New Voice

Tag: current affairs

Get Some

by kconnolly on Mar.28, 2010, under Current Affairs - Opinion, History, Television

I endeavoured to follow through my readings of the Vietnam conflict, from my last post, with a shopping excursion to right my centre of gravity and ensure that I tackle the history from every angle – well, more than one. Being a historian first and foremost this is part of the obligation that is owed to the seriousness of the subject, apparently. I, of course, am not a historian, but I can read and do and pretend at the writing part.  My esteemed colleague, of the Secular Sundays posts, lent me his encyclopaedic knowledge of sixties and seventies American writings with a collection of Michael Herr-equalling shots of literature to vacuum up my soul into the US Armed Forces. Two things happened to impel a slight discursion on my Nam – centric world view.
• Firstly, while perusing the four epic floors of Hodges and Figges (certainly they must have every book in the world) I found (as is normal practice for me) I couldn’t find two of the books on my list. Being a total independent I refused to ask for help from the staff, so I started to flick through the recently published section. My United States historiafied mind saw David Halberstam’s The Coldest Winter sitting in a paperback edition, then sitting on the shop counter and then travelling to my home in a paper bag. I forgot to continue looking for the books I came in for; I plowed through the sharp chapters of Halberstam and fell into the Korean War.
• Secondly, I discovered the flawless work of stunning breadth that is Generation Kill, David Simon and Ed Burn’s (The Wire in television, The Corner in non-fiction gold-medal genius) play-like adaptation, of the book of the same name, following a first recon division in the Second Iraq conflict; as they weave through the desert mess of former-Mesopotamia and founder in the incompetence of the United States strategic armed forces.
Halberstam, very sadly, passed away not long after he finished work on this tome. I had for a long time meant to pick up just one of his many searing topical books, which tackle US history. The Coldest Winter is a lengthy walk through the miserable counter-Soviet, counter-Communist mess that was the three year Korean conflict. A prelude to Vietnam and the half a dozen later skirmishes with Soviet imperialist agenda, the Korean War was as much an aberration of modern war as it was a dynamic statement of US hegemony in East Asia. Akin to Nam, where the terrain was as much hostile as the opposition, Korea was simply staggeringly poor conditions. One of the major themes of the book (and which I intend to pursue in a later post on Korea) was the ineptitude of Douglas MacArthur. True the man was very old at this stage, but to say he was mildly sluggish when the North invaded in the South, would be an understatement. I found myself once again agog that MacArthur was so immune to any negativity: having recently read Max Hastings authoritative work on the final stages of the US pacific campaign of WWII, Nemesis, were Hastings depicted MacArthur as, definitively, a loose cannon, and, likely, insane. It was interesting (read: horrifying) to see this consistent interpretation of the Pacific Supreme Commander, and American warhero, continue into the opening pages of The Coldest Winter.
I could not fail to draw comparisons to Michael Herr’s withering portrayal of MACV which spent its time effectively trying to make it appear as though the Americans were winning when they were clearly not. MacArthur, following absurd decisions carried over from the pacific campaign, deliberately refused to use any intelligence that did not specifically agree with his own strategic opinion. This fantasy existed until it was fatal, and then frequently was ignored – though MacArthur was eventually found out in Korea. Most of this madness was rolling around my mind when I sat down and watched the first three episodes of Generation Kill. Not surprisingly the themes reappeared with the narrative following the grunts on the ground in Iraq, as they encounter the Ba’athists in a sea of despairing locals. Once again the strategic objective is poorly actioned, or hopelessly ignored. This, of course, does not lessen the impact of this finely crafted story. I mentioned above that it has a play-like feel to it – and this is no joke. Absolute rivers of dialogue materialise and hang around the scenes. In the similar way to, say, Tarantino pours forth the open conversations, walling in the tale; Generation is hilarious and serious in equal measure. I shall wander through the rest of the episodes, as I sit and wait out The Pacific which lands next month. I wonder how they will deal with MacArthur in that programme.

I endeavoured to follow through my readings of the Vietnam conflict, from my last post, with a shopping excursion to right my centre of gravity and ensure that I tackle the history from every angle – well, more than one. Being a historian first and foremost this is part of the obligation that is owed to the seriousness of the subject, apparently. I, of course, am not a historian, but I can read and do and pretend at the writing part.  My esteemed colleague, of the Secular Sundays posts, lent me his encyclopaedic knowledge of sixties and seventies American writings with a collection of Michael Herr-equalling shots of literature to vacuum up my soul into the US Armed Forces. Two things happened to impel a slight discursion on my Nam – centric world view. (continue reading…)

Leave a Comment :, , , , , more...

The Fallen Man

by kconnolly on Jan.17, 2010, under Current Affairs - Opinion, History

Networking is a significant impediment on my life. I have been offline for what seems an age, in reality a shocking three and half weeks. Often the issue, when I am down and out from the interweb, is the catastrophic nastiness that is wireless networking devices. LAN is just so much more logical. Anyway, Happy New Year to one and all: may they be technologically flawless.
Before Christmas I was nattering on about the German soldier, which was jumping up all over my radar due to their involvement in Afghanistan. Similarly, there is a deal of talk these days about the return of the Russian to the forefront of international relations. Given this, I thought I might look at an aspect of Russian history that has always stood out to my mind.
The Fallen Man
The Russian consistently has it difficult. History is enamoured by the imaginative character; the sweeping independent figure that explodes out of the text, whether they be morally staunch or fractured. Often the narrative is militaristic: civilisations story is epic, but always deeply antagonistic. Pick up any history of a nation and the fountain of war will be buried in layers, appearing at constant intervals, shaping the scene, ending cycles, moulding the next age. There is a tremendous consistency. So too with the protagonists. The brilliant generals rise above the fold and capture a distinct position in the text. Frequently they are significantly divisive persons, usually ruthless, amoral, troubled; but yet personable, loyal (when they see fit), and often entertaining – in the humorous, intelligent way. They are also all extremely quick to action. If you were to require one particular skill, based on historical reference, to succeed as a general (baring luck, which is not a skill but you know what I mean) it would likely be the ability to react with alacrity. They were all shockingly fast: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, William of Normandy, Genghis Khan, Edward the Black Prince, Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel, etc, etc.
You will note, having keen eyes, that no Russian is included in that list. I am probably being remiss avoiding the name of Georgy Zhukov who (to many historians) was the finest general of the Second World War. But so little is known of this individual that it is difficult to assess him in the same way as the aforementioned commanders. Indeed, my point is that Russian military figures throughout history are consistently shadowy and seem to conform to a different mould than their contemporaries. Peter the Great is romantic certainly but as a leader he was more brash and wilful than any of the above traits. He is remembered more for his westernising of Russian society and his landmark urbanisation. Militarily he was involved and had some successes in his Northern War – though not to any major degree. Across the history of Russia there are few figures that stand up as remarkable generals, with the Soviet Union an improvement but still weakly compared. It is interesting, this fact, given the military nature of the Soviets and size and capability of its former armed forces.
Though, however, Russia has lacked in dynamic generals they have displayed an extremely powerful common soldier. Unparalleled courage remains the essence of the Red soldier: very few combatants attacked as consistently as the Soviets during the war, though their lack of ingenuity damaged them frequently. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the armed forces fell into decline in Russia (as did much else) and it is – as mentioned – only lately that this decline has begun to halt. Russia was massively affected by the Global Financial Crisis of Sept. 2008; they have been significantly reliant on the sale of petroleum and gas for their GDP for a long and with the crisis came a massive decrease in the costs of energy. Coupled with the share loss every globalised country saw – bar China and India – Russia is in major difficulties. And yet, they have re-entered international relations with a jolt. It is not easy to see why they have done this, though most commentators with an understanding of the Russian mindset (with analysis I agree with) believe that it is because the average Russian citizen requires their nation to be sufficiently strong in the world, or deemed to be strong, and will accept nothing less. Regardless if that strength is fact or fiction. These same commentators believe that Putin and Medvedev are jostling for position to retain their mandates. Their may be the whiff of electoral fraud any time United Russia goes to the polls, but their will be no United Russia without a world-leading Russian nation.

A World of Computers

Networking is a significant impediment on my life. I have been offline for what seems an age, in reality a shocking three and half weeks. Often the issue, when I am down and out from the interweb, is the catastrophic nastiness that is wireless networking devices. LAN is just so much more logical. Anyway, Happy New Year to one and all: may they be technologically flawless.

Before Christmas I was nattering on about the German soldier, which was jumping up all over my radar due to their involvement in Afghanistan. Similarly, there is a deal of talk these days about the return of the Russian to the forefront of international relations. Given this, I thought I might look at an aspect of Russian history that has always stood out to my mind. (continue reading…)

1 Comment :, more...

“Nothing is Impossible for the German Soldier!”

by kconnolly on Dec.03, 2009, under History

The above is an interesting line quoted by Hitler in the second or third year of the Second World War. Memorable for its brevity, yet comprehensively encapsulating the reality of the German fighting machine. Hitler threw it out during the planning stages for Operation Barbarossa, when clamped up spartanly in the forested fortress of the Wolfsschanze, the eponymous Wolfs Lair. In a way it is a throwaway line, consistent to the megalomaniac Furher’s distorted faith in German dominance. But the fact of the matter is the German soldier was considered the finest of the war. This is in almost every respect: courage, order, imagination, alacrity and probably most of all counter attacking initiative. This final one is sufficiently exemplified by the Battle of the Bulge, following several months of consistent allied pressure, and having clearly lost the war, they almost completed a rout, bizarrely; it said a great deal about the Wehrmacht. Of course, they did not complete this rout, nor win the war. It’s somewhat unsettling to consider but baring the tremendous over extension of Barbarossa it might have been a different war following the D Day landings of June ’44.
But Hitler refused to ignore the Soviet landscape and his burning ambition to both claim ‘unlimited living space’ and defeat the image of an unconquerable Russia. His multiple tactical errors, outside of the original decision to even begin the war, were devastating to the campaign. A refusal to plan for winter quarters (odd given the somewhat bleak Russian climate), indeed a refusal to even assign winter clothing; all based on the absurd view that once they ‘knocked in the door, the whole thing would come crashing down’. All of which led to the inevitable stall, followed by the grinding down of the Wehrmacht. Far too much was left by Hitler to the Lancer’s of his armed forces: thus ignoring major field requirements like contiguous supply lines and comprehensive artillery support. The Panzer brigades (tank units) were there of course, but not as effective as they had been for the first two years of war. Again the landscape was murderous to mechanised units, but also a major issue was the T-34, the Soviet’s finest tank, considered the best general purpose vehicle of the Second World War. Still, having begun to lose by the winter of ’41, having launched the offensive that summer, they held on for a savage period of time given the circumstances.
The story of the failure of Barbarossa is wide-spread, and the German capitulation at Stalingrad and ultimately the Soviet Union, was significant to their war effort. They were effectively pushed back from that point onwards. But yet, and this is clear from reading across many books dealing with the period, the German soldier remained consistently difficult to break down. There are savage critics of the allied contingent, which shines positive militaristic light on the Wehrmacht, with the US forces in particular viewed as impotent. There were consistent issues around getting soldiers to push forward in battles (as apposed to hanging back and waiting for artillery to pound defensive positions into submission) and it was well known throughout the war that the Allies often refused to fight at night. This allowed the German’s shocking freedom of movement knowing they had from sundown to organise positions. Not dissimilar to today, the U.S. relied on technology and vastly outnumbered all comers with regard to the fertility of their assembly lines. Though often their vehicles were only moderate in capability. The Sherman tank was relatively weak, certainly when compared to the Tiger and T-34. The Hellcat and Mustang were solid fighter planes, though inferior to the Japanese Zero and German Messerschmitt. Of course, the U.S. B-29 Superfortress murdered everything, so that one goes without saying. The Allies were infuriated for much of the war by their infantry weaponry, in that they simply did not work: the British PIAT and U.S. Bazooka, which were hugely inferior to the German Panzerfaust – a constant menace to allied tanking.
Bit of an aside there; my main point remains that the German soldier was a solid fighting machine. Today their armed forces are minimal. American bases are situated across West Germany, with few major local military outposts. With the European Union’s movement to a standing army there is of course an expectation that the largest population centre of Union would contain the largest assignment of man power. Time, even the short drift of decades, make for significant change. However, the return of a German military is not new in that they appear to have a prominent place in NATO’s campaigns across Afghanistan. Newsweek record the figure a several thousand. Not surprisingly they are understood to be very effective.

The above is an interesting line quoted by Hitler in the second or third year of the Second World War. Memorable for its brevity, yet comprehensively encapsulating the reality of the German fighting machine. Hitler threw it out during the planning stages for Operation Barbarossa, when clamped up spartanly in the forested fortress of the Wolfsschanze, the eponymous Wolfs Lair. In a way it is a throwaway line, consistent to the megalomaniac Furher’s distorted faith in German dominance. But the fact of the matter is the German soldier was considered the finest of the war. This is in almost every respect: courage, order, imagination, alacrity and probably most of all counter attacking initiative. This final one is sufficiently exemplified by the Battle of the Bulge, following several months of consistent allied pressure, and having clearly lost the war, they almost completed a rout, bizarrely; it said a great deal about the Wehrmacht. Of course, they did not complete this rout, nor win the war. It’s somewhat unsettling to consider but baring the tremendous over extension of Barbarossa it might have been a different war following the D Day landings of June ’44. (continue reading…)

Leave a Comment :, , , , , , , more...

Seeing Red in Almost Every Colour

by kconnolly on Jun.17, 2009, under Current Affairs - Opinion, History

Nuclear proliferation is the hottest of topics, and as I discussed a few weeks ago, the foundation is now available for a comprehensive treaty to begin to deal with this thorny issue. The international community (at least those seeking stable society) can commit to the deceleration of nuclear production and manufacture a way forward for a world still cognisant of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The United States is at the very centre of any progress that can be made, not least because they control the vast majority of active nuclear warheads, but also given they are thus far the only nation to have made use of the weaponry: the Soviet Union’s feint in 1962 being an alarming follow up. (continue reading…)

3 Comments :, , more...

Winter in a Nuclear World

by kconnolly on Jun.05, 2009, under Current Affairs - Opinion, History

The shockwaves from the North Korean nuclear weapon test have begun to recede, yet the issue of a response likely fills the halls of global power. What to do when a rogue state chimes an international warning bell and effectively draws a shot across the proverbial bow of the United States? Surely the answer is in nuclear disarmament. (continue reading…)

2 Comments :, , more...

Orwellian Mind-Control and ‘Think Happy Thoughts’

by ajlane on Apr.17, 2009, under Current Affairs - Opinion

I sit down to write about the state of modern Ireland and as if by magic ‘Think Happy Thoughts’ by Vyvienne Long comes on the radio. For those who have yet to have the pleasure, ‘Think Happy Thoughts’ is a song that strikes child-like chords. It’s comes across as a return to the happy innocence of infancy with its toddler lyrics and pouting tempo. ‘Goddamn them’, I think, ‘they’re trying to brainwash me! This surely is Orwellian mind-control’. (continue reading…)

5 Comments : more...

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...

Archives

All entries, chronologically...