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.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
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):
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.
| 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.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
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].
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!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
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:
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...
Thursday, March 26, 2009
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.
Monday, March 23, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
