one very stubborn defense, and the US forces on the western side of the penetration would have mounted a furious assault to break the encirclement... as in fact we did, only for our guys in the Ardennes.
Hitler had all sorts of delusions by this time in the war, include hopes the western allies would join him in repelling the Bolshevik Horde.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 17, 2007 12:07 PM
Snerk - I see great minds think alike and post near-simultaneously.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 17, 2007 12:10 PM
One more point to Hitlers Strategy of Splitting the Allies. More to the point splitting the Allies harmony. There was much infighting at this point of the war with the Brits and the Americans. The British were starting to demand a bigger share of the commands and leadership. Ike was having difficulty between choosing between Montgomery's 21st Army Group and Bradley's 12th Army Group. One was achieving asstounding results in the assault on Rhine and the other was bogged down in the northern BENELUX.
The Russians were taking advantage of the wedge by demanding more support for eastern operations. And the United States was lulled into a soft spot of training the replacment Divisions and resting the combat hardened Divisions from Normandy.
It was a gamble and had strategic merit even if it failed tactically.
I think more credit is due to 3rd Army...
by MR T's Haircut on December 18, 2007 2:00 AM
Who was this commander of the First Army who went to pieces?
“As the Ardennes crisis developed, the commander of the First Army had gone to pieces under the strain and was incapable of issuing orders, while the Ninth Army couldn't communicate directly with Bradley. This resulted in Montgomery assuming command of the American First and Ninth Armies in a controversial move approved by Eisenhower…”
See: Wikipedia.
by
Ledger on December 18, 2007 6:58 AM
Commander First Army in December 1944 was General Courtney Hodges. I would question the Wikipedia account, based partly on its opinionated phrasing but mainly on the fact that Hodges retained command of First Army through the end of the war. A commander who "went to pieces" as described would have been permanently relieved, no?
The Battle of the Bulge by Robert Merriam is a decent high-level strategic/tactical examination of the Ardennes Offensive. Merriam says that Eisenhower transferred overall command of First and Ninth Armies from Bradley to Montgomery because both Armies were north of the German breakthrough. Montgomery's HQ was also north of the Bulge, while Bradley's HQ was south. With landlines cut and radio communication unreliable (as it often was in WW2), Bradley didn't have any means of either receiving reports from or sending orders to anybody north of the breakthrough. Montgomery did.
Only overall command was transferred, not direct operational command. Hodges was still Commander First Army; Simpson was still Commander Ninth Army. They simply took orders from Montgomery instead of Bradley for the duration of the battle.
by wolfwalker on December 18, 2007 7:29 AM
General Courtney Hodges commanded the First US Army from August 1944 through his retirement in 1949.
He may have had a bad day or two during the Ardennes, I don't remember, but it couldn't have been too bad.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 18, 2007 7:39 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 16, 2007
December 16, 1944.




All pics courtesy the US National Archives. The first two come from captured german film of the opening phases of the Battle of the Bulge. The last two are US Signal Corps photos of US soldiers on patrol and a destroyed Sherman tank.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
where have you been? I was starting to wonder if the Navy girl was going to have to put something up!
Just teasing, I know it's tough out there.
by
Maggie on December 16, 2007 12:59 PM
BTW, if you are new to the Castle.....go back int he archives and read the entries from last December too.
December 16, 2006
by
Maggie on December 16, 2007 1:09 PM
Yes, they are more complete... reflective of the days of cable-access, vice satellite access.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 16, 2007 1:31 PM
And for an infamous event in history, on December 16, 1966 the U.S. Navy mistakenly granted an officer's commission to John F'ing Kerry.
Why has he only released the "corrected" copy of his DD214 after revision by the BCNR, and not the original? What was the original nature of his discharge. One of his inquiring classmates wants to know.
by John S. on December 16, 2007 3:56 PM
This reminds me of a story. Back in '97, I had recently seen the movie "The Unforgiven", in which a coupla characters debated about whether it hurt more to get shot in cold weather or warm weather.
I had at that time just finished reading Colonel Hackworth's autobiography, in which he mentioned that he had gotten shot in both cold and hot circumstances. I sent him an email asking which hurt more, cold or warm. He replied! (fewer spammers, who need their fingers crushed, then)
As near as I can recall what he told me, it didn't make not too much difference, considering all of the mental, social and physical hurts that were all happening at once. Yeah, that was just his opinion, but he answered my email. That made me feel good for a while
by
Justthisguy on December 16, 2007 6:57 PM
Well, I've not been shot, but I've been cut (and self-inflicted bayonet wounds, too).
I bleed more in hot weather...
by
John of Argghhh! on December 16, 2007 7:34 PM
Yup, viscosity, or sumthin.
Nah, really, vasoconstriction. I hate this compulsive honesty, sometimes. It may not always be in my best interest, when dealing with the other human monkeys.
by
Justthisguy on December 16, 2007 7:59 PM
Hey Armorer, are called that because your armor prevented you being shot with effect?
by JimC on December 16, 2007 8:54 PM
Here's my dad's unit history for the date:
http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/2004/12/december-1944
And here's a pic of the unit's commander during that time. It's very possible that some who read this knew the man, or of the man, as he went on to greater things.
http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/2006/12/a-little-piece-of-military-history
by
Chuck Simmins on December 16, 2007 9:41 PM
I wonder how our modern press would have portrayed those staggering losses during the Battle of the Budge.
I wonder what our MSM would have said about the POWs and their treatment (on both sides).
I glad the WWII fighters did not have our modern MSM.
by
Ledger on December 16, 2007 10:37 PM
I visited with my wife and son, the Cemetery in Hamm, Luxembourg. 45 minutes south of Bastogne. Easy to get to and very BEAUTIFUL and PEACEFUL place. Many many of the fallen from Watch on Rhine/Battle of Bulge are resting here. (of course the most senior buried here is Gen Patton.) There is a memorial depicting the units and actions of Battle of Bulge. As I drove back to Germany, I was struck by the thought and fact of how far Europe has come in such a short period. The only reason I can grasp is because of the termity of the United States and TOTAL Warfare...we had to break the backs of the Germans to ensure this never happened again.
by MR T's Haircut on December 17, 2007 2:02 AM
Nice Panther photo. I always liked that tank.
by
J. on December 17, 2007 7:10 AM
No, Jim. I think my Guardian Angel was working really hard to make things easier on my Mom, since Dad's Guardian Angel was retired to the GA PTS facility as a result of her efforts at keeping each of Dad's 7 Purple Hearts from being a show-stopping Purple Heart.
Dad certainly didn't his angel, or Mom, much of a break in that regard.
Hmmmmm. Perhaps it's significant that all this broke loose after I retired...
Nah. Even *I'm* not that self-centered.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 17, 2007 7:11 AM
J. - Um, that's a Tiger II, not a Panther. Though they *do* look a lot alike from that perspective.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 17, 2007 9:00 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 7, 2007
Pearl Harbor... a little photo-allegory.
Before.

During - the beginning

During - the End.
After. The USS Missouri, moored astern of the USS Arizona. The Instrument of Surrender of the Empire of Japan was signed on the deck of the Missouri

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I consider it a sad irony that the two battleships which memorialize the beginning and the end of the Pacific War share one point in their service records: neither ever performed the function for which she was actually built, engaging enemy warships in the line of battle. Arizona spent most of WW1 as a training and patrol ship, never fired her guns in anger, had a relatively quiet life between the wars and then died on December seventh. Missouri sailed with Fast Carrier Force Pacific Fleet and used her guns against numerous land targets, then did the same in Korea, Vietnam, and finally the 1991 Gulf War. But neither ship ever fired on, or was fired on by, enemy warships.
by wolfwalker on December 7, 2007 10:40 AM
I would say that after the advent of the carrier group, their days were significantly numbered as "ships of the line" that would engage other ships directly.
True even today.
For all we know, modern missiles have rendered the carrier useless beyond a throw away "first strike" before the missiles fly.
by
kat-missouri on December 7, 2007 11:05 AM
John, I wonder sometimes, what have we learned from Pearl Harbor? We start with the history of war, based on the this history, we develop principles of war. Based on these very same principles, we develop the methods of war. Based on these methods of war, we develop weapons of war. Now interlaced through this whole process we also have the laws of warfare. These laws of warfare are both national and international. We are bound to them by LAW! If for any reason we break them the nation's citizens pay the consequences. Many say do not forget Pearl Harbor. My question is this- What have we learned from Pearl Harbor on the principles of war level? Do we still apply them? NOTE: Do I really expect an answer? No, but I do visit the question from time to time. I like the idea of a place in my mind that I have a crock pot where I just let questions slow cook. This is the crock pot of my mind. This is just a question for that very same crock pot in your mind. This is a way to give value to those tragic losses of that "Day of Infamy" in today's world.
Respectfully,
Grumpy
by Grumpy on December 7, 2007 2:11 PM
Kat,
All true. However, what I meant was this: even after Pearl, American battleships did fight in at least a few surface actions. As best I can tell, the USN started WW2 with fifteen old battleships in commission. Two of them were sunk at Pearl Harbor; the rest all saw service of one sort or another during the war. Between 1941 and 1945 the Navy commissioned ten new battleships. Out of those 23, at least six of the old and five of the new ones did see action against enemy ships. But Missouri wasn't one of them.
by wolfwalker on December 7, 2007 4:27 PM
A better question Grumpy would be what did THEY learn from Pearl.
Not much if Sept11 is anything to go by.
by Murray on December 7, 2007 5:03 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 7, 1941: Sunday After Church
[Denizen Commentary - Kat]
My Uncle Donald was ten years old when Pearl Harbor was attacked. He died two years ago from pneumonia. He was in and out of the hospital before that. While he was in the hospital, I went to visit him. We didn't have much in common I thought, so subjects of discussion were hard to come by. He was most often watching college basketball when I came. I was never into basketball.
This particular day was December 7, 2004. I realized that he must have been alive at the time of the attacks so I asked him if he remembered. I don't know what I expected. It was somewhat of an idle question. But, like all those who live through important history, he remembered exactly what he was doing and where.
(continued in flash traffic)
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
My mom was not born yet. There was a seventeen year difference in their age. Uncle Donald said that the day had started like any other day. He, his mother and father got up, got dressed and went to church. They had no idea what had happened. At church, he said it seemed normal. No one spoke or acted as if they knew about the attacks. Most probably didn't.
They drove home and, as they always did, his dad read the Sunday paper while his mom fixed lunch. Every meal was served in the dining room. His mom had three sets of china. The special china she received as a wedding gift that was used for special occasions. The second best china for Sunday dinner and the every day dishes for the family. As always, his mom put out the "second best" china and placed the food on the table before calling them to wash up and come to the table. Lunch was baked ham, carrots and mashed potatoes. His mom had gotten up early to put it in the oven and make fresh bread rolls.
After the food was served, his father led them in a little prayer. His mom got up and went to the side table to turn on the radio for some music while they ate. Instead of music, a reporter was giving the news. The reporter said something terrible had happened and they were waiting for further reports. His mother turned the station, continuing to look for music. Instead, all she found was the news.
Just as she was about to turn off the radio, a reporter repeated the news: Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. Terrible devastation. Number of casualties unknown. Estimated in the thousands.
Uncle Donald said that no one spoke. After listening to the radio for a few minutes, his father left the table and went to the garage. His mom told him to finish eating and started clearing the table. She turned off the radio.
An hour or so later, my grandfather returned from the garage and hung the American flag they usually put up for Independence Day from the front porch. No one spoke about the news. Uncle Donald said that it seemed like the entire street was abandoned.

Ohio Gov. Bricker and family listen to the news of the war in Europe, 1941
That night, as Uncle Donald laid in bed, he heard his parents in the front room. They were listening to the radio. The music was interspersed with patriotic songs and news reports. His parents spoke quietly. He could only make out a few of the words. One of those words was "war".
While this story is not as exciting as the stories from survivors of the attack, it is part of the story of the "Day that will live in infamy." It's an American story that probably happened all over the country. This is how the people heard that America was attacked. This is how they knew we were at war.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
[If the comment that used to reside in the section had been in the H&I, I'd have left it up, because it was mostly self-parody. But this isn't that kind of post, so I elided the off-topic drivel. -the Armorer]
by Blarg on December 7, 2007 1:11 AM
Heh. Gotta love comment editing functions around here. Tools belong in the shed, not in the comments section of a fantastic milblog.
Kat, this is a great story. These events, whether the individuals who remember them participated in them directly or not, shaped how that generation lived the rest of their lives. It's important to remember their experiences as well, because it's not just the Pearl Harbour veterans who won the war, it was the rest of their countrymen who learned of the event this way, and then braced themselves and advanced to 1945.
by
Damian on December 7, 2007 10:35 AM
Heh. Armorer, I kind of thought that it was a bit "off" with all the "happy" part. Hoped it wasn't just me. LOL
Damien. It is very true. My uncle was a boy scout. the end part of this story is that he went on to collect scrap iron, old pots and pans, tires, nylons etc from the neighborhood folks and also sold war bonds. he received a certificate in January 1945 for selling the most war bonds in his region.
It went on to inspire him to join the army in 1948, even though the war was technically "over". he was part of the army of occupation in Germany for a little over two years before serving in Korea. My Uncle spoke German.
the back part of this story: his father was a German immigrant who spoke with a heavy german accent his entire life. They lived in a "German" community where more than half the people still spoke German.
Even in the lead up to the war, my Uncle said my Grandfather was determined that they were "Americans". Of course, his immediate family had been killed or "disappeared" by a paramilitary group in Bavaria shortly after he left in 1921. So, it is no wonder he wanted to disown his heritage.
I may have mentioned it here before, but my grandfather was an "illegal" alien. He stowed away on a boat with one of his cousins to get here. Of course, he later became a naturalized citizen. but it is interesting juxtaposition to modern day thoughts on "aliens".
by
kat-missouri on December 7, 2007 10:59 AM
It's exactly these kinds of everyday, normal American lives' stories that make history so vibrant.
Although my grandparents, mom and dad told me, I haven't asked any of my remaining aunts and uncles what they were doing when they got the news of Pearl Harbor. I know they'll be able to tell me in exquisite detail.
Thanks for the reminder.
by MAJ Arkay on December 7, 2007 12:02 PM
Thanks for sharing this Kat. I've never asked my Dad his thoughts on that day, which is funny when you think how intently we've discussed the military and history and WWII as a subject. We've never discussed it in a personal way. It never occurred to me because he was just seven years old. I'll have to find out how he felt that day.
by
Maggie on December 7, 2007 12:44 PM
It is the difference in time zones that allowed the 'happy morning at church'.
8am in Hawaii is 2pm in New York, 11am in California.
So, it was after lunch that most of America learned of the attack.
by
Marvin on December 7, 2007 4:06 PM
They were in California.
by
kat-missouri on December 7, 2007 4:24 PM
My father was in Brazil at the time. My mother passed away and while I heard of her time after the war, when they were stationed in Germany, I never asked her where she was or what she was doing when Pearl Harbor was attacked. I regret that now...thank you for telling your uncle's story.
by Cricket on December 7, 2007 4:25 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
Denizens
on
Dec 07, 2007
November 22, 2007
Found nailed to a tree in the "dimensional door" part of the Castle demesne.
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our sasety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
(signed) G. Washington
H/t, historical elf Jim C.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours...
by
That 1 Guy on November 22, 2007 9:30 AM
I'm thankful for all of you - Enjoy your day :-)
by
Barb on November 22, 2007 10:25 AM
I'm thankful for the "increase of science" -- you got that right, George!
by
bad cat robot on November 22, 2007 11:34 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
November 18, 2007
Caption Contest.
SWWBO and I walked the creek this morning. There are parts that are like a roadbed, where the shales form the base of the creek, other places are full of broken limestone, pink granite that emigrated from up north during the last glaciation, and the bottom line is, I'm in agony, with the change in weather just killing my knees.
And I've got other stuff to do - so, I'm leaving up the picture of gun drill (?) on the HMS Camperdown during the late 1800s.
Me, I think this is worthy of a caption contest, so, dust off your sense of humor and go for it!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
The original version of "duck and cover".
by
kat-missouri on November 18, 2007 12:12 PM
OK Boys, that dam firing pin has to be some where!
by Glen on November 18, 2007 12:14 PM
OK Boys, that dam firing pin has to be some where!
by Glen on November 18, 2007 12:15 PM
Having run out of shells, the captain realises he has a way of getting rid of unwanted crew.
by rikkochet on November 18, 2007 12:49 PM
And I ain't kidding one little bit.
Youse guys are staying right here all day and all night till someone tells me who ran that pole down the barrel and out the other end with the flag on it that said "Bang" while the Admiral's Gig passed by.
by
jim b on November 18, 2007 1:45 PM
The first rehearsal of "In The Navy" did not begin well.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on November 18, 2007 2:09 PM
In an attempt to modernize boarding procedures, the navy tests the newest ship-to-ship transfer technique.
by A1C Dave on November 18, 2007 2:51 PM
The Chief says his contact lens is down here somewhere!
by fdcol63 on November 18, 2007 6:05 PM
When the mount captain says grovel...
by Old Fat Sailor on November 18, 2007 6:45 PM
Old hazing ritual: snorting gunpowder while doing the 'worm'.
by Blackhawk on November 18, 2007 6:56 PM
I've heard of "spit and polish" but this is ridiculous.
by
kat-missouri on November 18, 2007 7:03 PM
No, no, no; you can't rotate the turret that way!
by Brad on November 18, 2007 10:49 PM
Sorry about the knees and that's dang ouchy (I have a somewhat bad knee m'self) but think of the advantages! Your largeness may have stressed-out your knees, but it would also allow you to kill me by tripping and falling on me!
I will now drink moar and try to think of a smartass caption.
by
Justthisguy on November 18, 2007 10:58 PM
Oh holy piece, we thank thee, that we are suffered to be in the presence of thy holy breech, which is made of steel, unlike the breeches of our fellow sailors, which are made of candy, and we humbly beg pardon for worshipping other sailors' breeches instead of thy breech.
by
Justthisguy on November 18, 2007 11:14 PM
"Now I know I dropped that contact here somewhere!"
Or
"There it is!...the Jesus Pin!
by Ernie B on November 19, 2007 12:26 AM
"all hail our lord and master...the gun"...
by Richard on November 19, 2007 3:24 AM
"..and the charge shall be SIX, and SIX it shall be! Neither FIVE nor SEVEN, but SIX. Nor shall it be FOUR, that's right out! All prostrate before the charge!"
by MajMike on November 19, 2007 8:28 AM
What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals!
Can we get up now, Chief?
by
BloodSpite on November 19, 2007 9:37 AM
Now, Lesson #1: Armstrong, not Martini-Henry.
Apropos nothing urgent: "Globe and Anchor".
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on November 19, 2007 12:41 PM
We used have to get up every morning at 10:30 at night, 1/2 and hour before we went to quarters, and lick the turret clean with out tongues.
Ay, and you tell that to the gunners of today, and they don't believe ya.....
by Roachman on November 19, 2007 12:53 PM
*our tongues*
must preview posts
by Roachman on November 19, 2007 12:56 PM
I dunno, Roachman - enough splinters in that decking, you could be more accurate with your initial entry...
by
John of Argghhh! on November 19, 2007 1:09 PM
New crew members learn the chief wasn't kidding when he said "if you idiots spill the power charge you will be cleaning up the mess with your tongues".
by
Andrew on November 19, 2007 3:49 PM
The original definition of the phrase, "Cannon Fodder."
Appearing at upper right (half-cropped) is Cannon Mudder...
by
BillT on November 19, 2007 8:31 PM
"lick the turret clean with out tongues"
Boy... now THAT'S rough! At least when *I* was young we got to clean it WITH our tongues.
;-)
by AFSister on November 19, 2007 10:49 PM
Roll, Roll your boat...
by MR T's Haircut on November 20, 2007 2:19 AM
"Gunnilingus" drills.
thanks, AFSister. LOL
by fdcol63 on November 20, 2007 10:04 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
September 21, 2007
Everything Old Is New On the YaddaYaddaYadda...
John seems to be obsessing with quizzes lately, so I figured I'd recycle this from one of my first appearances. As always, you get context -- during the last couple of days of our Boz rotation, we watched our replacements finish making a hash out of everything assuming their responsibilities for everything and everyone in the MND-North AO, thereby leaving us with nothing to do except scratch our nu precious little in the way of meaningful work.
Devil, meet idle hands. Idle hands, meet keyboard.
Took darn near an hour, but I ratcheted up a quiz, slapped it in e-mail, triggered "Everybody Who's Anybody In SFOR Except For The CG" in the "To:" block and clicked "Send."
Now, it's your turn to see if *you* are smart enough to Get Out of Bosnia...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There will be a written examination as the culmination of the SFOR-10 rotation experience. Since there will be no time available to conduct a review of the subject material, you will find a representative sample of the examination below. A passing grade will entitle you to receive your choice of either two college credits from the University of Maryland (Eagle Campus) or one boarding pass on a military aircraft departing Tuzla on the day that you thought you were supposed to be leaving…
Sample SFOR-10 Qualifying Examination
Read each question thoroughly. Answer all questions. Time limit: four hours.
· General Knowledge: Describe everything you know in detail. Be objective, specific and concise.
· World History: Describe the evolution of all major religions from their earliest known origins to the present day. You may substitute Zoroastrianism for any other contemporary fire-worshipping Indo-European religion. Prove which is the one true religion in a manner that will convince everyone else.
· Combat LifeSaving: You will be given a double-edged razor blade, a piece of gauze and a bottle of muscatel. Remove your own appendix. Do not suture until your work has been examined by a proctor. You will have 15 minutes to complete the operation.
· Public Speaking: 2,500 fire-worshipping, gauze-clad muscatel drinkers armed with double-edged razor blades will storm into your classroom as soon as you have finished reading this. Calm them using any ancient language except Demotic Egyptian or Mycenaean Greek. Do not use passive voice.
· Biology: Create life. Estimate the subsequent differences in the rise of human culture if this life-form had developed 500 million years ago, giving special emphasis to the effects on the next Presidential election in Peru. Prove who will win and why.
· Music: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate it and accompany yourself with flugelhorn and drum. You will find a piano in the middle drawer of your desk.
· Psychology: Evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment and repressed frustrations of each of the following individuals: Alexander the Great, Amenhotep II, Gregory of Nicosia, Joan of Arc and Hammurabi. Support your evaluation with at least three quotations from each person's work, cross-referencing as appropriate. It is not necessary to translate.
· Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct a 1/32nd-scale experiment to test your theory.
· Political Science: You will be given a two-Euro coin. Proceed to the nearest pay phone and start World War III. Report on its socio-economic consequences, if any.
· Management Science: Define both management and science and their intrinsic relationship with the works of J.R.R. Tolkein and H.P. Lovecraft. Create a generalized algorithm that can be used to optimize all managerial decisions. Design the systems interface and prepare all software necessary to program this algorithm onto an Apple MacIntosh. Use only those applications found in DOS 3.0.
· Engineering: You will find the disassembled parts of a Civil War-era Sharps rifle in various drawers of your desk. You will also find an instruction manual for making gunpowder, printed in Sanskrit. In 10 minutes, a hungry Kodiak bear will be admitted into your room. Take whatever action you feel appropriate. Be prepared to justify your decision to PETA.
· Economics: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the National Debt. Trace the possible effects on plate tectonics, the wave theory of light and the overcrowding of CB radio channels.
· Epistemology: Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your position.
· Physics: Explain the nature of matter. Your answer must include an evaluation of the impact of the development of quantum mechanics and Boolean algebra, plus the possible effects of beta radiation on the Hubble telescope’s infrared imaging systems.
· Philosophy: Sketch the development of human thought and estimate its significance. Compare this with the development of the other kinds of thought.
· Military History: Explain why the United States never lost a war in which the Army used mules.
· Extra Credit: Define the universe. Give three examples.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Betcha John gets a higher score than Jonah on this one.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I *know* Demotic is a script and not a language -- geez, guys, this is a *joke*...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Ha! this joke is ancient, I still have a copy of the original under the bed somewhere.
by
Trias on September 21, 2007 1:19 AM
Not bad, Bill, ya managed to snark me twice in the opening paragraph, though one is subtle and insidery (the best kind).
My fave is this: Military History, Plato to NATO, in 500 words or less, with examples.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 21, 2007 7:03 AM
The concept is ancient (ca. 1988), but the new, improved SFOR Test is only *five* years old!
Ummm -- okay, around here, five is also kinda ancient...
by
BillT on September 21, 2007 7:08 AM
...ya managed to snark me twice in the opening paragraph...
Two sentences, two snarks -- recycling jokes *and* electrons to stop global warming on Neptune dead in its steamy little tracks...
by
BillT on September 21, 2007 7:19 AM
Gee... I sure hope Bosnia is a nice place to live. Don't think I'd be getting out of there based upon this, LOL.
by AFSister on September 21, 2007 8:54 AM
for the Management Science question, can i substitute Heinlein for Lovecraft?
by MajMike on September 21, 2007 9:50 AM
MajMike: Design the systems interface and prepare all software necessary to program this algorithm onto an Apple MacIntosh. Use only those applications found in DOS 3.0.
I think that requirement pretty much restricts you to Lovecraft (the horror!) and Tolkien (it's gonna take some serious magic).
by
John of Argghhh! on September 21, 2007 10:07 AM
...can i substitute Heinlein for Lovecraft?
Yeah, if you can get him to autograph my copy of Revolt in 2100.
Of course, you're gonna have to cozy up with Lovecraft to do that...
by
BillT on September 21, 2007 10:13 AM
I don't have an appendix any more, it broke. They took my emergency backup appendix too. How about I take out my own spleen instead? Or somebody else's spleen?
by
bad cat robot on September 21, 2007 11:34 AM
Or you could take out your spleen on somebody else.
Or on Lima beans.
by
BillT on September 21, 2007 1:46 PM
Jonah hasn't posted his answers yet, John.
Which means you're ahead...
by
BillT on September 21, 2007 1:49 PM
You forgot the bonus question: Is Hell exothermic?
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on September 21, 2007 2:56 PM
If it is, the furnace is on the fritz.
by
BillT on September 21, 2007 4:14 PM
Hell is exothermic.
... this one was first on the list.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on September 22, 2007 1:28 AM
But is it poikilitically exothermic?
by
BillT on September 22, 2007 3:18 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Sep 21, 2007
September 17, 2007
The Problem with Mangoes...
...is that you've gotta peel them before you can eat them. At least, us furriners do, otherwise you're just asking for a dance lesson -- the Taliban Two-Step. Soooo, because mangoes have a skin like a pear instead of something sensible, like an orange, you either need a long, sharp fingernail (which possesses its own issues, unless you have a really wild guitar-pickin' style) or a knife. And, since mango juice is kinda like superglue when it dries, I figured I needed something a bit easier to clean than my Swiss Army toolbox.
There are other things for sale in the local armament bazaars than bang-sticks (and replicas thereof), which is convenient, because I wasn't planning to peel any mangoes with a Khyber rifle. Got myself a Khyber knife, instead. Welllll, okay, it's a Kashmiri folder, but it *could* have been a Khyber knife if it really, really wanted to.
This one wasn't the biggest one of the bunch (I didn't need an Ilbarsi three-footer and I *don't* have Freudian hangups), but all I needed was a decent mango-peeler, so I got the pocket-size. The decorative extension of the spine is what keeps the peeler from slicing your pocket (and thigh) to ribbons when it's folded -- it serves as the edge guard.
It ratchets open nicely and locks like a champ (the seller made a slashing feint at my jugular to prove it wouldn't flop closed); the latch flips up to unlock the blade when you've finished the mango massacree.
Heh. After the seller took his swipe, he grinned and said, "Hah! You are an officer, yes! Not a flinch! Civilian *always* jump back when I do that!" I just grinned my trademark boyish grin at him and told him, "*Retired* officer." What I *didn't* tell him was he telegraphed his move with a windup, he couldn't have stuck me unless he stepped forward another two feet (and his table was in the way) -- and, since we'd already spent a half hour drinking tea and talking flintlocks, I knew he wanted to make a sale, not a dead gringo.
Besides, I couldn't have backed up even if I wanted to -- I was already leaning against his wall.
I did get the lowdown on shipping arms out of Pakistan, though. The gummint doesn't really care *what* you buy, as long as it's not post-WWII and you pay a couple of bucks export tax. If you know an exporter who ships mass quantities of -- say, carpets -- to the US, you can avoid a lot of the usual red tape at both ends.
"Okay, what's your brother shipping today?"
"Two hundred Nepalese carpets, a functional replica of an SMLE and a Baluchi flintlock shotgun."
"Hmmmmm -- I want to examine those carpets..."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Heh. Maybe poor Joe gets stuck in the decision loop,

but I made all of *my* decisions along those lines instantaneously. Comes from years and years of analyzing the situation then-at-hand and asking this simple question:
Do I drink one bottle or two?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
OMG he's considering Fosters and some poor schmuck has already opened it. I hope that was to pour it out as insecticide.
by
Trias on September 17, 2007 1:38 AM
And in case Neffi had anything snide planned about the rust, it cleaned up very nicely with some steel wool, a Q-tip and alcohol. The bone bolsters are still brownish -- it's not an antique, but it ain't new, either. The seller claimed it's ninety years old, I figure it's about fifty.
by
BillT on September 17, 2007 1:38 AM
OMG he's considering Fosters...
Judging from the *urp* look on his face -- he's *not*...
by
BillT on September 17, 2007 5:47 AM
With a Beck's, don't be perplexed!
by fdcol63 on September 17, 2007 7:14 AM
I could almost hear Joe holler: ***.
by Boquisucio on September 17, 2007 7:52 AM
but how is it at slicing fingers? These are the burning questions...as to the beer, I have no clue.
by Cricket on September 17, 2007 8:30 AM
Snide? Moi? Actually Chief, I'm kinda jealous- that's a nice looking blade and whilst my collecting is of the military variety I do have a side interest in 'ethnic' knives... the *real* ones, as opposed to touristy rubbish.
And it looks quite capable of handling a mango or two.
by Neffi on September 17, 2007 9:03 AM
Hmph, he can get Stella Artois over there, but I can't get it into my shop to sell in Missouri. Stupid state liquor laws....
And, what's in the green tallboy can on the far left? My beeriousity wants to know.
Finally, Becks and Fosters... blugh!
by Kevin on September 17, 2007 10:10 AM
The mango juice, if allowed to ferment into mango vinegar, is capable of dissolving concrete. There are places on the garage floor at our old house which were smooth, and are now quite rough. My Dad left mangoes there and forgot about them.
by
Justthisguy on September 17, 2007 10:31 AM
but how is it at slicing fingers?
With the edge I put on it, it should make a beeline for bone. Of course, "I sliced my finger off with a Kashmiri Folding Mango Knife" doesn't quite sing the way "I bayoneted myself today" does, do I wouldn't be able to parlay that into a Barney-meet.
Speaking of singing, how's Ry's Redwood Rest Stop plaque-naming contest going?
My Dad left mangoes there and forgot about them.
Urk. Had to have happened in cool weather, or the solid wall of fruit flies would have been a dead giveaway...
by
BillT on September 17, 2007 11:48 AM
Nice mango-slicer, Bill. Even folded up, that's a big knife to haul around in one's pocket!
by
Barb on September 17, 2007 12:53 PM
Of course, "I sliced my finger off with a Kashmiri Folding Mango Knife" doesn't quite sing the way "I bayoneted myself today" does, do I wouldn't be able to parlay that into a Barney-meet.
Such petty jealousy from the little people.
We sniff and walk on.
No doubt tripping because our nose is in the air...
And you didn't bring me any presents back, either!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 17, 2007 1:17 PM
I'm sure SugarButtons has a *plentiful* supply of the local microfauna that he could share with you ...
by
bad cat robot on September 17, 2007 2:12 PM
Even folded up, that's a big knife to haul around in one's pocket!
Oh sure, Brab- like he's gonna tell anyone it's a *knife*...!
by Neffi on September 17, 2007 2:49 PM
Oh sure, Brab- like he's gonna tell anyone it's a *knife*...!
Sure, I do.
I also tell them it's a great counterbalance...
And you didn't bring me any presents back, either!
That Monmouth trip still on?
by
BillT on September 17, 2007 6:25 PM
Um, no. I'm going to Benning, instead. Closest I got to where you are was this weekend...
by
John of Argghhh! on September 17, 2007 6:32 PM
Umm, Chief, there is no cool weather here, except for a random week or two around Christmas and the Feast of the Circumcision.
No, Dad, like m'self I'm afraid, refused to take notice of things he didn't care about.
Drove Mom nuts, it did.
.
by
Justthisguy on September 17, 2007 7:14 PM
Oh, and when Hurricane Charlie, I think it was, went through here, it knocked all of the mangoes off of our trees. I industriously picked them all up, and put them up on the camper-top on my truck, to get dry and ripe. I had gone for a walk and hurt my aged knee, after that, and was lying up and resting, and healing.
I heard some motor noises outside, thought it was the trash collectors.
A bit later I went out and saw that all of my carefully salvaged mangoes were gone!
Dang! We were in a declared state of emergency then! Had I seen that looter doing that (yes he was a looter) I could have lawfully shot him dead dead dead. In the liver.
Argghh
by
Justthisguy on September 17, 2007 7:25 PM
h.
.
by
Justthisguy on September 17, 2007 7:30 PM
Dang. That was quick. We must have googlebots in the draperies...
by
BillT on September 17, 2007 7:38 PM
-5 for Spelling. +5 for quick recovery.
Bill - Snerk. But yes, once we got to a page rank of six or so, the Googlebot started coming around about every 4 hours or so.
But they might be hiding in the drapes.
We'll have Ry take them out for airing and whacking!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 17, 2007 8:23 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Sep 17, 2007
September 3, 2007
Might as well make it a three-fer...
Whew! Alla us posting in one day. Must be a national holiday or something...
Since we're all here jointly - I thought I'd post a little something about the utility of Jointness....
From Al Nofi's CIC over at Strategy Page:
"'Down 200!' No, Wait, I Mean 'Over 200!'"
Among the more amusing differences between the Army and the Navy in the years prior to World War II was the way in which observers monitoring the fall of artillery rounds were wont to call in corrections.
Navy and Marine procedures called for reporting the correction to be made, while Army procedures called for reporting the error that had been made. That is, if a Navy or Marine observer said "Down 200" he was saying the a round had fallen 200 yards beyond the target, whereas if an Army observer had said this he would have meant that the round had fallen 200 yards short of the target.
Needless to say, this difference could easily have had some tragic consequences. Fortunately the discrepancy was discovered during joint amphibious training early in 1942. Just why this discovery occurred in 1942 is difficult to determine, since by then the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps had been practicing amphibious operations together for about two years.
The Navy won that TTP* fight - an Army observer reports the correction, not the error.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
...an Army observer reports the correction, not the error.
Unlike some reps of the MSM, which don't report either one...
by
BillT on September 3, 2007 11:41 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 13, 2007
A thought for the Copperheads...
"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun.... The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is -- oblivion."
~~ Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs
I wonder how General Petraeus' memoirs will read...
Confused by the term "Copperhead?" Click here. There's room for argument all around the war. There are plenty of people making the case for principled opposition (though I believe a good chunk of the political opposition to be opportunist) and I recently ran into someone who is war-weary and casualty-conscious in a way that surprised me.
One problem for the conduct of this war is that we've not actually declared it a war (for good reasons and bad) and the administration is painted into the corner of what would traditionally be considered campaigns of an overall war have been mounted as separately authorized undertakings - kind of like WWII being conducted with Congress authorizing the separate Army and Navy campaigns in the Pacific, and each invasion in Europe, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and finally, France - with a re-authorization needed to take the war into Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany.
But, since we've decided to do this without a draft, and don't consider the individual fights to be true battles for survival - that may be apt, I suppose...
Whatcha think?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Yes. I believe that is our current situation. When we chose the misnomer of "pre-emption" in Iraq, that is how people decided it was a "war of choice" rather than necessity.
I think it will be interesting to read Petraeus' memoirs particularly how he reacts to now being labeled Bush's political hack instead of being given his due as a commander who, through trial and error during his first mission as a field commander in Northern Iraq, developed an idea for counter-insurgency that actually worked and then presented it as n option for the entire nation which the president bought into and which meets the president's goals.
arguably, it is the political goals of the civilian controlled government that the military must plan to meet. It is an instrument to enforce those political goals, not the instrument which makes it. while it can shape the final goals through advice and reporting of the ground situation, it never, ever sets them.
I was just reading this op-ed from Real Clear politics: Salute and Disobey Hat tip SWJ; which basically approaches this subject from three points of views, mostly refuting Desch's arguments regarding what the generals should have or would have done for planning of Iraq and what the civilian administration should have done in re-action. Basically, he advocates that the administration and Rumsfeld should have provided over all objectives and gotten the hell out of the way. Richard Meyers, former Chief of Staff, totally disagreed.
Desch went on to reply with a total dress down of Petreaus as mentioned earlier: a political general.
an interesting read and goes along with your post.
If more time later, I plan to address this op-ed because it basically represents the difficulty of balancing civilian goals, civilian control and military operations.
by
kat-missouri on August 13, 2007 10:00 AM
General Grant's statements might have been true, once; they haven't since Vietnam, and possibly Korea.
Now it's seen as a feature.
I don't know how to persuade that significant proportion of our population that there really is a valid threat. But days after 9/11, there were teach ins being organized at my university to agitate against "bombing Afghanistan," as they put it. Some people refuse to be convinced.
As far as our armed forces' size and strength, is a draft really necessary? We had larger active-suty, reserve, and national guard forces in the 80s & early 90s, and did it with volunteers.
I don't know if it's possible to do that now - the resident brain trust could do that much better than I - but it is an option that doesn't seem to be discussed much. But then I've been away for a while.
by
UtahMan on August 13, 2007 10:25 AM
Actually, U-M, the "why is recruiting hard now when it wasn't in the 80's" question is being bruited about at the watercolor.
On offer as contributing circumstances...
1. There *is* a shooting war on. This tends to discourage the "but I only did it for the GI Bill" types.
2. The economy, as a whole, is in pretty good shape, reducing that incentive, despite the Democrat's and Anti's use of that shibboleth in terms of who serves.
3. The available prime demographic is smaller.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 13, 2007 11:58 AM
Dunnigan & company over at Strategypage have also claimed that our smaller forces are better, man for man (and woman for woman {g}) than those 80s or 90s forces.
If I read their logic correctly, it goes back to quality over quantity. I'm sure the regulars here would agree that literally quadrupling special forces slots would result in an overall less-capable force. D & Co. argue something similar would occur if we greatly increased conventional forces.
John: you've probably already seen this, but just in case: Why Congress Has Not Declared War Since World War II.
by
Casey Tompkins on August 13, 2007 2:38 PM
Casey - clearly the current forces are better, soldier for soldier, and unit for unit, than the units I served in in the 80's (which, on balance compared to most militaries I partnered with over the years - were at least as good, and oft times better).
The question still remains, are they sufficient to the task?
My answer - if we're going to do major combat operations or smash-and-grab punitive actions, they probably are.
If we're going to do things like Iraq again, absent a large multi-national contingent with serious numbers and capabilities - they are not.
However, as I've oft-times stated, I'm not all that keen on what we chose to do in Iraq, and was not from before the time it became apparent that it wasn't going our way - so I think our forces are about the right size for what we need - and that we've let our wants, vice our needs, put us in this corner... kinda like living on credit, except there are lives at stake.
That said - we did it, we need to give it an honest shot and try to clean it up.
But I hope the lesson is taken to heart - it's just a hell of a lot harder to knock a society onto a different path than we accepted.
And I lay that lesson at the doorstep of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, and their advisors who championed the idea.
This does not mean I'm going to vote for any of the Democrat candidates currently running... just in case someone was running out to check my registration (which is *undeclared* - I still haven't picked a party...)
by
John of Argghhh! on August 13, 2007 3:35 PM
This is so frustrating. It seemed to me to be the right thing to do at the time. Saddam was thumbing his nose at the U.N. sanctions. He was shooting at our planes. Terrorists were using Iraq as a way station on their path to jihad. His actions made it appear as if he were trying to hide evidence of a significant WMD ability, if not actual program.
Four years in I'm wondering. I discounted the usual suspects; the peace-at-all-cost crowd, the bomb-them-back-to-the-stone-age group and nutcases on both the right and left. I tried to evaluate the evidence we were presented before deciding to support Bush's decision.
From my admittedly civilian viewpoint we went about the business too tentatively. I think we should have surged sooner. I understand we were trying to bring the provisional Iraqi government into the process but at what price?
Despite any misgivings I might have about the conduct of the war I still support Bush's decision. At the time he made it what else should he have done?
I don't see how we can conduct successful law enforcement actions against the overall terrorist threat. While using the military might be a bad fit trying to use law enforcement is a worse one. We're in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.
You're never going to convince certain segment of society of the need to use force, no matter how necessary it might be for survival. Their power to delude themselves is more powerful than anyone else's power to reason with them. I'm not saying they're stupid, just unwilling to see past their own prejudice.
What I fear most is some sort of meaningless "ceasefire" that politicians say is a way to achieve peace with honor that solves nothing and merely postpones the eventual escalation of terror.
I've managed to depress myself, if not anyone else so I'll stop here. Slog, slog, slog.
by NevadaDailySteve on August 13, 2007 4:27 PM
Steve - I'm just not a fan of pre-emptive war absent the kind of compelling case the Israelis had in 1967.
Doesn't mean I'm right.
I didn't like Kosovo, either, though that has thus far certainly worked out better, being a completely different case.
I can live with targeted smash and grabs, but I'm just not happy with being the guy who starts the war.
I understand that's surrendering the initiative. But the military is a pretty brute force approach to things.
Nothing is as simple when viewed from the past looking to the future as it is looking from the then-future to the past.
Which is one of those things I dislike about Monday Morning Quarterbacking historians and others.
I'm at least consistent - I don't like us starting things, absent a more compelling consensus or clear and present danger, whether they are going seemingly well (Bosnia/Kosovo) or not-so-well (Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) - if for no other reason than I don't see any reason to suspect the American people will support a long endeavor that carries with it dribbles of body bags stuff with Americans. They'll support a years long effort with lots of American body bags if they see a compelling danger (ala WWII) but we just don't have the stomach for a long-running war with casualties.
Oh, I know it would help if the press didn't portray seemingly nothing but the bad stuff, etc, leave aside their biases, but the reality is - the American people like relatively neat, somewhat tidy solutions.
They just don't like their wars like that. I don't think anybody planning the war thought that the people were going to be more supportive than they have been, either - Rumsfeld, et.al., just believed they had found a New Way that was going to get them around that problem - especially after the somewhat unique example of the Afghanistan campaign.
I think they were ambushed by the reality of it all, as well.
Just one guy's relative (around here, anyway) minority opinion...
by
John of Argghhh! on August 13, 2007 4:49 PM
I guess, John, the question remains: If the American public doesn't see it as a compelling threat, will they be convinced at a point in time where it would require a massive campaign (WWII in scope and casualties, if not more) to put a stop to it, if at all.
Being on campus, many in my age group will be blind untill the last day, possibly even beyond that. Some will dhimmi right away, working against the 'freedoms' that they so cherish.
This is just the two cents of a college punk, however.
by GeoSTI on August 13, 2007 6:18 PM
Geo - *most* populations are like that, valuing life, however constrained, over strife.
Tyrants rely on it.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 13, 2007 7:08 PM
Rumsfeld, et.al., just believed they had found a New Way that was going to get them around that problem - especially after the somewhat unique example of the Afghanistan campaign.
That New Way was, unfortunately, a rehash of MacNamara's failed ideas about Vietnam -- the Afghanistan campaign wasn't just unique, it was an anomaly. Carter stepped into the same hi-tech trap in the '70s when he appointed Stansfield Turned to "reform" the CIA by removing HUMINT and replacing it with ELINT.
I think there are a couple of us still around who remember how well *that* went, and not just in Iran...
Technology's a really handy tool in warfare, but never make the mistake of believing it can be the entire toolbox.
by
BillT on August 13, 2007 10:08 PM
There was a book about the Viet Nam thing, written by a reluctant combatant. It was "If I Die in a Combat Zone", I think. The author was ready to split for Canada, had funny papers and false clothes and all that and was right on the border, when lying awake late at night his philosophy major and reading of Socrates came back to haunt him.
Socrates could easily have escaped; his friends had a ship waiting and were ready to bribe the jailors. Socrates considered that his polity had raised him, and protected him before, as he had protected it before as an infantryman, and that he had no right to go against its laws, though they did injustice to him in that instance.
The writer of the book changed his mind, showed up for his draft notice, and got to experience the absolute polar opposites of
1. A KewlManly&Wonderful officer to his being RTO to said officer, being Eagle-Scout-like in his virtues and also
2. A Despicable loathesome imitation of an officer who got one of his own men run over by one of his own tracks, and killed, because the doofus wasn't paying attention
by
Justthisguy on August 13, 2007 11:58 PM
P.s. I don't think either of said officers got what they deserved, at least in this life.
by
Justthisguy on August 14, 2007 12:03 AM
The author was ready to split for Canada, had funny papers and false clothes and all that and was right on the border, when lying awake late at night his philosophy major and reading of Socrates came back to haunt him.
And we'd be in a sorrier world without the full impact of Socrates' action. Plato would likely have viewed him as a hypocrite and opted to pursue a career as a math teacher.
by
BillT on August 14, 2007 1:24 AM
Dang, Chief, I think there comes a time for every thoughtful guy who fancies himself to be a grownup, when he has to consider the question:
Just exactly what, would I rather die than put up with.
This might be an urgent question at times for those in the military trade.
It really is a very ancient philosophical question, though.
I'm afraid my answer might depend on my emotional state induced by whomever might be trying to make me consider the question.
(I mean, like, in the field, yaknow)
by
Justthisguy on August 14, 2007 1:59 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 8, 2007
Chunuk Bair

Chunuk Bair.
That's why the Kiwi flag whips from the staff at Castle Argghhh! today. A battle in the Gallipoli campaign of the Great War.
As Kiwi and Castle Metalsmith Murray notes at his place:
In the early hours of this day in 1915 the Wellington battalion under Col William George Malone took Chunuk Bair, the highest point reached by the allied forces during the Gallipoli campaign. The previous day Malone had refused to advance up Rhododendron Ridge after the Aucklanders had just taken over three hundred casualties in 20 minutes attempting to make the attack under concentrated machinegun fire.
He made his attack under cover of darkness without casualties.
Under Malones leadership they held the crest under constant enfilade machinegun fire and repeated assaults which they threw back with bombs, bullets and the bayonet. Withdrawing from the crest didn’t occur to them. In the late afternoon when the fighting died down Malone stood up to survey the area and was killed by a shell from a Royal Navy destroyer. The claim has been made that it was “either a navy destroyer or New Zealand artillery” became popular and this has more recently morphed into “missdirected New Zealand artillery”. I’m not a fan of revisionism and my source is one of the few Wellingtons who survived Chunuk. “I saw the destroyer swing about then fire.”
That evening they were relieved but mixed troops mainly from the New Zealand Brigade under Col Meldrum. This force withstood more determined Turkish attacks all the follwing day and were finally relieved by two British battalions. The Turks threw them off 20 minutes later, routing the British who did not halt their flight untill New Zealand machineguns encourged them to stop moving down the hill.
Few if any of the Wellinton wounded left on Chunuk Bair seem to have survived the Turk reocupation. During the entire campaign just over 20 New Zealanders were taken prisoner by the Turks, all had been incapacitated by their wounds. It is resonable to expect that of 700 men a high proportion of wounded would have been alive when the hill was retaken.
Of the 700 who took and held the feature reports are conflicted as to how many survived. Multiple sources number 79 has having not been wounded but none of these list any wounded. Other sources detail 79 as having come down the hill with only 11 unwounded. Another source puts the numbers as 760 men of whom 711 became casualties.
Either way the unit was destroyed.
There's more, and you should read it - over at Murray's place, Hitting Metal With A Hammer.
July 24, 2007
Interesting photos...
...looking at this picture of England during the Blitz - some of the inspiration for Dr. Who becomes apparent.

Then there's this fascinating little horse-drawn gizmo from the drafting tables of Krupp.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Those horsie-drawn Krupp mobil pillboxes turn up in the most surprizing places. I found five of them in Chile...three in Army Camo where I couldn't photograph them (no pics allowed, burly young men with automatic weapons to enforce this rule) and two at the wonderful beachside Museum of Naval Armaments next to the Escola de same-same. Got some nice pics of those (along with some other hardware that you might find of interest). There used to be shots of a nicely restored one inside and out on the AFV Interiors website (of sainted memory) now no longer available, but it's pretty much what you'd expect inside. If you want more detailed shots, just email me, I got's some.
by DougK on July 24, 2007 8:56 AM
Well, whaddaya' know...here's a link to a thread on it...with some of the stuff mentioned above (pics included). Enjoy....
http://com-central.net/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=33710&highlight=chile#33710
by DougK on July 24, 2007 9:03 AM
Doug - one can *always* stuff my inbox with photos of milgear!
by
John of Argghhh! on July 24, 2007 9:20 AM
John,
Email me that addy (our email is on the fritz at the moment, but it'll be up soon) and I'll file it. I travel internationally and moderate the AFV forum over 'yonder and get into some purty interesting places (generally places with AFV's and artillery, sometimes wingy-things...), often with a camera. Access sometimes exceeds what you might ordinarily expect. I'll try to send you some of the "less usual" or more challenging to identify. Some of the more memorable lately have been Romania, Poland and Argentina. (Boy, do they have a great museum in Bucharest...you'd go apoplectic.)
by DougK on July 24, 2007 9:54 AM
I can't help but snork at that first photo. Ok, really at whoever had the idea of putting handles on the top of the 'baby helmets'.
And for the mobile pillbox - something tells me no one ever attempted to fire it on the move more than once (not that it was intended to do so, just that I can see someone having a sudden 'good idea' when attacked).
by KCSteve on July 24, 2007 1:01 PM
KEWL!
I'm diggin' the baby gas-helmets-with-handles!!!
Kind of like the forerunner to the child harness systems I refer to as 'kid on a leash'.
hehe!
by AFSister on July 24, 2007 1:37 PM
A little more detail on the "Krupp Mobile Pillbox"
or more correctly, the fahrbare Panzerlafette usually, just "Fahrpanzer". The best source on this for pics since the loss of the AFV Interiors page of Mike Kendall (*sniff, sniff*) is this one:
http://www.landships.freeservers.com/new_pages/matador__fahrpanzer_kitreview.htm
Nice interior views of the one on display in Brussels.
Intended for provisional defense of static positions (think, semi-permanent). Variations of this item were also put on rails. Served for a long time. Quite a few were built.
by DougK on July 24, 2007 2:01 PM
The fahrpanzer is very interesting but how good was the armor. Could it stop a 7.62 bullet for instance?
by JimC on July 24, 2007 2:57 PM
The horse-drawn fahrpanzer, unlike the rail mounted type, had relatively uniform armor thickness and was not necessarily expected to be in defilade like the other type, which had thick dome armor, but thin sides. I was able to examine the former type up close and personal and it's my impression that it would have defeated most sorts of small arms up through .30 cal MG's common through the first war. AT rifles and .50 cal certainly not, but that's not when or for what it was designed. I think it's safe to say you'd be safe from most WWI infantry weapons, grenade and smallish shell fragments. In other words, it's better than nothing.
by DougK on July 24, 2007 3:31 PM
Well, if you *like* being in a tin can with little lateral observation ability, perhaps it's better than nothing...
Certainly probably for riding out mortar and artillery barrages, but in an infantry fight?
Hmmmmmm.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 24, 2007 3:38 PM
I don't think it was intended that the opposing infantry really get that close...I was just addressing the question posed...that of penetration. While it does lack for lateral visability, the cupola dome does rotate, to provide fires. I don't have the impression it was expected to operate unsupported, and it did have a crew of 6, not all of which were to be inside or just holding the horses. ;-)
by DougK on July 24, 2007 3:58 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 21, 2007
This one's for you, Jim.
These are the colors that fly from the Castle staffs this day.

On the 21st of July beneath a burning sun,
McDowell met the Southern troops in battle at Bull Run.
Above the Union vanguard was proudly dancing seen,
Beside the starry banner, old Erin's flag of green!
Colonel Corcoran led the 69th on that eventful day.
I wish the Prince of Wales were there to see him in the fray!
His charge upon the batteries was a most glorious scene.
With gallant New York firemen and the boys that wear the green
In the hottest of the fire there rode along the line,
A captain of the Zouave band, crying "Now, boys, is your time!"
Ah, who is he so proudly rides with bold and dauntless mien?
'Tis Thomas Francis Meagher of Erin's isle of green.
The colors of the 69th, I say it without shame,
Were taken in the struggle to swell the victor's fame!
But Farnham's dashing Zouaves, that run with the machine
Retook them in a moment with the boys that wore the green.
Being overpowered by numbers our troops were forced to flee,
The Southern Black Horse Cavalry on them charged furiously!
But in that hour of peril the flying mass to screen,
Stood the gallant New York firemen with the boys that wore the green!
Oh, the boys of the 69th, they are a gallant band.
Bolder never drew a sword for their adopted land!
Amongst the fallen heroes a braver had not been
Than you, lamented Haggerty of Erin's isle of green!
Farewell, my gallant countrymen who fell that fatal day.
Farewell, ye noble firemen, now mould'ring in the clay.
While blooms the leafy shamrock, whilst runs the old machine
Your deeds will live bold Red Shirts and boys that wore the green!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Hey! Just a minute,now! We had valiant Irishmen on *our* side, too! Ours had been here longer, had a stake in the polity, weren't recently-arrived deluded mercenary cannon-fodder!
Pppffbbt!
(Yes the guys of whom you write were valiant; that goes without saying, and goes far to explain why The War was so bloody. We Celts are good at teh fightin.)
by
Justthisguy on July 21, 2007 9:27 PM
Thanks, John love the flag. Fantastic.
Justthisguy -- Scots-Irish aren't Irish. They are colonists brought in by the English as part of one of their historic jokes. Irish Irish were overwhelmingly in the North.
by Jim C on July 21, 2007 9:49 PM
Jim, we're cousins, with an intra-family fight. Now, the Saxons...
And, yes, we were both badly used by the Saxons, playing us off against each other.
by
Justthiguy on July 21, 2007 10:05 PM
I wonder how many people noticed the US flag is the 34-star flag?
by
John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2007 7:29 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 17, 2007
A window into a soldier of the civil war.
A letter from one of my ancestors, Captain Winston Meriwether, to his wife, Sallie. Spelling per the original. Captain Meriwether, along with his wife and many others of my family, are buried in Linwood Cemetery, Paragould, Arkansas. Wint served on the losing side of the War of Southern Succession, and is probably aghast to know there is a bluebelly Regular amongst his line. My only defense, Wint, is that I came by it honestly, via my Father, and regret it not one bit.
Senatobia, Mississippi, 16 July 1862.
My Darling Wife,
I have written to you every few days but don't expect you have seed but a few of them. I would come over and see you but fear the Yankeys may catch me as I hear Curtis is at Hellany(1) if I hear of their leaving and can get a leave of absence I will come and see my darling Wife. Oh I wish to see you and the family so bad. I have not head a word from you since I saw you. Jeff Thompson (2) is here in command said I am Crazy about you, for the Lords sake if you can get me a Letter to Grenada Miss I am purchasing Commissary stores and have been Ever since I left you. David (3) is with us and well. Bob (4) is in Mobile have a jolly time writes for me to come down but I have so much to do, I keep well am in fine health, but My God if I could see you I would feel a good deal better our Army is in good Condition and will start North shortly as soon is it Rains. havent heard from the Bend (5), I wish I had time to write you a long letter give my love to the family I hope to see you all I hope you all have good health, we haven't got any Whiskey here, but we are all Drunk off of the news from Richmond (6) I hope the war will soon close and we can get home.
I have to write in such a hurry I cant tell you half I want to but I hope I can get to see you before long and talk over Old Acquaintance Sallie keep in good Spirits, dont be uneasy about me, and you know your situation (7) and dont get low spirited. You know what to name the little fellow and raise him to hate and fight the Yankeys It is very hard to be seperated from one that I love above all others, I hope the Yanks may never come to that Country if they do get along the best you can I am compeled to close for for the man is waiting. Send for him he can tell you all the news he lives in the neighbourhood.
Your husband, Wint M.
Notes:
1. Union General Samuel A. Curtis (victor at Pea Ridge) whose troops occupied Helena in early July, 1862.
2. A former Mayor of St. Joseph, Missouri, M. Jeff Thompson had become commander of the pro-secession Missouri State Guard forces in the "Bootheel" region of southeast Missouri in 1861. Later known as the "Swamp Fox," Thompson was captured by Federal troops at Pocahontas, Arkansas, in 1863.
3. James David Meriwether, a younger brother, who died during the war.
4. Robert Miller Meriwether, another younger brother.
5. "The Bend" was evidently the name used to identify the homeplace near Tiptonville. Other sources refer to a bend in the Mississippi River south of Tiptonville as "Meriwether Bend."
6. Probably referring to the "Seven Days" battles of June 26-July 1 when Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, at great cost, checked the Federal advance on Richmond.
7. Sallie was five months pregnant. Robert Winston Meriwether would be born November 17, 1862, near Marianna. The baby was probably name for his Uncle Robert (see note 4), who late named on of his sons... "Winston."
Given that this is the time of year Wint wrote the letter, and I'm feeling all historical thus far this week... I thought all y'all might enjoy a peek into the Civil War, uncivil as it was in these parts.
The family owes a great debt of gratitude to cousin Bobby, Professor Emeritus of History at Hendrix College, Conway, Arkansas, Justice of the Peace, and bit-player (as a Fed, no less) in a Burt Reynolds movie... (and I can't remember which one, dangit!) for his preservation of family treasures and history such as this.
I'm the keeper of the family firearms, natch.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Awww. That was really sweet and a wicked kewl letter. Teaching the little fellow to hate and fight the Yankees.
I betcha he and Sallie and yer mom are having a grand old time.
That was a treat. Thanks.
by Cricket on July 16, 2007 11:29 PM
No worries, Sir! Think of Harry Truman's being refused admission to his own Grandmother's house, because he was wearing a blue uniform.
"Hate and fight the Yankeys"; yep, that's prolly why all four of my Great-Granddaddies joined up. I don't think they bothered much about States' Rights or Negro Slavery, just wanted to kill them some annoying earnest Massachusetts fun-killers.
They seemed to turn into Baptist and Methodist fun-killers themselves, later, at least on the Georgia side of the family... Sigh
by
Justthisguy on July 17, 2007 4:23 AM
WOW! That's DAMN KEWL, John. DAMN KEWL.
The only family Civil War story I have is word-of-mouth, but I heard it directly from my Great-Grandfather, (Papa) Monroe Nelson, back in the early 90's.
Papa is from a little town called Opp, Alabama. The Nelson family has a rich United States history, including two signatures on the Declaration of Independence, so I knew our family was around during the Civil War. My boyfriend and I were picking Papa up and taking him to the site of the family reunion. We passed a field, when Papa started relating a story to us:
I remember my gran-daddy tellin' me about bein a boy, and too young to join the Army. So, when the soldiers marched through town, he went out in the field right there, found a hollowed out log, stretched a skin across it, and kept beat for the soldiers as they marched.
My boyfriend replied, "COOL! You know, my grandfather was in the last Army Cavalry unit on horses!" He was, and should have been, very proud of his grandfather's military service, so he was quite shocked when Papa asked.... "What side was he on?"
Boyfried, flustered, and not sure where this was going, sputtered out "American?"
I.ABOUT.DIED.. because I knew Papa was talking about the North vs. the South... so I had to break the news to him that Bryan's grandfather was "A Northerner, Papa".
He "HARUMMPED", crossed his arms, and just stared out the window, silent.
I, on the other hand, was having a TERRIBLE time controlling my laughter and enjoying the hell out of seeing my boyfriend's "WHAT DID I SAY?????" silent hell in the backseat.
Priceless, I tell you.... priceless.
by AFSister on July 17, 2007 6:38 AM
John - that's a kewl letter, and especially so because it is part of your family history. I had to chuckle when he apologized for not writing a long letter, when his 'short note' is more than most of us write (without a computer) these days!
by
Barb on July 17, 2007 10:44 AM
Smokey and the Bandit with Sallie Fields
Smokey has to make a run for it. Has Jerry Reed. Burt drives a black transam?
that is the only movie I am aware of where Burt Reynolds goes through Arkansas.
by
kat-missouri on July 17, 2007 1:23 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 16, 2007
Making do with what you have...

The narrows at Drøbak, called the Drøbaksundet, is the key natural chokepoint for the naval defence of Oslo, the capital of Norway. Accordingly, in the 1600s fortifications were built at the narrows for that purpose. In the early 1800s the fortress was modernized, upgraded, and in 1855 was named Oscarsborg, in honor of a visit by the King of Sweden (Norway at that time being unified with Sweden).
Of course, as military technology has been wont to do during the era of the Industrial and post-Industrial Revolutions, military realities soon overcame the practical design of the fortress, and the Norwegians upgraded the fortress, adding some nice Krupp products from Germany to the batteries covering the sound, adding an underwater barrier and a torpedo battery to take advantage of that new invention, the Whitehead torpedo, developed by an English engineer Robert Whitehead, working for an Italian company, for the Austro-Hungarian Navy (heh, there's even a Sound of Music tie in there...) The main armament selected were three 280 mm caliber Krupp cannon, and assorted smaller-caliber guns of 150 mm and 57 mm on the mainland across from the fortress. The underwater barrier went from the main islet of Kaholmen southwest to the western side of the fjord, blocking the channel west of the fortress to large vessels.
On April 9, 1940, Oscarsborg received it's first, and only, test by fire. Sometimes you only get one, and if you're a warrior... you better be ready to give it your best. So it was for Oberst (Colonel) Birger Erikson, commander of Oscarsborg. While unable to save Norway from conquest by the Nazis, Oberst Erikson bought the time needed for Norway to evacuate her government and gold reserves to England, the better to continue the fight against the Teuton despoiler from Austria, Herr Corporal Hitler.
I'm sure that Oberst Erikson had some concerns... his guns were all 40+ years old, and while his torpedoes were known to be a sound design, they too were old and had been test-fired a lot over their lifetimes, albeit without their warshot warheads affixed. It was an open question whether or not they would explode when they hit the target.
At 65 years old, with no significant combat experience in his career, and in a chaotic situation out of effective communications with his superiors, Oberst Eriksen knew only that warships were headed his way, and had no knowledge of whether or not they were German or Allied vessels. He was however aware of Norway's official position of neutrality, with the intent of joining the Allies if Norway were attacked.
And his fortress was in a parlous state. His officers were old, with the torpedo battery being commanded by a retired coast artillery officer, Kommandørkaptein Andreas Anderssen, recalled by Eriksen for just that purpose. Most of his garrison troops were new recruits, having started their national service just days before, and he had numbers insufficient to man all his guns.
Up the fjord, large naval units appeared, ghosting out of the morning mists.
After warning shots had been fired and live rounds received in response, resulting in a fatality on his patrol boat, Oberst Eriksen seized his duty with both hands, giving the order to open fire on the approaching vessels at 04:21, and the 280mm Krupp guns, named Aron and Moses, sent rounds downrange at the large vessel 1,800 meters away, joined by the smaller guns on the opposite shore, scoring hits all along the lead vessel, still unidentified as to ship and nationality.
The ship was the German cruiser Blücher. The first hit took out the Blücher's forward fire control station, effectively disabling the ship's forward guns. The second hit took out the aircraft hangar, igniting aviation fuel and infantry munitions stored on deck.
These were the only two rounds Aron and Moses were to ever fire in anger, their inexperienced crews and long reload times effectively taking them out of the battle. If you only get one shot - make it count.
The Blücher's return fire from her secondaries was ineffective. The damage to her fire control station rendered her main guns unusable.
While the fire was raging aboard the Blücher, the smaller Norwegian guns raked her, complicating damage control, as her decks were continually swept by fire. The Blücher was carrying infantry for the attack on Oslo, and the Landsers and crew were undaunted, breaking out into a rousing chorus of "Deutschland über alles" as the Blücher ran the gauntlet of fire.
They would have done better to pay attention to what was just ahead of them.
The Germans' intel was fatally flawed. They were unaware of the commanded by just-recalled-from-retirement Kommandørkaptein Anderssen torpedo battery near the main gun battery, sited to cover the narrowest point of the fjord.
After passing the line of fire of the fortress' gun batteries the cruiser was burning and severely damaged. However, Kapitan Zur See Heinrich Woldag intended to save to save his ship and complete his mission. Too bad for KzS Woldag and the Blücher, she was passing in front of a pissed-off artillery officer and Kommandørkaptein Anderssen had two of his three torpedo tubes ready at a range of only 500m. Like their commander, the torpedoes were old and well-worn 40-year-old Whitehead torpedoes of Austrian manufacture. These torpedoes had been practice-launched well over 200 times before being aimed in earnest - and no-one was certain if they would function or not. Kommandørkaptein Anderssen fired the torperdoes himself, and the torps ran straight, hot, and true. The first torpedo hit near the Blücher's forward turret, and the second in the engine room, which left her drifting out of control.
The torpedoes sealed her fate.

The rest of the flotilla, believing the Blücher had hit mines, reversed back up the narrows, postponing the invasion of Oslo. The Norwegians weren't finished however - as the Germans retreated, the Lützow was hit three times by the Norwegian 150's and her "Anton" and "Bruno" turrets were disabled.
To avoid running aground, the Blücher dropped anchor at Askholmen, south of Oslo. KzS Woldag ordered her torpedoes to be fired into the sides of the fjord to prevent them from exploding aboard the ship. At 06:23, the Blücher capsized and sank, about an hour after she took her first hit. Of the 2,202 crew and troops on board, 830 died. The German Navy, while having failed the soldiers of the invasion force thus far - atoned in a classy way: Blücher's sailors were ordered to give up their life jackets to the troops on board, thus saving the lives of a significant number of soldiers. Kapitan zur See Woldag did not go down with his ship, but died a week or so later in a plane crash.
The Germans weren't finished with Oberst Erikson and Oscarsborg, either. The Lutzow bombarded the fortress with her remaining functional (but damaged) turret, and the fortress was bombed. Oberst Eriksen, being able to keep the German vessels under observation, ordered his gun crews into the tunnels to avoid casualties, knowing he could man the guns in time should the Germans start running down the fjord towards Oslo again. By doing this, Oberst Eriksen suffered no casualties in the fight. The only Norwegian casualties at all were two women killed by stray German rounds and the soldier on the patrol boat.
According to the people who wandered around counting craters, 100 battleship shells and 500 bombs landed in and around the fortress, but no guns were knocked out, nor soldiers killed or wounded.
When he received word that airlanding troops had taken Oslo, but the government was safely away, Oberst Eriksen decided further resistance would be a needless expenditure of lives and surrendered the fortress.
Aside from telling a tale of duty and the old and new soldier's baptism of fire (aside from the excuse of posting the picture of Aron), the other part about this story that intrigued me is the fact that the german-built ships were damaged by german-built guns. And that the pride of the Kriegsmarine, the Blücher, was sunk by Austrian-built torpedoes... since Hitler was Austrian, I just like the symmetry.
And it just goes to show, that most of the time, it's not the gear, it's who mans it that matters.
Update: And one more thing I meant to add... the Blücher was the Kriegsmarine's newest capital ship at the beginning of the war... which just makes the old war dog story even better.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
great story, well told.
gantlet, not a long sleeved glove.
by MajMike on July 16, 2007 8:42 AM
Excellent!
This is why I like visiting. In school I always thought history was the most boring subject of all. It wasn't until my senior year when I got a teacher that knew how to present history that I found out about all the human stories behind the dates.
I mean who really cares if the Battle of Hastings was in 1066 or 1966. It is the stories of the people involved in the battle that fascinate. Harald Hardrada once took a town by convincing the Christian priests that he was dying and wanted a Christian burial. When the 'funeral' procession with Hardrada in a coffin neared the town the priests opened the gates and came out to welcome the mourners. Hardrada rose up and his forces slaughtered the priests and took the town. That's a story.
The story of Oberst Erikson is right up there as a great tale.
Where's some mead when you really need it? Skal!
by
NevadaDailySteve on July 16, 2007 9:23 AM
Great story and an added bonus -- I learned something I hadn't known before.
Glad you're back after yesterday I was wondering if the farm had knocked you down and pinned you.
by JimC on July 16, 2007 9:47 AM
A nice story well told, Armorer. The early days of the Second War are so full of stories of old warhorses getting outfoxed that it's nice to have a story or two where the old generation won the day. :-)
Just one tiny nit-pick, which most people probably wouldn't notice: the Blücher was not a pocket battleship. She was a conventional heavy cruiser design, sister ship to Admiral Hipper. Lutzow was the pocket battleship in the Oslo attack force.
by wolfwalker on July 16, 2007 10:07 AM
Wolfwalker, you're right. I got mixed up in my notes.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 16, 2007 10:17 AM
Oh, and Jim, I jus took a break yesterday. Feeding the monster gets old sometimes, especially since the slugs I press-ganged manage to take weeks and months-long breaks!
by
John of Argghhh! on July 16, 2007 10:19 AM
Excellent sea story, obviously delighting the scribe as the artillerymen get their revenge on the sailors.
For similar tales of great military exploits in difficult circumstances, often (but not always) with a naval connection, visitors will enjoy Commander Salamander's "Full Bore Friday" features. http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/
by
John S. on July 16, 2007 11:46 AM
Geez, John, it's not enough that I give the Salamander a link today in the H&I, yer posting ads for him here!
Sheesh! I may send him a bill!
by
John of Argghhh! on July 16, 2007 11:53 AM
Excellent post!
I linked to it. Would have done a trackback but that appears to not be working.
MC
by
mostly cajun on July 16, 2007 1:26 PM
I also believe Blücher is it only instance of a ship being hit and sunk by LAND based torpedoes.
by Sean on July 16, 2007 11:28 PM
Why is it I hear horses neighing when I hear 'Blucher?'
by Cricket on July 16, 2007 11:32 PM
Hey, it's a Phibian Festival!!!
I thought for a second I was going to have a two-fer, but alas, I guess it is just a case of Great Minds liking the same great story. ;)
by
CDR Salamander on July 17, 2007 5:42 AM
Great story. Thanks for sharing. As is often the case, it's not the gear so much as the man behind the gear that wins or loses the day.
by
Fodder on July 17, 2007 10:04 AM
A rather more serious nit pick - the torpedoes almost certainly were not Austrian built. You might as well say they were Norwegian built because the Norwegians were customers; the only connection the Austrians ever had was from being customers. Also, test firing actually improved torpedo performance, up until the point where they were tested to destruction. It allowed individual variations to be measured and adjusted for, so improving their accuracy.
The article could use more about the Luftwaffe landings. They were effectively unopposed and led to the rapid surrender. Without them, Allied reinforcements would have had a better chance. Incidentally, if you want irony, consider that British and Norwegian forces had to liaise in German, their most widely shared language.
by
P.M.Lawrence on July 19, 2007 9:14 PM
Mr. Lawrence,
I'll have to take your word on the fact that firing torpedoes, up to 200 times, improves their performance and reliability - I freely admit to not having a rating for same, having rather more familiarity with cannon.
As for the origin of the torpedoes, all the sources I ran into said they came from Austria-Hungary.
As for the discussion of the airlandings, the post was about the fight at Drøbaksundet, not the entire Norwegian campaign. Except as noted all else was peripheral to the core of the post, and my experience of blogging is that most people don't stop by to read... books. They drop by for short, interesting articles readably written.
The tidbit about the Allies and the Norwegians using German as their common language is an interesting little bit that if I knew, I had long forgot it, for that thank you.
That may come off in pixels as rather more snippy than I intend it to - my real point being that I was talking the vignette, or scene, and not about the whole play.
And, as ever, I've learned something, which is what makes blogging fun.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 19, 2007 9:27 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 25, 2007
Scat XXVII Makes his last takeoff...
Sorry to be so scarce around these parts lately, but I've been, well, busy. After two months and change, I successfully completed the check for a type rating in the MD-11/MD-10...bottom line, it was lotsa reading (the tech manuals alone are over 3000 pages), testing, evaluating, simulating, yadda, yadda, yadda. But. I'm done. However, before I, um, imbibe to celebrate the end of my academic incarceration, I wanted to officially acknowledge The End of An Era--bad news that hit me like a cue ball in the forehead at a Hill 180 crud game. (Those of you who know what that means, tell the ones who don't.)
Robin's gone.
To quote everyone who knew him, appreciated him for his contribution to America in general and American air power in particular, "S**t."
That was my reaction, anyway. It was like losing a much-loved uncle...and I'd never met him. Wasn't that lucky. But I think I'm alive because of him.
General Olds was a modern-day Billy Mitchell in a lot of ways. At least he got a star, too...which is pretty amazing, given his "bad" attitude, proudly displayed all those years fighter guys had to put up with people who thought war, as we all knew it, was a thing of the past. Nukes were king. Close-in knife fights in airplanes? Pshaw! Gone forever like the biplanes of yesteryear! How bad was it? Wellllll...in the 60s, the US's principal fighter was built without an internal cannon--who needed a gun when you were given those fancy-schmancy radar guided AIM-7s? Dogfights? Pffftt! Just a waste of gas to give the jocks a way to entertain themselves between nuclear Operational Readiness Inspections. Banned.
For those of you who study history, especially military history, you probably see where this is headed. Ready for the next fight? Not on your life...and it WILL be YOUR life.
To which Robin replied, "Bulls**t."
Olds questioned everything (bad for him), thought for himself and never quit (good for us). He continued to practice and think about fighter tactics and wasn't afraid to call a spade a spade. Money Quote:
He recounted how, on one mission as he flew his F-4 Phantom up the Gulf of Tonkin on an air strike against North Vietnam, he told his backseater, "Think about us flying a Navy plane, carrying World War II bombs, a gun sight in front of my face not as good as the one I had in P-38s, and going up there to bomb some railroad yard. We'll face a sky full of flak, missiles and MiGs, but don't worry about it because I've got it on good authority that none of this is happening."
Probably his most famous act was leading Operation Bolo over Hanoi in 1967. It was classic American martial ingenuity that shook the enemy so badly they grounded their jets for three months. Forehead slap-simple in concept (albeit not in execution) and yet physically and psychologically devastating. Bold tactics, violently executed with no losses. Questions?
Guys who survived Vietnam and went on to be general officers paid attention to Olds' emphasis on realistic training, out-of-the-box thinking and aggressive approach to aerial combat tactics, weaponry, exercises and all the other stuff that makes a good air force truly great. That's what I meant earlier when crediting General Olds with saving my bacon. The people who taught me were taught by him and what they taught kept 1) out of enemy jails and 2) out of the national cemetery system.
All of us military goons have our own personal heroes. I think John's is Tony McAuliffe...not sure who Bill's is, Chief Novosel maybe? Robin was mine. I'm not alone.

It takes a lot to make an attack pilot cry but, godd@mmit, this comes REAL close. To the day I die, I'll always remember the pictures of him after a mission "downtown" (Hanoi)--shite-eatin' grin, sweaty and pumped up, flight cap mashed down on his head and looking like he had the world by the short ones. He did.
So here's to you, Boss. I'm thinkin' that martini and big-@SS ceegar tastes pretty good right now. God knows you've earned it.
Now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam.
[Armorer's addendum - Scat XXVII? Click here and all will be made clear.]
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Reach out and touch the face of God, General.
And while the Armorer *is* a fan of Tony McAuliffe, the apex of my military pantheon is Joshua Chamberlain.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 25, 2007 5:43 AM
In short, he was my hero too, ever since I read about Operation Bolo in a dusty library book when I was a teenager.
by TrustButVerify on June 25, 2007 8:08 AM
A moving tribute, Dusty. To have touched so many lives in such a positive way before his ended...that's one hell of a fine thing.
I know it's not his motto or yours, but "Per Ardua Ad Astra," and raise a glass.
by
Damian on June 25, 2007 8:20 AM
Damian - that's the motto of the State of Kansas, too, though they put it "Ad Astra Per Aspera"
by
John of Argghhh! on June 25, 2007 8:51 AM
Here's an obituary from Kunsan AB, current home of the 8th Fighter Wing.
by Oldloadr on June 25, 2007 9:26 AM
Thanks for sharing that with us, Dusty. That was the best tribute I've read; I understand now why he was so important and special to so many.
by
FbL on June 25, 2007 9:46 AM
The History Channel has been showing a series called "Dogfight" and one of the episodes was on Operation Bolo. I especially loved it when they recounted another fighter pilot calling Olds and asking if there were any MiGs in the area. Olds replied, "Get you own!"
What a man, what a warrior!
by Larry J on June 25, 2007 1:01 PM
This is worth the trip just for CanyonAg77's story in the comments...
by
BillT on June 25, 2007 4:28 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 19, 2007
Juneteenth

FREEDOM: MP HELPS BRING HISTORY TO LIFE
By Anna Morelock
Editor
"That's the way it was. Sure was," repeated Wilbur, a slave on the Gilmore plantation as he showed a group of school kids what his life was like as a slave. "Life is rough. It's a cruel life living on Mr. Gilmore's plantation."
Wilbur led the students to the school house window letting them peer inside at the master's children. "That's not for us," he told the kids. "We can look in there, we can peek through the window, but you can't go to school in there ... You can't have any education. You can't read. You can't write. Don't know your name. Can't spell your name - that's not for you."
It's all about institutional slavery around here, Wilbur said. "Institutional slavery keep you dumb where you don't know nothing. That's what it's about." Wilbur, or Lt. Col. Jimmy McConico, commander of the 1001st Military Police Battalion (CID), led three groups of students around the "plantation," June 8 as part of the Juneteenth celebration in Junction City.
Juneteenth , which is also referred to as Freedom Day or Emancipation Day, commemorates the announcement of the abolition of slavery in Texas - more than two years after the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln, which declared the freedom of
all slaves in the Confederate States. Walking around the historic school house and other buildings, McConico told the children about waking up before the sun rose to pick cotton. In
the background, "slaves" stooped over picking "cotton" and going about their daily chores.
"Your ration is 200 pounds of cotton a day," McConico told the kids. "If you don't pick 200 pounds a day you'll get a lashing ... If you pick 205 pounds one day, that'll be your new limit."
Walking around the rest of the plantation, McConico told the children stories about the daily life of the slaves as the roleplayers worked around him.
Standing outside "master's house" McConico was approached by a young soldier in a Union uniform. The soldier was there to deliver news of freedom. "We's free?" he asked in disbelief. "We's free! We's free! Lord have mercy, we's free," he shouted to the other slaves who ran through the field spreading the news to others.
"But then you ask yourself," he said turning to the children. "What are you running to? Where you gonna stay now? You can't read. You can't write. You don't have no house."
At the end of the presentation, one girl looked up to McConico, who was dressed in overalls and had a bit of cotton fluff stuck in the stubble on his face. "Is that story real?" she asked.
"This whole story is true," he answered. A lot of the kids are shocked and it's an eye opening experience for many of them, McConico said. "This is an opportunity to show the children what life was life on a plantation, and actually give them a picture," McConico said, "bring them out here where they can actually see the school and instead of having to read it in a book or talking about it in a classroom we actually bring them out here on the ground where they can see, feel, and touch and smell what it's like to be on a plantation."
It's important for the students to learn about history, said Altermese Kendrick, a Juneteenth committee member and organizer of the event. "It's not just black history; it's American history," Kendrick said. "This is a part of how America came to be, and we can't overlook it. We
can't push it aside. We can't forget that it happened when these people existed, our people and our families existed in a time when it was hardest for America. But at the same time when we look back, the way I see it is, we're only able to go farther because we know where we came
from."
McConico agreed on the importance of educating children about their history. "I think this is a big deal because we need to be able to educate our children about their past from a historical standpoint just so they'll understand who they are as a people, where they came from so they'll
have a better sense of direction in terms of where they are going," he said. Much of the information presented, McConico said he got from the book, "To Be a Slave," by Julius Lester.
"My interest is in working and developing young minds whether it be presenting something on history or whether it's something that's going to inspire and encourage and cause them to be contributing members of society," McConico said. "If I can do that I will have achieved success."
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
"Is that story true?"
I know this girl is probably small, but I hope that we are doing a much better job than I think we are in teaching children history and what it took to be this nation, now, free and prosperous.
It seems that I talk to too many kids who have no idea why we have July 4th or any other national holiday in recognition of our freedom and its defense.
They know turkey day and santa claus day. Nobody knows any of the songs we used to sing when we were kids. There is no "God bless America" or "This Land" or "Battle Hymn of the Republic". All of those I learned in music and it taught me history at the same time.
Does anyone teach that anymore? None of my nieces or nephews know the words of these songs (except where I taught them myself).
Kind of sad, isn't it?
by
kat-missouri on June 19, 2007 9:45 AM
Heh. The number of young professionals who work in the building I'm in, who work *among* a slew of graying, fat, balding eld warriors, who didn't know or understand Memorial Day was almost... stunning.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2007 10:40 AM
I for one hope that at least a few of those children caught the message of that presentation - legislated 'freedom' means nothing if you allow yourself to be kept in institutional slavery through ignorance.
by KCSteve on June 19, 2007 2:51 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 6, 2007
A busy day in history, today is.
June 6th...
1775 NY patriots prevent the Royal Governor from removing weapons from the city - I wonder how many would stand up to the Governor today?
1813 US invasion of Canada halted at Stoney Creek (Ont). Heh. Someday we'll get it right and *beat* them dang Canuckistanians... ;^)
1898 Marines land at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - Prisoners no doubt abused - and Bibles mistreated in anticipation of future operations!

1918 Marines secure Belleau Wood.

Midway! The Tide Turns in the Naval War in the Pacific. The After Action Report of the USS Yorktown.
1942 Japanese troops land on Kiska in the Aleutians. Along with Attu, the only bits of "continental" (hey, they were islands...) US dirt successfully captured during WWII.
1943 Japanese decide to evacuate Kiska, except for a small force that was overwhelmed easily.
1944 D-Day: 150,000-man Allied Expeditionary Force lands in Normandy, France. General Eisenhower coincidentally is unable to attend his son's graduation from West Point.
-The Airborne Drops.

Pegasus Bridge, securely in British hands, is crossed by military vehicles on D-Day plus 1, June 7, 1944. The Trustees of the Imperial War Museum, London

The Pointe du Hoc. 2nd Ranger Battalion storms the cliffs.
-Brits:
Gold Beach
Special Service troops of 47 Royal Marine Commando land at Gold Beach near Le Hamel on D-Day, June 6, 1944. The Trustees of the Imperial War Museum, London
Sword Beach

Mine- and obstacle-clearing tanks of the 27th Armoured Brigade thread toward the shore at Queen sector, Sword Beach, on D-Day, June 6, 1944. The Trustees of the Imperial War Museum, London
-Canadians:
Juno Beach (
en francais)
1st Hussars tanks and men of the 7th Infantry Brigade landing on a crowded beach at Courseulles-sur-Mer, June 6th,1944. Photo by Ken Bell. Department of National Defence / National Archives of Canada,
VAC site:
Canada Remembers.
On board their assault landing crafts, men of the Royal Winnipeg Rifles heading towards their sector of Juno Beach, June 6th, 1944. Photo by Dennis Sullivan. Department of National Defence / National Archives of Canada,
-Americans:
Utah Beach

Soldiers of the 4th Infantry Division wade ashore at Victor sector, Utah Beach, on D-Day, June 6, 1944. Amphibious tanks are lined up at the water's edge. U.S. War Department/National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Omaha Beach

U.S. infantrymen wade from their landing craft toward Omaha Beach on D-Day, June 6, 1944. U.S. Coast Guard/National Archives, Washington, D.C.
-Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., earns the Medal of Honor on Utah Beach. And, like his father before him, dies before it can be awarded. Can anyone name the other Father/Son Medal of Honor holders?
Freedom
isn't
Free.
1949 George Orwell's "1984" published
And, last, but not least, way too long ago for his taste... my brother-in-law Ed was born. Three kids! I reluctantly have to conclude he's been boffing my sister all these years, as there has been no mention of virgin births...
The picture of the Canadian Cemetery at Reviers was shamelessly stolen from these fine Canadians. I hope they can forgive me.
And this couple have some nice pics of the area as it looks today.
Bloodspite has posted his D-Day commemoration post
Murdoc gives us a look at D-Day from the wrong side of the beach.
This YouTube video clip sets music to the beach landing scenes from Saving Private Ryan. The words to the song are, well, simple - but the music and emotion is stirring. H/t to ACE on the video - who has his own post with good linkage in it today, too.
I noticed this bit, in particular:
ACE has a metal-covered pocket New Testament given to Arbie Elroy Hufford in 1943. Inside the cover is a brief letter from FDR, commending the reading of it "as a foundation of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul." If anyone can prove a relation to Arbie, I'll sent it to them.
The Holdings of Argghhh! include a similar armored bible.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
re: Kiska Island and the Aleutians - if you've not read: The Thousand-Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians (Classic Reprint Series (Fairbanks, Alaska), No. 4.) by Brian Garfield; Amazon Link -
http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-0352207-0383925?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=The+Thousand+Mile+War&Go.x=8&Go.y=10
You really ought to. A fascinating, and truly unique look at a little known and less publicized portion of WW II. Just sayin'. ML
by
Mike L on June 6, 2007 8:33 AM
Gee, you mean Arthur and Douglas? AKA the Generals MacArthur.
by JimC on June 6, 2007 8:57 AM
Someone's been BOFFING YOUR SISTER!?!??!
oh, for SHAME.
hehehehehe
by AFSister on June 6, 2007 9:06 AM
Heh. Gee, why am I not surprised *that's* what caught your eye, AFSis.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 6, 2007 9:49 AM
Quite a good collection, John. I am looking forward to listening to one of the Band of Brothers talk of his experiences later today. I'll try to post a report tonight.
BTW - I have enjoyed reading Jeff Shaara's books on the Civil War (carrying on his father's Killer Angels), Revolutionary War, WWI, the Mexican-American war that preceeded the Civil War (and provided a training ground for the military leaders of same). I was unaware of the battle for Belleau Wood until reading "To The Last Man", being a poor student of history. These books are not deep history, but they help me to visualize the key elements and the faces of war. Good reads.
by
Barb on June 6, 2007 10:34 AM
So many to salute and thank on this day, but here's one in particular:
T/5 John J. Pinder, Jr., USA
http://www.nbg-mil-com.de/Pinder/pinder-hist1.jpg
by fdcol63 on June 6, 2007 11:05 AM
Good post. But the MacArthur question was a bit easy. How about naming those awarded TWO Medals of Honor?
Marine6 Sends
by Marine6 on June 6, 2007 11:06 AM
In case one wonders why fdcol is mentioning Tech 5 Pinder - it's because we are both veterans of Pinder Barracks, Zirndorf, Germany.
Which is now a Legoland amusement park.
Which, on balance, is probably a good thing.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 6, 2007 11:13 AM
As for the double-medal holders, I'll start you off.
Captain Tom Custer, brother to George.
There are 18 more. Go for it.
For Jim C., I would note the Irish seem over-represented in the list. 8^)
by
John of Argghhh! on June 6, 2007 11:21 AM
Smedley Butler had two, and was weird in other ways, as well.
by
Justthisguy on June 6, 2007 12:05 PM
Oh, speaking of the invasion in Normandy, today Neal Boortz played the recording of the prayer FGR broadcast on the morning of the invasion, and asked if any listeners heard it live the first time. One guy called up who was 12 at the time, and right choked up to hear it again.
Another guy called up who didn't hear it, because he was actually present at the battle, having jumped in. That geezer claimed to have participated in the 50th anniversary jump, when 70, and also to be one of the six who jumped for the 60th anniversary jump, when 80. Said he did it at night, too.
Neal said to him, "You're crazy!" The guy didn't deny it.
by
Justthisguy on June 6, 2007 12:16 PM
Actually, I noticed all of the other stuff too, and then wrote about it on my blog too. I linked back to you, but I can't get to trackbacks at work.
I just had to egg you on with the sister bit!
(and I see IT WORKED!)
by AFSister on June 6, 2007 12:47 PM
Let us not forget "Devil Dog" Dan Daly a remarkably brave and lucky man.
by JimC on June 6, 2007 4:07 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot. Sergeant Major Daly also won the Navy Cross and the Distinguished Service Cross. I suspect that he is the only two-time MOH awardee and two-time 2nd highest award winner for gallantry in action in our history.
Tom Custer shouldn't count since his brother was involved in the process -- although capturing enemy colors was routinely so rewarded.
by JimC on June 6, 2007 4:17 PM
He mebbe shouldn't count to your jaded eyes, Master C, but no one has pulled the awards, either.
Are you sure George was involved, especially in #2? I know it was a source of irritation to him when Tom was wearing *both* his medals.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 6, 2007 4:27 PM
I suppose we should provide a link to Sergeant Major Daly and his exploits.
And given that I mentioned Belleau Wood today - this seems appropriate, too:
Dan Daly is perhaps best remembered for a famous battle cry delivered during the desperate fighting in Belleau Wood in June 1918. Marines took a terrific pounding on the outskirts of Lucy le Bocage ("Lucy Birdcage" to the A.E.F.) at the fringe of Belleau Wood. They were outnumbered, outgunned and pinned down. Then Daly made history. He ordered an attack. Leaping forward, he yelled to his tired men, "Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?"
by
John of Argghhh! on June 6, 2007 4:29 PM
ahhhhh.. a most wonderful quote, John. "Come on you sons of bitches- do you want to live forever!?!" the battle cry of a nation of non-wusses!
by Were-Kitten on June 6, 2007 9:49 PM
Sometimes it's rather odd to ponder the intriciacies of why one studies certain things ... for example, I found out a little something about the WW1 Battle of Belleau Wood because I was interested in whence came the name for the WW2 Independence class light carrier Belleau Wood.
by wolfwalker on June 7, 2007 12:13 AM
I saw something on Daly on the History Channel back in April. It made me do a little Googling and I saw the quote you referenced above. I liked it so much I wrote a post right away, but then I decided I should set it to pop up on June 6th. I'm glad you have it out here too. What a guy!
by
Maggie on June 7, 2007 9:18 AM
I bought a sheet of stamps which showed the faces of famous Marines, among them Dan Daly, and Basilone, and LeJeune and Puller. Scary-looking badasses, all of them, judging from the pics. (though LeJeune at least cracked a smile for his pic) The two most dangerous-looking seemed to be Daly and Basilone.
by
Justthisguy on June 7, 2007 10:25 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jun 06, 2007
�
Airborne Combat Engineer links with:
D-Day was 63 years ago today
May 24, 2007
Hidden History.
It shows up in the most interesting places. This was new to me, though I'm sure it was an open secret at the time.

DoD Assists in Identification of Missing Vietnam-Era CIA Pilot
The Department of Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) announced today that the remains of an American civilian pilot, missing in action from Vietnam while flying for Civil Air Transport, a proprietary of the CIA, have been identified and returned to his family for burial with full military honors.
He is James B. McGovern Jr. of Elizabeth, N.J.He will be buried tomorrow at Arlington National Cemetery near Washington, D.C.
On May 6, 1954, McGovern, along with his co-pilot, First Officer Wallace A. Buford, and four French servicemen, departed Haiphong, Vietnam, in their Civil Air Transport C-119 on what was to be the last supply drop to the besieged French forces at Camp Isabelle-the remaining French holdout in the battle of Dien Bien Phu.As the aircraft approached the drop zone, it was hit by anti-aircraft fire.The pilots attempted to fly southwest to the relative safety of Laos, but crashed along the Song [River] Ma in Houaphan Province.Only two of the Frenchmen survived