Showing posts with label WWII. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WWII. Show all posts

Thursday, December 24, 2009

I grew up off Ardennes Ave in a neighborhood with WWII themed street names. Built for vets. Yeah.


From The Writer's Almanac, earlier this month:

It was on this day in 1944 that the Battle of the Bulge began. It took place in the Ardennes forest, a snowy mountainous region of Belgium, France, and Luxembourg and lasted for more than a month. It was the last major German offensive, and it was the bloodiest battle of World War II for Americans troops. While estimates about the number of American casualties differ, the U.S. Defense Department lists 19,000 killed, 47,500 wounded, and 23,000 missing.

Among those taken as prisoner of war by the Germans was a young infantry scout named Kurt Vonnegut. He'd only been in the front lines for five days when he got trapped behind enemy lines and taken prisoner. Within a month, he was sent over to Dresden and put to work in a factory producing vitamin-enriched malt syrup for pregnant women. He and his fellow American prisoners were detained in and slept at an underground warehouse in Dresden that had been a meat-packing facility and storage locker before the war. The building was marked 'Schlachthof-funf': 'Slaughterhouse-Five.'

Then, in February 1945, about two months after the Battle of the Bulge began, British and American forces started firebombing Dresden. The firestorm created by the massive Allied bombings killed nearly all of Dresden's residents, but Vonnegut and other POWs survived because they were three stories underground, in that meat-storage locker.




Vonnegut published his novel Slaughterhouse-Five in 1969, a quarter century after he was captured at the Battle of the Bulge and a witness to the Dresden firebombing. In it, he wrote:

'It is so short and jumbled and jangled, Sam, because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead, to never say anything or want anything ever again. Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds.

And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like 'Poo-tee-weet?'

The Battle of the Bulge ended on January 25, 1945, after Hitler agreed to withdraw German troops from the Ardennes forest. Less than two weeks later, Allied leaders met at Yalta to discuss occupying post-war Germany.


The New York Times:

When Theodore Roosevelt was president, three decades before World War II, the world was focused on the bloody Russo-Japanese War, a contest for control of North Asia. President Roosevelt was no fan of the Russians: “No human beings, black, yellow or white, could be quite as untruthful, as insincere, as arrogant — in short, as untrustworthy in every way — as the Russians,” he wrote in August 1905, near the end of the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese, on the other hand, were “a wonderful and civilized people,” Roosevelt wrote, “entitled to stand on an absolute equality with all the other peoples of the civilized world.”

Roosevelt knew that Japan coveted the Korean Peninsula as a springboard to its Asian expansion. Back in 1900, Roosevelt had written, “I should like to see Japan have Korea.” When, in February 1904, Japan broke off relations with Russia, President Roosevelt said publicly that he would “maintain the strictest neutrality,” but privately he wrote, “The sympathies of the United States are entirely on Japan’s side.”

In June 1905, Roosevelt made world headlines when — apparently on his own initiative — he invited the two nations to negotiate an end to their war. Roosevelt’s private letter to his son told another story: “I have of course concealed from everyone — literally everyone — the fact that I acted in the first place on Japan’s suggestion ... . Remember that you are to let no one know that in this matter of the peace negotiations I have acted at the request of Japan and that each step has been taken with Japan’s foreknowledge, and not merely with her approval but with her expressed desire.”

Years later, a Japanese emissary to Roosevelt paraphrased the president’s comments to him: “All the Asiatic nations are now faced with the urgent necessity of adjusting themselves to the present age. Japan should be their natural leader in that process, and their protector during the transition stage, much as the United States assumed the leadership of the American continent many years ago, and by means of the Monroe Doctrine, preserved the Latin American nations from European interference. The future policy of Japan towards Asiatic countries should be similar to that of the United States towards their neighbors on the American continent.”

In a secret presidential cable to Tokyo, in July 1905, Roosevelt approved the Japanese annexation of Korea and agreed to an “understanding or alliance” among Japan, the United States and Britain “as if the United States were under treaty obligations.” The “as if” was key: Congress was much less interested in North Asia than Roosevelt was, so he came to his agreement with Japan in secret, an unconstitutional act.

To signal his commitment to Tokyo, Roosevelt cut off relations with Korea, turned the American legation in Seoul over to the Japanese military and deleted the word “Korea” from the State Department’s Record of Foreign Relations and placed it under the heading of “Japan.”

Roosevelt had assumed that the Japanese would stop at Korea and leave the rest of North Asia to the Americans and the British. But such a wish clashed with his notion that the Japanese should base their foreign policy on the American model of expansion across North America and, with the taking of Hawaii and the Philippines, into the Pacific. It did not take long for the Japanese to tire of the territorial restrictions placed upon them by their Anglo-American partners.

Japan’s declaration of war, in December 1941, explained its position quite clearly: “It is a fact of history that the countries of East Asia for the past hundred years or more have been compelled to observe the status quo under the Anglo-American policy of imperialistic exploitation and to sacrifice themselves to the prosperity of the two nations. The Japanese government cannot tolerate the perpetuation of such a situation.”

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Taking it to the air-waves, again.

The lines below are from another comment posted to WNYC, this time to The Brian Lehrer Show, my fave. They were asking submissions for an Economic Villains Final Four or sorts. This was my recommendation, that oddly no one else mentioned:

Oh, c'mon. Uncle Milty (Milton Friedman) gave all these people an ethos, ethics (or lack thereof), and an excuse for indulging in their more base instinct.

We all became complicit in valuing the "creation of wealth" and making rock-stars out of bankers and financiers.

Then today, Brian was talking about street art/graffiti of late concerning the financial crisis. (Btw: We need a good name for this thing, financial/economic/banking crisis/mess/meltdown, etc. But, usually, I think, these things get named after the fact. Did they call it the Depression during the Depression? WWI used to be called The War to End All Wars, until it wasn't. That would've been pretty cynical to call it WWI before WWII had happened.)

Though I didn't get on myself, what I told the screener did get passed on to Lehrer to mention: since it hadn't been mentioned yet, Shepard Fairey, now of Obama Hope poster fame, has been doing political, and specifically ills of capitalist/consumerism, street art for years--and better than most. So, you're welcome, Shepard. God knows you need the press.

Also posted this pic. Had posted it here, already, but what the hell: you probably didn't see it the first time, slacker.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

New New Deal?

Apt, says Paul Krugman.
New-WPA needed, as well, for infrastructure and jobs.

FDR didn't do enough, pulled back to soon.
They had WWII, does that make our wars helpful?

Fantasy of "national unity after the election" would have had a stimulus plan sooner.
Internet,
electrical grid,
weatherproofing and greening,
public transit,
but payroll tax?

Yeah,
yeah whatever.
When pointed out
the contradiction that
while its rational to save,
we need to spend our way out.

Japan in the 90's? An FDR-sinner. Wasn't a depression, but could have.

Courage. We have nothing to fear but fear of infrastructure spending:

Rail,
energy conversation,
broadband initiative,
health care--medical records electrified.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

The Hundred Year Squeaky Wheel

Do you think this era's Shakespeare (assuming there will be one--probably not, theater being just one of many mediums for dramaturgy, and not the most widespread and common as he was in his day) will be writing scores of plays about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

It is perhaps, in part, because of the historical (of course, more topical to their original audiences) significance of Shakespeare plays, revolving around England and France's 100 years war, that they have stuck around so long? No doubt this can be a good thing. Would I know of Henry V or Richard II, if not for The Bard? Of course it is the style, wit, and narrative that has helped keep him in the hands of high-school students to this day, but does not the authenticity of the events stir our collective call to "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more" (Act III, scene I)?

Really, if film can be seen as the true people's medium of the last hundred years--it can--then at this point you would have to look at WWII as the crowning, defining dramatic representation of war for our times. Well, then, where are all the movies of this conflict? To be sure, there are more reasons than I don't care to go into here: from the difference in scale of the conflicts to the indifference of an American audience not directly involved; indeed, Jews, who have had a disproportionate influence in Hollywood, are to be found in both sagas--though with the differing roles of simply and strictly the victim to the more complex persona of victim and aggressor.

Most important, though, is the cushion of time removed from the events: how is one to make a sprawling decades long cinema classic if we don't even know what happens in the end? Hollywood, like any good epic/epoch maker, needs a conclusion. It need not be tidy; in fact messy makes for more interesting. So for god's sake, or at least for Oscar's, get it over with already. I want my DVD box set, with running commentary from the director--I'm looking at you Scorsese.