The Importance of Strategic Seaports

Well, it seems we've come to the end. What more is there to say about the relative and absolute superiority of the kriegsmarine over the adjacent branches of the wermacht in WWII, the two branches being, namely, the heer and the luftwaffe, two organizations whose contributions to the german effort pale in comparision to those made by the valiant kriegsmariners, hardy, stout, resilient men who would say nothing to a cut in their rations of grog and rum, men born from the salt of the earth, or, rather, the salt of the sea, men who are men, who were men, who will always be men, that hasn't already been said? And yet, my colleagues are still not content to bow down at my argumentative feet and shower them with praise. Perhaps I shall never convince them. Perhaps, that is the way is was always meant to be. In any case, I leave you, the loyal and faithful hypothetical reader, with this bit of advice: remember the importance of strategic seaports.

Join the Merchant Marine! It's...Aquatic!

Thus far, the kriegsmarine has been the veritable whipping boy for you jackanapes, but, Jonathan and Sam, you have both failed to take into account one major aspect of a nation's navy: the merchant marine. What does the merchant marine do? It transports stuff. To elaborate, stuff necessary to both the war effort and the well-being of a country's citizens/subjects/underlings. Now, here's just a few numbers that are sure to shock those smiles off your faces:

In the Second World War, German U-boats sank nearly 14.7 million tons of allied shipping, which amounts to 2,828 ships (around two thirds of the total allied tonnage lost). The United Kingdom alone suffered the loss of 11.7 million tons, which is 54% of the total Merchant Navy fleet at the outbreak of the Second World War. 30,000 merchant seamen were killed aboard convoy vessels during the war.

That's a lot of stuff, and people, that never got to their intended destinations. I have not been able to determine either the psychological or economic effect of this damage on the British and their allies, but I'm sure it was important enough to warrant some type of recognition from you two that the kriegsmarine wasn't just rum, the lash, etc. They did other stuff too.

Kriegsmarinely Courage

This may be a minor point, but I feel it is necessary to counter some of Sam's more felonious arguments. Sam uses the "statistics" of Iron Cross recipients to make the claim that the men of the heer had more courage and gumption than their naval equivalents. According to teh internets, "the Iron Cross was awarded for bravery in battle as well as other military contributions in a battlefield environment." Well, this is rather easy to accomplish (I assume) with the physical freedom afforded to infantry by the division of men in the heer and by the nature of a terrestial environment, but to bravely split an infinitive and go out, guns-a-blazing, in some attempt for personal glory is not only impractical in the metallic confines of a u-boat, but it would also be a danger to the other men. The operation of these submarines and battleships required a cohesive, less individual way of doing things. In order to win the battle, you had to be a cog in the machine; there was no room for heroic, one-man escapades. Notice that the only two kriegsmarine members mentioned on the above-linked wikipedia page were submarine captains. They were the only ones who could, and should, have been making significant decisions in those settings. In fact, one might say that the true courage required to be in the kriegsmarine made most ineligible for the Iron Cross, and, in fact, one just did say that.

I Could have Written about Transformers...

Though I had the most devastatingly erudite response to Mr. Sam's assertions that the rather Freudian landguns of the heer could, in his parlance, "pwn" the kriegsmarine (hint: my argument involved the u-boats becoming transformers), I have been convinced to change the very nature of my analysis. Instead of tearing at the proverbial throats of my colleagues over which branch of the wermacht would win, nay pwn, in an all-out-war between the three, I am shifting, oh shifting (ever so much!), the focus to which branch of the wermacht played a more important role in the German war effort. Such drastic decisions will require a change in my thesis, and, as of this moment, I am not up to the task, but, suffice to say, it will confirm the awesome superiority of the kriegsmarine!

Father Knows Best: A Missive on the Patriarchal Nature of Familial Relations and Societal Structures in Late 16th Century Protestant Germany

Having signed myself up to research that rather nebulous designation of human communal organization, the family, I found myself overwhelmed. Had I the temerity to venture within the dusty confines of my MEH textbook, a veritable deluge of facts would have rained down upon my person and flattened my frontal lobe. Thus, I was compelled to continue and complete my investigation on youtube. After much time spent researching (that is, watching Soulja Boy music videos with a mixture of amusement and awed horror), I came upon the introduction for a television show that occurred early in American broadcasting history, "Father Knows Best."

What has this to do with late 16th century Protestant Germany, the prospect of receiving which information you so titillatingly promised in your title, you ask of me (and in a rather stilted fashion, I might add). Well, if you hadn't realized this most obvious fact already, "Father Knows Best" was the case at that time, in that place, for those people. Though Luther believed in spiritual equality between the sexes, such was not so where politics and economics were involved. He considered women to be wanton harlots whose shortcomings could only be remedied by the "governance of a godly husband" (Coffin 488). Protestants also elevated the family, as well as the married couple to a position almost of godliness and holiness, and it was up to the father to make sure his little ones were well aware of the who-what and what-now of the finer points of religion. In short, it probably wouldn't have been that fun to be alive in late 16th century Protestant Germany.

The Sinatra Doctrine

When one hears the name Sinatra crooning past their aural lobe, a cascading stream of shimmering vocals comes to mind, or rather, for the less poetic/pretentious-minded, that dude who sang all those jazzy tunes that my grandmama still listens to. But, did you know that he was also the creator of a significant piece of Russian history? Of course you did not, for that previous statement was indubitably false.

Yet this in turn begs the question of why there is a Soviet doctrine named after lil' Frankie (as we referred to Sinatra back at school). Well, I feel I should let wikipedia explain:

"Sinatra Doctrine" was the name that the Soviet government of Mikhail Gorbachev used jokingly to describe its policy of allowing neighboring Warsaw Pact nations to determine their own internal affairs. The name alluded to the Frank Sinatra song "My Way"—the Soviet Union was allowing these nations to go their own way.

Ye gods, was this significant! The Sinatra Doctrine basically thumbed its nose (in the most Russian way possible) at the Brezhnev Doctrine and all it stood for - i.e. Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. My friends, this was the beginning of the end - no! - in fact, my friends, this was the end of the end, or maybe even the penultimate chapter of the end, for the Soviet Union. The year was 1989, Milli Vanilli was at the top of its game, Gorbachev was relatively hairless, and freedom was in the air (it smells a bit like fish and takes a while to get used to). Yes, soon after the proclamation of the Sinatra Doctrine, the majority of the Autumn Revolutions took place, and Eastern Europe never had any more problems.

Nuh-uh! The Kriegsmarine was so much cooler!

Ah, yes. Jonathan has found a glittering gem of an example, one with which he might attempt to destroy my argument in one fell swoop of his word-processing application. What is this horror I speak of - namely, the sinking of the Bismarck. Yet, what seems like a cut and dried case is nothing but a statistical discrepancy of the utmost degree. To begin, I say that the fabled British torpedo bombers that Jonathan so greatly adores simply got lucky that time. You disagree. Well, why not examine the wikipedia entry on torpedo bombers:

One crucial limitation of a torpedo bomber was that it had to fly a long, straight course at a constant ground level altitude of 30 metres (100 ft) toward the target ship before launching its torpedo. The torpedoes were very sophisticated weapons and were prone to damage when landing on water, especially on a wave; they were normally aimed at the bottom of a wave but, needless to say, this was rather difficult.

However, during a torpedo run, the attacking aircraft were easy targets for defending fighters from a combat air patrol. Furthermore, torpedo planes were also highly vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, particularly the heavy anti-aircraft guns (such as the 5 inch DP) which fired into the water, creating water spouts to slap the torpedo planes.

As if that were not enough - it weren't - I have also discovered that the British relied primarily on the navy to sink the Bismarck:

The first phase consisted of air strikes by torpedo-bombers from the British aircraft carrier Ark Royal which disabled Bismarck by jamming her rudders. The second phase was the shadowing and harassment of Bismarck during the night by British destroyers, with no serious damage to any ship. The third phase was an attack by the British battleships King George V and Rodney, supported by cruisers, on the morning of the 27th.

In other words, the luftwaffe ain't got nothing on the kriegsmarine. I rest my case.

A Burning Question

Through the hazy mists of memory I seem to recall a rather enlightened discussion taking place within the confines of our MEH classroom about the 1968 Paris protestations. Perhaps you can picture this scene for yourself - I would in fact desire such a recollection on your part, for if you did not - oh, your understanding of the subject at hand would most certainly be hindered. At the time, my most distinguished colleague Jonathan (distinguished for he was sitting within my presence) ventured forth the analytical opinion that nothing of any true import was accomplished, but that, rather, the French political system remained bound to the shackles of a center-right executive, stretching back from the mustachioed visage of de Gaulle to the seeming hairlessness of Sarkozy. After noting that a superficially similar stagnation took place in both the U.S. and the U.K., one which coincided with a shift - nay, a swing! - towards the more conservative aspects of each country's national psyche, I felt compelled to ask whether similar changes in the makeup of the government (or rather a lack thereof) occurred in other European countries. Were there any significant and comprehensive trend characterizing 4th-quarter, 20th-century, European democracies? I dunno, and if no one else can act in a learned capacity on this matter, I shall have to partake in some wiki-research.

America! #%$* Yeah!

So, American culture sort of owned the world in the post-war period. Just saying. The Europeans couldn't resist the appealing image of a surly, semi-suicidal teenager dangling that carcinogen of cool, the cigarette, from his lips. Sure, we may have been undermining the foundations of centuries upon centuries of European culture, but whatever. We rocked!

But seriously, what did all those continental cats dig our beat so much? My guess is the fragmentation of culture that began at the start of the 20th century (and maybe even beforehand) with the modernist movement. Every genre of music and art was becoming more and more specific and, dare I say?, esoteric, especially after WWII, so American mass culture stepped in to fill the void. And there were a lot more teenagers around, doing their baby-booming thing, as was their wont to do. In addition, America was awesome. Fact.

Oberkommando = So Cool

Having what is possibly the coolest, silliest, and funkiest name in the entirety of the German wehrmacht was the oberkommando der marine (supreme commander of the navy). Though the title is rather self-explanatory, I feel nevertheless compelled to outline the purview of this position. Mr. Oberkommando was in charge of the strategic operations of the kriegsmarine, and he had a number of henchman-like underlings (or so I would like to believe), namely (and take heed, dear reader, for this quote hails from the stygian depth of wikipedia's page on the kriegsmarine - dubious! to say the least) a "Commander-in-Chief (Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine), a Chief of Naval General Staff (Chef der Stabes der Seekriegsleitung) and a Chief of Naval Operations (Chef der Operationsabteilung)." These positions were in addition to the standard naval ranks (here is another excerpt from wikipedia, this time comparing the ranks of the German and US/British navies):

Kriegsmarine	US Navy/Royal Navy
Großadmiral	Fleet Admiral/Admiral of the Fleet
Generaladmiral	Admiral
Admiral	Vice Admiral
Vizeadmiral	Rear Admiral (Upper Half)
Konteradmiral	Rear Admiral (Lower Half)
Kommodore	Commodore
Kapitän zur See	Captain
Fregattenkapitän	Commander
Korvettenkapitän	Lieutenant Commander
Kapitänleutnant	Lieutenant
Oberleutnant zur See	Lieutenant (Jg.); Sub-Lieutenant
Leutnant zur See	Ensign/ --
Oberfähnrich zur See	Midshipman (Senior)
Fähnrich zur See	Cadet/Midshipman (Junior)

For instance, the first two oberkommandos, Erich Raeder and Karl Donitz, were both Grand Admirals. Yes, the Germans were quite efficient in their naval organization, and yet...they lost! Why? I will examine that in later blog posts. I will also discuss Raeder and Donitz in greater depth, for they lead rich, or at least half-interesting lives.

Epic Fail (Did I Actually Just Write That?)

So......that analysis I promised to write......well......I think what I was trying to explicate in my previous and probably emotion-laden post on the nature of total war in respect to discrete series of logical formulations of - what was I saying? Oh yeah, my confusion/inability to express the underlying tensions of my brain does not lie in the actions of the participants of WWII during the war - after all, the good student of history should be aware of the extent to which the darker side of human nature continues to emerge, cat-like, to pounce upon the seemingly infallible pillars of civilization...but I digress - rather, my focus is on the actions of the Allies in the immediate aftermath the war.

Liz and Mia have both examined the Nuremberg trials and come to the conclusion that the trials, though exhibiting a hypocrisy of the highest order among the Allied countries, were justified and necessary, especially if one takes into account the new, humanity-based international framework that resulted. I guess I have to agree that it was right for the trials to occur, but were they actually successful in the long run? The fact that the actions of the Allies during the war were not decried, let alone examined, for a while after the war gave those countries a pretty free hand in their international wheelings and dealings (that is, a hand free from the threat of prosecution by a human rights court):

USSR: Stalin! That bastard was around for 8! (EIGHT!) more years after the war ended;
USA: Vietnam and Gitmo, those symbols of American military superiority;
Britain and France: I don't know much about this, but there were definitely brutal tactics used in Kenya and Algeria, respectively.

The actions of these countries have weakened human rights courts and given local despots and warlords around the world the confidence to kill whomever they please. Does this mean the Nuremberg trials were a failure? Was WWII a failure? [The first question was serious, the second purely for hyperbolic purposes].

If You Can't Stand the Heat, Get Out of the Cold War

I enjoyed the Cold War, US-USSR antagonism, brink of nuclear destruction simulation today, and while it is not over yet (though the outcome was already decided when Glorious Leader Stalin decided to free us from the shackles of Leninism and lead us to global Soviet hegemony - go team USSR! and the Jamaican and Irish Socialist Republics!), I am currently of the mind to make a comment or two concerning it and the period of time it pertained to - the first decade and a half after WWII. To begin, what drove these countries to pursue their respective courses of action? In response to Jonathan's post about the Long Telegram, I do agree that the U.S. policymakers weren't really being idealistic, or at least expressing a positive form idealism. I don't know if this is actually a correct term, but maybe we could look at the U.S. as being negatively idealistic. Instead of trying to spread democracy or any other type of ideology, per se (not the correct usage), the policy of the U.S. was negate the spread and effects of another ideology. This is in some ways equally as dangerous as positive idealism because it leads to the same rigid thinking, lack of flexibility, and demonization of the enemy. Not that the Soviets' policy made much more sense (yeah! refuse those eggs!). The players on both sides of the conflict were pretty close-minded and usually unwilling to compromise, with the exception of the occasional thaw once every decade and a half. But I guess M.A.D. ended up working out for everyone. Yeah!

It's All Just Horrible

The "Horrible Histories" series of books from England by Terry Deary is one of the major reasons I became interested in history (note: squeamish be warned, clicking the link above does present the clicker with some cartoon violence, so be wary before rolling your eyes over it). The books' attraction to the youth of my day was their focus on the more violent, and certainly less boring, parts of history (that and the various cartoons interspersed throughout the books' chapters). Yet, at the same time, the books never glorified war or took the blood and gore too lightly; in fact, they often had the opposite effect.

One example that struck me upon first reading it approximately a decade ago and that has stuck with me ever since is from "The Woeful Second World War," which concerned, of all things, WWII. In the particular story, Deary presents the reader with the picture of a night carnival, complete with smiling, happy families and children whose only care in the world is to be next on the ferris wheel (perhaps he was laying it on a bit thick, but it provides an excellent contrast to what would follow). Suddenly, a great number of planes fills the sky and begins dropping tens upon hundreds of bombs. There is fire, death, destruction, horror everywhere, and by the end most of the fair ground is gone, along with the people there. Throughout the entire story, Deary has led the reader to believe that this scene took place in England, that those were British chlidren, German bombs, but after it is done he reveals that this was not the case - that was Berlin, those were German children, RAF planes. Why the British, our allies, would do such a thing confused me, to say the least (I hadn't even learned about Dresden then) and certainly contributed to whatever quest for knowledge I am still on today.

I was reminded of this last summer when I was doing a summer program at Oxford (birthplace of the name-dropper). It so happened that I was reading "Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut (in which the bombing of Dresden plays a prominent role) right as we were discussing the concept of 'just war' in my international relations class. As an exercise, the class split into groups to determine whether various wars throughout history could be considered 'just,' particularly from the standpoint of the victors. My group analyzed WWII, and we decided that, while the entry of the the various Allied countries into the war was justified (e.g. invasion of Poland and the rest of Europe; Pearl Harbor), much of the Allies' conduct could not be considered just (e.g. the firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and many other cities; the use of the atomic bomb).

So what I am I trying to say here? Honestly, this post isn't so much an analysis as a reflection. Of course, it's easy to defend the actions of the U.S. and Britain with the simple mention of the Holocaust, but almost every major player in WWII was complicit in some atrocity - it was just to varying degrees. Man, total war is a real...well, you know, the word that can also mean a canine of the female persuasion. Anywhile, I'll end this post with a quote from "The Fog of War," in which Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, discusses his role, and that of the U.S., in the bombing of Japan:

[General Curtis] LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He... and I'd say I... were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side has lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/quotes)

Perhaps a more cogent analysis of this subject in a later post - if I can wrap my head around all of this...

In der Marine! Ja, Sie können die sieben Meere durchsegeln!

Now that Jonathan has, on this momentous occasion, revealed to the world our group's paper topic, I feel it is time to start some researching. First off, dibs on die kriegsmarine - sorry Sam, even if Das Boot is your favorite movie (is it? that would be an odd coincidence) you now have to research die heer (and what a heer it was). This first research post could be considered rather short, but I have only just begin to delve into the realm of the unknown that is the kriegsmarine. And so, here's a summary of Plan Z, Germany's uncompleted pre-war fleet-building program, and here's a slideshow of the Battle of the Atlantic (from the Times, hence all the pictures of British ships). May your bacchanalian desire for kriegsmarine-related information be sated for the time being.

Put on your Russian Glasses (Made of Russian Glass)

Here's a little more on Stalin and how he is viewed. This article from December talks about Stalin's popularity, either sustained or renewed, and I think it's interesting to see how Russians themselves look at him. Perhaps, with decades in between them and the purges of the 1930's, today's Russian see only the positive aspects of Stalin's rule: industrialization, defeating Hitler, making the USSR a world power. Like Putin's popularity in the past few years - people were willing to stand by his curtailing of civil liberties while their country was prosperous - maybe Russians are willing to turn a blind eye to Stalin's atrocities. The Soviet Union was never truly defeated, and there was never de-soviet-ification similar to what happened in Germany after World War Two. That's why many Russians consider him one of their greatest countrymen.

What's Your Opinion on Mass Murderers?

Responding to Sam's post, which asked why Hitler has, for the most part, been considered worse than Stalin, I would say that it's not just because the U.S. had allied with the Soviets. Even after World War II and into the Cold War, the American propaganda films focused more on bashing Communism and the Reds in general than on the figure of Stalin, perhaps because Stalin was already dead by 1953. On the other hand, Hitler's image and persona were quite prevalant in American war propaganda, to the point that he was featured in children's cartoons.

Another reason most people's perceptions about the two dictators are often skewed would be the Holocaust - to be more precise, the Holocaust survivors. Enough people managed to survive the Nazi concentration camps and tell their stories that readings about the Holocaust are often required in elementary and middle schools, and there are a number of museums around the world making sure that we "never forget." Compare this to the coverage of Stalin's victims - there are no accounts of life in the gulags I'm aware of besides Solzhenitsyn's works because almost no one escaped - there was no liberation of Stalin's camps. The fact is that Stalin's atrocities aren't as present in the collective memory as Hitler's. It's 6 millions vs. ?

Fascism vs. Liberal Democracy: A Debate of Uberific Proportions

I will begin this post by declaring that I, in my official position as Judge Nate Charnas ("The People's Judge"), having presided over the case of Fascism vs. Liberal Democracy in connexion as to whether the government of the former style is viable and can meet the needs of the governed, do declare that Fascism has lost. May there be feastings of some type for the anti-fascists.

There, now that I've gotten that off my chest I can clearly and calmly offer an analysis and explanation of today's debate and of my shortly subsequent decision. The anti-fascists were pretty successful at arguing against the economic benefits of fascism, citing Italy's deficit under Mussolini, though I feel that the fascists could have provided some good counter-arguments by bringing up the re-militarization of Germany under Hitler. The anti-fascists also pointed out the negative aspects and affects of nationalism (rather strongly, I might add), but they could have gone farther in trying to refute the fascist's claims that nationalism and success go hand in hand, or at least chosen stronger examples than Switzerland and Qatar. The fascists could have argued longer and more clearly about the the need for a strong, central leader in times of crisis like the French Revolution or after World War I, or tried to show that the Weimar Republic was not such an exception to other liberal democracies. The most important point, which I don't think was discussed enough, concerned how the curtailment of civil rights met the needs of the governed. The fascists argued about the importance of the common or greater good over the needs of the individual, but this reflected a set of beliefs more than evidence or an argument. I realize it was hard to justify Hitler's actions against Jewish Germans, but some historical example of the benefits for the governed of curtailing rights (it didn't even have to be from Germany) would have definitely helped.

To Gird a Word is Absurd, so I've Heard: A Treatise on Historical Absurdity

Perhaps, you, reader, in your recent perusals of my previous blog posts, have noticed an increasing tendency towards the absurd. Well, let me assure you that this was quite intentional and not, rather, the quasi-physical manifestations of the very breaking-down of my mind. No, the randomness you might have perceived to be present on this url of unrivaled magnificence was not the "rambling" of a "crazy" "person" - it all leads to a point! An absurd point! Well, actually, no - the absurdity was done for the sake of absurdity, myself being a fan of the word of the absurd. But, I figured, with such absurdity already wafting through the blogospheric atmosphere (the kids still call it that, right?) like a nonsensical phermone (or aphrodesiac - wait, no, that just sounds weird), I would write a post dealing with the absurd in a rather-more-than-cursory way. And so, I end this absurd introductory paragraph, in which I have used some form of the word "absurd" over 7, no 8 times (rather absurdly I might add - oh no! 9 times!), and thus begin the meat, the crux, the meaty crux of what I am trying to say...............absurdly...............(10 times!)...............



As I read what might have been the section of the MEH textbook assigned for tomorrow's class (being syllabus-less, I cannot be sure), I found myself chuckling, nay guffawing, at John Heartfield's "Have No Fear - He's a Vegetarian" on page 944. The picture itself, though literally/photographically crazy (...absurd...) is nonetheless quite true and, more to the point, incredibly chilling (it's meaning is explained in the textbook). Heartfield was a communist and dadaist (or at least sympathized with the movements), and, according to the online brochure for a Heartfield exhibition at the Getty Museum, he "unleashed his sharpest satire on Hitler's Führerkult (cult of the leader), the basis of German Fascism. These montages parody Hitler's most iconic poses, gestures, and symbols to create the impression that one need only to scratch the thin surface of Fascist propaganda to uncover its absurd [!!!] reality."

It seems to me Heartfield was one of the many Europeans who had lived through World War I, seen the rise and spread of fascism and Hitler's ascension to power, and thought, "How is Mussolini in power? Why are so many people listening to what Hitler says? Why are the rest not paying attention to him? This makes no sense. How could this possibly be happening? Did we spend four years fighting in World War One, at the cost of millions of lives, for nothing? This is absurd!" Of course, the dadaists had already acknowledged that the world was an absurd place during World War One, when Marcel Duchamp's forays into what-the-hell?-ness were at their strangest and strongest (see page 930 or any of Duchamp's works from that period). Hitler and everything he represented, not to mention the allies appeasement of him, just cemented these views.

Heartfield's picture also reminded me of Max Ernst's "Une Semaine de Bonté" or "A Week of Kindness," which I discovered randomly at Green Apple Books (a quality bookstore). A book full of collages, it is divided into 7 sections (for each day of the week) with some theme or common image running through all the collages of a certain section. And it really doesn't make any sense, at least to the conscious mind. It is instead meant to appeal to the reader's feelings and emotions, and there is definitely a "mood of catastrophe that pervades this collage 'novel'"that every interpretation attributes to the fact that Ernst was putting this together in Italy (remember, that's fascist Italy) and in 1933, just after Hitler had been appointed Chancellor of Germany. Yes, it's crazy, it's absurd - not just the book - Hitler, Europe, history - that's what's damned absurd - the world is absurd.

(17 times!)

The Technology of Death

I mostly agree with Sam's post about total war, but I don't think the fact that the conditions of World War One caused considerable mental-warping for the soldiers involved fully explains why the war was so atrocity-ridden. I believe (and this may be getting all philosophical and stuff) that soldiers in war were always mentally and emotionally capable of committing these atrocities and were limited only by the technological advancements (or lack thereof) of their time. Machine guns, poison gas, shells, even tanks and planes near the end of the war - all these things enabled soldiers to kill, wound, traumatize, and destroy on a scale previously unimaginable. On a lighter note, I enjoyed the link to the TV tropes page on World War One. Besides being quite funny, they also show the impact that World War One has had over the past 95 years. But I feel I have written perhaps a few too many posts on this subject, and so let this be the last World War One post on my blog.

Unless there's something else cool to write about.

In which case I will, once again, write about World War One.

And, if such a case should occur, I will acknowledge the fact that I claimed I would cease from World War One posts.

Cause you got to stay true to what you say.

SOME People OBVIOUSLY Can't FATHOM My BRILLIANCE

To Mssrs. Jonathan and the hundreds of others who read my learned blog on a daily basis,

I shall have you know that you made an unforgivable mistake in your recent blog posting. What is this mention of "reds" and "whites," this talk of revolution-from-below and Lenin? Clearly you are hopelessly mired in the early 1920s, content to pick at the uncomplicated events of the Russian Civil War whilst sullying the good name of your peers. Well I say to that harrumph, good sir! I do believe it was plain for all to see that my erudite analysis of the Russian psyche concerned the period of time known as (and I quote myself, wonderfully) "the late 1920s" and "the 1930s." Yes, you may have stumbled upon an inkling of correctitude, namely that (and I quote you, unfortunately) "for the most part, people went with their own self interest," and certainly this was true for those caught up in the hellish maelstrom the aforementioned civil war, but...actually, this was also true for those pinned down under the terrible weight of Stalin's revolution-from-above. Perhaps I did not happen to fill my sentences with enough clarity, or rather I forgot to mention the very motivating factor of fear that Stalin so exuded, that fear of deporation, of famine, and of death. Now, most rational beings, acting out of their own-self interest, would take steps to ensure that they were not exposed to such things, even if these "steps" involved working for a totalitarianly murderous regime. But, such fear as this, coinciding with the purges of the 1930s, was not so everpresent when Stalin first took power and began instituting his policies. What about those people who implemented and carried out Stalin's plans in the beginning? Why did they act the way they did? What motivated them? I expect the answers to all the questions on the morrow, attached with twine to the leg of a mottled speckledove.

Your good sir,
Nate