Sebastian P. Breit's Blog, page 7
August 7, 2012
The War Game (1965)
The War Game is a 1965 television documentary-style drama depicting the effects of nuclear war on Britain. Written, directed, and produced by Peter Watkins for the BBC's The Wednesday Play anthology series, it caused dismay within the BBC and in government and was withdrawn from television transmission on 6 August 1965 (the twentieth anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing). The Corporation said that "the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting". However, it had some distribution in cinemas and won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 1966. But it remained unshown in full on British television until 1985. It's frightening stuff, especially because it's both so old and yet so highly realistic and up-to-date regarding the style of its presentation and production values.
August 6, 2012
First Person WW2
Seems like someone had access to a couple of re-enactors...
The Nuking Of Japan Was A Tactical And Moral Imperative
Monday, August 6, will mark one of the United States’ most important but unheralded anniversaries. It is remarkable not only for what happened on this day in 1945 but for what did not happen subsequently.
What did happen was that the “Enola Gay,” an American B-29 bomber from the obscure 509th Composite Group (a U.S. Army Air Force unit tasked with deploying nuclear weapons), dropped a uranium-based atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. It hastened the end of World War II, which concluded within a week after the August 9 detonation of a plutonium-based bomb over Nagasaki. Approximately 66,000 died in Hiroshima from the acute effects of the “Little Boy” bomb and about 35,000 more in Nagasaki from the “Fat Man” device. (The subsequent, short-term death toll rose significantly due to the effects of radiation and wounds.)
About a year after the war ended, the “was it necessary?” Monday-morning quarterbacks began to question the military necessity and morality of the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities. Since then, there have been periodic eruptions of revisionism, uninformed speculation and political correctness on this subject, perhaps the most offensive of which was the Smithsonian Institution’s plan for an exhibition of the Enola Gay for the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. In a particularly repugnant exercise of political correctness, the exhibit was to emphasize the “victimization” of the Japanese, mentioning the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor only as the motivation for the “vengeance” sought by the United States. (The exhibit as originally conceived was eventually canceled.)
The historical context and military realities of 1945 are often lost in judging whether it was “necessary” for the United States to use nuclear weapons. The Japanese had been the aggressors, launching the war with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and subsequently systematically and flagrantly violating various international agreements and norms by employing biological and chemical warfare, torturing and murdering prisoners of war, and brutalizing civilians and forcing them to perform slave labor.
What did not happen as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “Operation Downfall,” a massive Allied (largely American) invasion of the Japanese home islands that was being actively planned. As Allied forces closed in on the home islands, the intentions of Japan’s senior military leaders ranged from “fighting to the last man” to inflicting sufficiently heavy losses on invading American ground forces that the United States would agree to a conditional peace. As U.S. strategists knew from having broken the Japanese military and diplomatic codes, there was virtually no inclination toward an unconditional surrender.
continue here at Forbes.
What did happen was that the “Enola Gay,” an American B-29 bomber from the obscure 509th Composite Group (a U.S. Army Air Force unit tasked with deploying nuclear weapons), dropped a uranium-based atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. It hastened the end of World War II, which concluded within a week after the August 9 detonation of a plutonium-based bomb over Nagasaki. Approximately 66,000 died in Hiroshima from the acute effects of the “Little Boy” bomb and about 35,000 more in Nagasaki from the “Fat Man” device. (The subsequent, short-term death toll rose significantly due to the effects of radiation and wounds.)
About a year after the war ended, the “was it necessary?” Monday-morning quarterbacks began to question the military necessity and morality of the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities. Since then, there have been periodic eruptions of revisionism, uninformed speculation and political correctness on this subject, perhaps the most offensive of which was the Smithsonian Institution’s plan for an exhibition of the Enola Gay for the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. In a particularly repugnant exercise of political correctness, the exhibit was to emphasize the “victimization” of the Japanese, mentioning the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor only as the motivation for the “vengeance” sought by the United States. (The exhibit as originally conceived was eventually canceled.)
The historical context and military realities of 1945 are often lost in judging whether it was “necessary” for the United States to use nuclear weapons. The Japanese had been the aggressors, launching the war with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and subsequently systematically and flagrantly violating various international agreements and norms by employing biological and chemical warfare, torturing and murdering prisoners of war, and brutalizing civilians and forcing them to perform slave labor.
What did not happen as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “Operation Downfall,” a massive Allied (largely American) invasion of the Japanese home islands that was being actively planned. As Allied forces closed in on the home islands, the intentions of Japan’s senior military leaders ranged from “fighting to the last man” to inflicting sufficiently heavy losses on invading American ground forces that the United States would agree to a conditional peace. As U.S. strategists knew from having broken the Japanese military and diplomatic codes, there was virtually no inclination toward an unconditional surrender.
continue here at Forbes.
August 5, 2012
"Monte Cassino" Movie in the Making?!
The battle for Monte Cassino - one of the most bitterly fought land campaigns during World War II - is being made into a film to coincide with the battle's 70th anniversary.
The flick's British director John Irvin (who also did the impressive HBO war movie When Trumpets Fade) said that he didn't want to make a film that was "merely a bloodbath."
"It's a moving story of tenderness, love and hope with a sense of salvation within it," he told the BBC.
Irvin's previous films include 'Hamburger Hill' and 'The Dogs of War'.
Over several months in 1944, Monte Cassino was the focal point of a series of German defensive positions stretching across the Italian peninsula that prevented the Allied advance to Rome. During the harshest Italian winter on record, the mountainous terrain around the world-famous abbey provided the ideal protection for the German Army. The abbey was destroyed by aerial bombing in February 1944, but not before the German troops had rescued its treasures from destruction.
With nearly 200,000 soldiers participating from over 30 different countries, there were heavy losses on both sides. Some 55,000 Allied and 20,000 German soldiers were injured or killed.
Irvin said his fascination with Monte Cassino dated back to his school days, when he had been taught by a history master whose brother had died there.
"It's not a battle that the Allies can be very proud of," Irvin said. "The casualties were jaw-dropping, a third of which were inflicted by friendly fire. The aspect of the battle that has haunted me was the decision to carpet bomb the abbey, one of the great architectural jewels of western culture, which was reduced to rubble in six hours," he added.
The film tells the true story of two survivors of the battle, a wounded American soldier and the Italian nurse who cared for him. With casting underway, Irvin hopes to shoot Monte Cassino in Poland next year, and said the destruction of the abbey would involve a "significant amount of CGI." (Source: Yahoo News)
* * *
While he's a good director I feel inclined to ask this: Why in the seven hells do we need to turn a concept and an event that provided boatloads of drama, heroism and humanity on both sides and involved some of the fiercest fights in that theater of war into a bloody love story? What's so wrong about a story of a bunch of blokes from different backgrounds being in a war? The Longest Day did that. As did A Bridge Too Far. Even The Dirty Dozen managed that. Heck, even Saving Private Ryan - in and by itself truly not an example of great storytelling - was a genuine war movie.
This is a recipe for disappointment. I hope I'm wrong, though.
The flick's British director John Irvin (who also did the impressive HBO war movie When Trumpets Fade) said that he didn't want to make a film that was "merely a bloodbath."
"It's a moving story of tenderness, love and hope with a sense of salvation within it," he told the BBC.
Irvin's previous films include 'Hamburger Hill' and 'The Dogs of War'.
Over several months in 1944, Monte Cassino was the focal point of a series of German defensive positions stretching across the Italian peninsula that prevented the Allied advance to Rome. During the harshest Italian winter on record, the mountainous terrain around the world-famous abbey provided the ideal protection for the German Army. The abbey was destroyed by aerial bombing in February 1944, but not before the German troops had rescued its treasures from destruction.
With nearly 200,000 soldiers participating from over 30 different countries, there were heavy losses on both sides. Some 55,000 Allied and 20,000 German soldiers were injured or killed.
Irvin said his fascination with Monte Cassino dated back to his school days, when he had been taught by a history master whose brother had died there.
"It's not a battle that the Allies can be very proud of," Irvin said. "The casualties were jaw-dropping, a third of which were inflicted by friendly fire. The aspect of the battle that has haunted me was the decision to carpet bomb the abbey, one of the great architectural jewels of western culture, which was reduced to rubble in six hours," he added.
The film tells the true story of two survivors of the battle, a wounded American soldier and the Italian nurse who cared for him. With casting underway, Irvin hopes to shoot Monte Cassino in Poland next year, and said the destruction of the abbey would involve a "significant amount of CGI." (Source: Yahoo News)
* * *
While he's a good director I feel inclined to ask this: Why in the seven hells do we need to turn a concept and an event that provided boatloads of drama, heroism and humanity on both sides and involved some of the fiercest fights in that theater of war into a bloody love story? What's so wrong about a story of a bunch of blokes from different backgrounds being in a war? The Longest Day did that. As did A Bridge Too Far. Even The Dirty Dozen managed that. Heck, even Saving Private Ryan - in and by itself truly not an example of great storytelling - was a genuine war movie.
This is a recipe for disappointment. I hope I'm wrong, though.
World Stands Quietly by as Syria Reaches Tipping Point
These are tumultuous times in Syria. Civil war has engulfed the country, fierce fighting plagues the capital of Damascus, a bomb blast decimated the ruling regime's top security chiefs, and the Arab League called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down. But as the world watches in suspended animation, the U.N. Security Council remains checkmated by Russian and Chinese support for the regime. Syria on the crossroads of the Middle East is heading full-throttle towards the abyss.
Civil war confronts the forty year plus Assad family rule. For the past 17 months, emboldened by the “Arab Spring,” the violence has increased and over 20,000 people mostly civilians have been killed and according to the U.N. over one million people have been displaced inside the country. An additional 42,000 refugees are in neighboring Turkey, 35,000 in Jordan and 32,000 in Lebanon.
The ruling regime which is based in the Alawite sect of Islam (closer to that of Iran), and at odds with the majority Sunni, battles on with the ferocity of a cornered mongoose.
Significant U.N. Security Council actions to sanction Assad have been stopped short on three occasions, by double vetoes of Russia and China. First in October, then in February and now in July, cautiously optimistic U.S. and British diplomacy was jolted by the riveting realpolitik that both Russia and Mainland China are still willing to give Assad diplomatic cover fire in the Security Council despite the growing political collateral damage throughout much of the Arab world.
Knowing the political intransigence of both Moscow and Beijing towards any serious action by the Security Council, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan made a mission to Moscow hat in hand to see Vladimir Putin. Annan was trying to revive his moribund peace plan, while at the same time trying to encourage Russian flexibility and support for a unified approach to Syria. His answer was Nyet. Additionally 300 U.N. military observers are now going to be phased out.
In the meantime globetrotting Secretary General Ban Ki-moon arrived in Beijing to try to persuade the PRC rulers to soften its stance backing the Syrian regime.
After the double veto, British Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant stated he was “appalled by the decision of Russia and China to veto this resolution aimed at ending the bloodshed in Syria.” American Ambassador Susan Rice rightly called it “a dark day,” but that does not belie the Obama Administration's amateurish inconsistency in the U.N.
continue here at The China Post.
Civil war confronts the forty year plus Assad family rule. For the past 17 months, emboldened by the “Arab Spring,” the violence has increased and over 20,000 people mostly civilians have been killed and according to the U.N. over one million people have been displaced inside the country. An additional 42,000 refugees are in neighboring Turkey, 35,000 in Jordan and 32,000 in Lebanon.
The ruling regime which is based in the Alawite sect of Islam (closer to that of Iran), and at odds with the majority Sunni, battles on with the ferocity of a cornered mongoose.
Significant U.N. Security Council actions to sanction Assad have been stopped short on three occasions, by double vetoes of Russia and China. First in October, then in February and now in July, cautiously optimistic U.S. and British diplomacy was jolted by the riveting realpolitik that both Russia and Mainland China are still willing to give Assad diplomatic cover fire in the Security Council despite the growing political collateral damage throughout much of the Arab world.
Knowing the political intransigence of both Moscow and Beijing towards any serious action by the Security Council, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan made a mission to Moscow hat in hand to see Vladimir Putin. Annan was trying to revive his moribund peace plan, while at the same time trying to encourage Russian flexibility and support for a unified approach to Syria. His answer was Nyet. Additionally 300 U.N. military observers are now going to be phased out.
In the meantime globetrotting Secretary General Ban Ki-moon arrived in Beijing to try to persuade the PRC rulers to soften its stance backing the Syrian regime.
After the double veto, British Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant stated he was “appalled by the decision of Russia and China to veto this resolution aimed at ending the bloodshed in Syria.” American Ambassador Susan Rice rightly called it “a dark day,” but that does not belie the Obama Administration's amateurish inconsistency in the U.N.
continue here at The China Post.
August 4, 2012
Geoffrey Roberts & RT: Some Comments by Your's Truly
An interview between RT and historian Geoffrey Roberts. My comments are in italics.
* * *
The political and economical crisis of the EU might help a new European Hitler to emerge, warns historian Geoffrey Roberts. He believes the current rise of ultra-nationalism in Europe resembles that one of 1930s as history tends to repeat itself. Professor Geoffrey Roberts sees the rise of extreme nationalism in Europe as a test for the whole international democratic concept – with no predictable results.
A quick look at Geoffrey Roberts' vita is enough to even have something as continually left-leaning as Wikipedia reveal Roberts' own leftwing point of view, including the accusation of him being too sympathetic to dictator Josif Stalin as well as a biased approach to Soviet era documents and data. The only reason I've decided to pull this into the spotlight is that experience has taught me to be extremely observant when someone who is clearly a left-winger tries to make authoritative statements about "nationalism". It's never without an agenda, and it rarely makes even an effort of using designations objectively. I should know, I'm subjective, too.
Still, Roberts is hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis because “the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII.”
RT: People from WWII are still alive and the memories of that war are fresh. The war could be a good lesson for all of us but we see the huge rise of nationalist right movements in Europe. What is to blame?
Geoffrey Roberts: The extreme ultra-nationalist movement in Europe is not a new phenomenon. Recently, the political influence of nationalism has been very strong; particularly the extreme force has grown in various countries of Europe. I think that has mostly to do with the economic and political problems that Europe is facing at the moment, which pose a dire threat to the whole future of the EU.
As time goes on, the war recedes from memory and becomes much more distant even, and the more time elapses, the more possibilities there are for people to present distorted accounts of the war. Partly, this development of extreme ultra-nationalism in Europe is explained by the distance from the war troubles. But it is not the main reason. The main one is contemporary politics and economics rather than history. That is not to say that history is not important because there are many history lessons that are relevant to the contemporary crisis.
Question: Where are these very strong ultra-nationalist movements with great influence on national politics? WHERE ARE THEY? SHOW ME! A rowdy fringe Greek party getting a single digit percentage of the Greek vote clearly doesn't fit the bill! The French Front National? The party's been competing for the presidency for decades and, as usual, has completely failed in the following parliamentary elections. So, name me these nationalistic groups with drive and great mass appeal!
RT: If the crisis in Europe is to last, will there be a rise of more nationalist sentiment?
GR: There is a great danger of that. If the eurozone collapses, if the EU collapses, the most likely scenario it would be replaced by different fronts of nationalists. Good question is what forms of nationalism, how extreme and dangerous they are going to be.
Well, thank you for your brilliant lack of explaining what you understand under the term "nationalism"! "[W]hat forms of nationalism", nice. And who are these nationalists going to be? You see, the problem is that most established truly extreme nationalist movements are thoroughly discredited as a bunch of fringe crackpots. Honestly, with the ongoing crisis - we're in year what? four? - we should have seen some noteable successes by the existing nationalist forces. But 7% in the Greek elections are the "best" these forces have had to offer so far, and there are no signs of any movement in any of the Eurozone's countries forming up to beat that number. If the Eurozone collapses all that'll happen is that after a few months of turmoil national currencies will re-emerge and the former floating exchange rate mechanism will be re-instated. Sorry, but a comparably wealthy and extremely demilitarized area like the Eurozone won't fall for a bunch of new incarnations of Hitler or Mussolini (or offer the conditions to make them dangers to their neighbors).
That is the historical lesson, what happened before WWII, particularly the 1930s when there was a crisis similar to the one we’re going through now. The result of that was the rise of extreme nationalism, the emergence of a number of authoritarian and Nazi-type regimes in Europe.
WRONG. Except for the Nazis themselves all these authoritarian governments and systems established themselves either directly after World War 1 or during the 1920s, which, given Roberts' economic-deterministic outlook shouldn't have been the case.
The historical lesson is the great danger of that development now. I don’t see this by any means inevitable. I think the difference between now and then is the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII. I’m not confident but I’m hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis.
RT: Do you think that a politician with anti-democratic views could rise to power through those democratic institutes?
GR: That’s exactly what happened in the case of Hitler. He did it. And that’s what happened in a number of other countries in Europe before and after WWII. It is a distinct possibility, a challenge that would be a test of Western democracy. Not just Western democracy, but European and international democracy. Can it actually survive the challenge of nationalism which thrives in conditions of economic collapse and political disorder?
And that's why most European countries have a necessary system of checks and balances.
RT: Could a sticking together of the united Europe work as a magic push against rise of nationalism?
GR: I don’t think it is a panacea, but I sincerely hope that the European Union doesn’t collapse. Because for all of its faults, the EU is much better than an ultra-nationalist alternative. Who knows what is going to happen? I think it is possible that the EU will survive and I hope it does.
While the European Union is better than a bunch of interwar Hungaries there's wee bit of a difference between the European nations returning to a pre-Masstricht treaty modus operandi - the LIKELY post-collapse development - and Roberts' amorphous "ultra-nationalist alternative", which is as vague as it is unlikely.
Okay, lets put things into perspective here. Extreme rightwing nationalists are dangerous. But so are all other kinds of political extremists: leftists, islamists, globalists. If that Greek party was politically smart it could play the long game and influence public opinion even with only single digit results by sinking its teeth into key positions in the media and education. The Greens did that very successfully in Germany, for example, but that takes time. Decades, usually. But aside from that small example I cannot see any mass nationalist movements on the horizon at the moment. The political presence of rightwing extremists is dominated by failure, by gaining a handful of seats in regional parliaments, by being outnumbered three to one at demonstrations by the leftwing radicals alone, let alone ordinary citizens. A new Hitler (himself a man with leftwing political origins) isn't coming anytime soon.
If I were Russian, I would actually be hoping that case as well because a collapse of the EU and the rise of extreme forms of nationalism in Europe could pose quite a significant challenge for Russia as well.
From whom would that challenge arise? The only one that could have the clout - economically, politically - to do so would be Germany. And I'm sorry to break it to you, Geoffrey: German "nationalists" are on really good terms with Russia...
* * *
The political and economical crisis of the EU might help a new European Hitler to emerge, warns historian Geoffrey Roberts. He believes the current rise of ultra-nationalism in Europe resembles that one of 1930s as history tends to repeat itself. Professor Geoffrey Roberts sees the rise of extreme nationalism in Europe as a test for the whole international democratic concept – with no predictable results.
A quick look at Geoffrey Roberts' vita is enough to even have something as continually left-leaning as Wikipedia reveal Roberts' own leftwing point of view, including the accusation of him being too sympathetic to dictator Josif Stalin as well as a biased approach to Soviet era documents and data. The only reason I've decided to pull this into the spotlight is that experience has taught me to be extremely observant when someone who is clearly a left-winger tries to make authoritative statements about "nationalism". It's never without an agenda, and it rarely makes even an effort of using designations objectively. I should know, I'm subjective, too.
Still, Roberts is hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis because “the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII.”
RT: People from WWII are still alive and the memories of that war are fresh. The war could be a good lesson for all of us but we see the huge rise of nationalist right movements in Europe. What is to blame?
Geoffrey Roberts: The extreme ultra-nationalist movement in Europe is not a new phenomenon. Recently, the political influence of nationalism has been very strong; particularly the extreme force has grown in various countries of Europe. I think that has mostly to do with the economic and political problems that Europe is facing at the moment, which pose a dire threat to the whole future of the EU.
As time goes on, the war recedes from memory and becomes much more distant even, and the more time elapses, the more possibilities there are for people to present distorted accounts of the war. Partly, this development of extreme ultra-nationalism in Europe is explained by the distance from the war troubles. But it is not the main reason. The main one is contemporary politics and economics rather than history. That is not to say that history is not important because there are many history lessons that are relevant to the contemporary crisis.
Question: Where are these very strong ultra-nationalist movements with great influence on national politics? WHERE ARE THEY? SHOW ME! A rowdy fringe Greek party getting a single digit percentage of the Greek vote clearly doesn't fit the bill! The French Front National? The party's been competing for the presidency for decades and, as usual, has completely failed in the following parliamentary elections. So, name me these nationalistic groups with drive and great mass appeal!
RT: If the crisis in Europe is to last, will there be a rise of more nationalist sentiment?
GR: There is a great danger of that. If the eurozone collapses, if the EU collapses, the most likely scenario it would be replaced by different fronts of nationalists. Good question is what forms of nationalism, how extreme and dangerous they are going to be.
Well, thank you for your brilliant lack of explaining what you understand under the term "nationalism"! "[W]hat forms of nationalism", nice. And who are these nationalists going to be? You see, the problem is that most established truly extreme nationalist movements are thoroughly discredited as a bunch of fringe crackpots. Honestly, with the ongoing crisis - we're in year what? four? - we should have seen some noteable successes by the existing nationalist forces. But 7% in the Greek elections are the "best" these forces have had to offer so far, and there are no signs of any movement in any of the Eurozone's countries forming up to beat that number. If the Eurozone collapses all that'll happen is that after a few months of turmoil national currencies will re-emerge and the former floating exchange rate mechanism will be re-instated. Sorry, but a comparably wealthy and extremely demilitarized area like the Eurozone won't fall for a bunch of new incarnations of Hitler or Mussolini (or offer the conditions to make them dangers to their neighbors).
That is the historical lesson, what happened before WWII, particularly the 1930s when there was a crisis similar to the one we’re going through now. The result of that was the rise of extreme nationalism, the emergence of a number of authoritarian and Nazi-type regimes in Europe.
WRONG. Except for the Nazis themselves all these authoritarian governments and systems established themselves either directly after World War 1 or during the 1920s, which, given Roberts' economic-deterministic outlook shouldn't have been the case.
The historical lesson is the great danger of that development now. I don’t see this by any means inevitable. I think the difference between now and then is the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII. I’m not confident but I’m hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis.
RT: Do you think that a politician with anti-democratic views could rise to power through those democratic institutes?
GR: That’s exactly what happened in the case of Hitler. He did it. And that’s what happened in a number of other countries in Europe before and after WWII. It is a distinct possibility, a challenge that would be a test of Western democracy. Not just Western democracy, but European and international democracy. Can it actually survive the challenge of nationalism which thrives in conditions of economic collapse and political disorder?
And that's why most European countries have a necessary system of checks and balances.
RT: Could a sticking together of the united Europe work as a magic push against rise of nationalism?
GR: I don’t think it is a panacea, but I sincerely hope that the European Union doesn’t collapse. Because for all of its faults, the EU is much better than an ultra-nationalist alternative. Who knows what is going to happen? I think it is possible that the EU will survive and I hope it does.
While the European Union is better than a bunch of interwar Hungaries there's wee bit of a difference between the European nations returning to a pre-Masstricht treaty modus operandi - the LIKELY post-collapse development - and Roberts' amorphous "ultra-nationalist alternative", which is as vague as it is unlikely.
Okay, lets put things into perspective here. Extreme rightwing nationalists are dangerous. But so are all other kinds of political extremists: leftists, islamists, globalists. If that Greek party was politically smart it could play the long game and influence public opinion even with only single digit results by sinking its teeth into key positions in the media and education. The Greens did that very successfully in Germany, for example, but that takes time. Decades, usually. But aside from that small example I cannot see any mass nationalist movements on the horizon at the moment. The political presence of rightwing extremists is dominated by failure, by gaining a handful of seats in regional parliaments, by being outnumbered three to one at demonstrations by the leftwing radicals alone, let alone ordinary citizens. A new Hitler (himself a man with leftwing political origins) isn't coming anytime soon.
If I were Russian, I would actually be hoping that case as well because a collapse of the EU and the rise of extreme forms of nationalism in Europe could pose quite a significant challenge for Russia as well.
From whom would that challenge arise? The only one that could have the clout - economically, politically - to do so would be Germany. And I'm sorry to break it to you, Geoffrey: German "nationalists" are on really good terms with Russia...
August 3, 2012
Rising Sentiment in Japan: Nippon First
The following article by Linda Sieg (Reuters) shines light on an apparently substantial trend within Japanese politics to return to a less pacifistic and more geopolitically active stance that puts Japan's perceived national interests first. With China on the rise the equal rise of a less passive political stance in Japan comes as little surprise to me. As the war generation slowly passes away it's only natural that newer forces take up attitudes not formed by the defeat of 1945. But it remains to be seen how these currents will be channeled into the pool of political machinations. They could provide a healthier, more active partner for U.S. East Asian security interests. But they could just as well create a loose cannon.
* * *
Former Japanese general Toshio Tamogami has a dream: fed up with bowing to China and the United States, patriotic politicians form a new party that puts national interests first, bolsters the military and rewrites the pacifist constitution.
"In Japan, there are pro-China politicians and there are 'conservatives', but almost all of those are pro-American and say 'let's do what America tells us to do'," said Tamogami, a former air force chief of staff who was sacked in 2008 for writing that Japan was ensnared into World War Two by the United States and was not an aggressor in the conflict in Asia.
"We need to have a political party that brings together 'pro-Japan' politicians. If we don't, Japan will simply continue to decline," said Tamogami, who for the past two years has headed the nationalist group "Ganbare Nippon" ("Stand Firm, Japan").
Tamogami's dream of an influential new nationalist party appears a mostly forlorn hope for now, analysts said, but right-wing groups of that ilk are already pushing mainstream parties to the right.
Hoping to grab public attention, Tamogami's group will sponsor a trip next month by parliamentarians, local lawmakers and others to waters near a chain of islets in the East China Sea at the heart of a worsening feud between China and Japan.
"By doing this, we want to raise the public awareness of the Senkaku Island issue," Tamogami told Reuters, using the Japanese name for the islands, known as the Diaoyu in China, located near rich fishing grounds and potential maritime oil and gas reserves.
The islands dispute could easily fan smoldering nationalist sentiment among Japanese worried about their declining global status and glum economic future.
"I don't think the group would have much clout but it can successfully push the debate to the right," said Sophia University professor Koichi Nakano.
"Hashimoto has the same impact ... So-called moderate parties get dragged along," Nakano said, referring to popular Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto, whose Ishin no Kai party plans to bid for seats in a national election due by September 2013.
Ishin no Kai has not fleshed out its stance on security issues beyond stating support for the U.S.-Japan security alliance, but nationalists number among its supporters.
Sino-Japanese tension over the uninhabited islets has heightened since Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said this month the government was considering buying them from their private owners rather than let Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara, a harsh critic of China, proceed with a similar purchase plan.
Tamogami said he favored Ishihara's plan to buy the islands rather than the central government's taking possession. "If the central government buys the islands, they will forbid Japanese nationals to land and just wait for China to come and take it," he said.
Commenting on recent incursions by Chinese vessels into the disputed waters, Japanese Defense Minister Satoshi Morimoto said on Friday that it was legally possible to mobilize Japan's military, known as the Self-Defense Forces, to defend the isles.
"Action by the SDF is secured by law in cases where the Japan Coast Guard or police cannot respond," Kyodo news agency quoted Morimoto as telling a news conference.
Despite growing links between Asia's two biggest economies, experts say simmering nationalism among Japanese worried about their country's fading global status and stagnant economy can easily clash with its mirror image in an assertive China, where memories of Japan's past military occupation run deep.
Ties between the two countries went into a deep chill in 2010 after Japan detained the skipper of a Chinese trawler whose boat collided with two Japanese patrol boats near the islands.
"I think this should be a matter of concern for policymakers in capitals around the world," said Andrew Horvat, director of the Stanford Center in Kyoto.
"We have a rising China, a Japan trying to maintain its (global) position and no clear-cut means by which the dispute can be settled and worse, by which the resources of the area can be shared in an orderly and equitable manner by all parties."
* * *
Former Japanese general Toshio Tamogami has a dream: fed up with bowing to China and the United States, patriotic politicians form a new party that puts national interests first, bolsters the military and rewrites the pacifist constitution.
"In Japan, there are pro-China politicians and there are 'conservatives', but almost all of those are pro-American and say 'let's do what America tells us to do'," said Tamogami, a former air force chief of staff who was sacked in 2008 for writing that Japan was ensnared into World War Two by the United States and was not an aggressor in the conflict in Asia.
"We need to have a political party that brings together 'pro-Japan' politicians. If we don't, Japan will simply continue to decline," said Tamogami, who for the past two years has headed the nationalist group "Ganbare Nippon" ("Stand Firm, Japan").
Tamogami's dream of an influential new nationalist party appears a mostly forlorn hope for now, analysts said, but right-wing groups of that ilk are already pushing mainstream parties to the right.
Hoping to grab public attention, Tamogami's group will sponsor a trip next month by parliamentarians, local lawmakers and others to waters near a chain of islets in the East China Sea at the heart of a worsening feud between China and Japan.
"By doing this, we want to raise the public awareness of the Senkaku Island issue," Tamogami told Reuters, using the Japanese name for the islands, known as the Diaoyu in China, located near rich fishing grounds and potential maritime oil and gas reserves.
The islands dispute could easily fan smoldering nationalist sentiment among Japanese worried about their declining global status and glum economic future.
"I don't think the group would have much clout but it can successfully push the debate to the right," said Sophia University professor Koichi Nakano.
"Hashimoto has the same impact ... So-called moderate parties get dragged along," Nakano said, referring to popular Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto, whose Ishin no Kai party plans to bid for seats in a national election due by September 2013.
Ishin no Kai has not fleshed out its stance on security issues beyond stating support for the U.S.-Japan security alliance, but nationalists number among its supporters.
Sino-Japanese tension over the uninhabited islets has heightened since Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said this month the government was considering buying them from their private owners rather than let Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara, a harsh critic of China, proceed with a similar purchase plan.
Tamogami said he favored Ishihara's plan to buy the islands rather than the central government's taking possession. "If the central government buys the islands, they will forbid Japanese nationals to land and just wait for China to come and take it," he said.
Commenting on recent incursions by Chinese vessels into the disputed waters, Japanese Defense Minister Satoshi Morimoto said on Friday that it was legally possible to mobilize Japan's military, known as the Self-Defense Forces, to defend the isles.
"Action by the SDF is secured by law in cases where the Japan Coast Guard or police cannot respond," Kyodo news agency quoted Morimoto as telling a news conference.
Despite growing links between Asia's two biggest economies, experts say simmering nationalism among Japanese worried about their country's fading global status and stagnant economy can easily clash with its mirror image in an assertive China, where memories of Japan's past military occupation run deep.
Ties between the two countries went into a deep chill in 2010 after Japan detained the skipper of a Chinese trawler whose boat collided with two Japanese patrol boats near the islands.
"I think this should be a matter of concern for policymakers in capitals around the world," said Andrew Horvat, director of the Stanford Center in Kyoto.
"We have a rising China, a Japan trying to maintain its (global) position and no clear-cut means by which the dispute can be settled and worse, by which the resources of the area can be shared in an orderly and equitable manner by all parties."
August 1, 2012
Review - Zipang, Episode 5: KUSAKA'S CHOICE
[image error]
Zipang, Episode 5: KUSAKA's CHOICE
Review of Episode 4: Here.
Okay, one thing that bothers me for some reason. In the recap done at the beginning of the episode the narrator calls the Mirai an "Aegis class" vessel. But the name "Aegis" doesn't designate the ship class. It's just a missile guidance & combat system. In fact, if I'm not mistaken the manga makes it clear that the Mirai is an improved version of the JMSDF's own Kongo class! FYI, it's real world pendant therefore would be something like the Atago class destroyers.
As a side note, why are these ships so ungodly expensive? Honestly, who's keeping their books? The projected German F125 frigates weigh almost the same and cost just ~60% of the price of an Atago class!
Ah, there's nothing like starting a review with some nitpicking and bitching. The episode starts with a weird atmosphere. The crew's talking about the whole submarine attack and how they felt, and Cmdr. Yosuke, Lt. Commander Masayuki and Lt. Commander Kouhei are discussing about what they have to do next. Naturally, Masayuki is still going on about not changing history, risking that their 21st century never existed, and you know what? I've seriously had enough of this baloney at this point, Butterfly Man! By your own logic of the Butterfly Effect - check back for my review of Episode 2 - you've already set in motion things with major repercussions that will invariably make major changes to history!
The IJN saw you. The U.S. submarine saw you. Attacked you! And got away with the data. Admiral Yamamoto has qualified people he trusts investigating you! You changed history. The deed is done, god damnit! Why is that so hard to grasp?
Let me stray away from that for a second and proclaim my profound disappointment with this anime's dubbing (except for, again, Lt. Commander Kusaka). Half the voice actors deliver extremely bland performances while the other half speak their - Japanese! - character with such a drawl it becomes comical. It's on par with a show in German where half the cast would speak a Saxonian dialect! *shudders*
Anyway, back to the plot. While Kusaka spends more than a day in the ship's library, having - as he describes it - an epiphany, the fictional VTOL Umidori is sent on a recon mission over the Japanese naval base at Chichi-jima in the Ogasawara Islands to evaluate the situation before sailing towards Honshu.It's pretty much the command crew grasping at straws, hoping to find the base to be "up" in their timeline rather than in 1942. The pilot, Lt. Satake, is an almost prototypical fighter jock, ignoring Yosuke's warnings about not "engaging the enemy" (are the Japanese "the enemy"?) and staying out of reach. Interestingly, Satake's grandfather was born on the island, as he recounts to his co-pilot during the flight.
The Mirai's crew watches their mission via a video-link while Masayuki bitches about the risk of someone getting that signal, because the chances of someone in 1942 picking up a digital videosignal - and being able to read it - are soooo high. God damnit, man, why can't you go die in a ditch somewhere? You seriously annoy me.
Turns out picking up the signal isn't the problem - doing a low-level flyby over a military base at wartime, however, is. Two A6M2-N "Rufe" floatplane fighters quickly rise from the harbor basin and catch up with the Umidori. Lt. Satake who boasted before the mission that he could outrun any danger isn't so loud-mouthed anymore now as the fighters easily match his speed. I've got to assume the speeds are given in Kp/H and not knots or miles since it's the only number that makes sense given the "Rufe's" capabilities.
This and the lack of modern infrastructure at Chichi-jima quickly drive home the point that they are indeed stranded in 1942. The crew now has to ask itself what course of action they'll take. Luckily Kusaka has a plan (he seems to be the only one doing some actual thinking around there): refuel at Java, the fmr. Dutch East Indies. In the air teh situation gets dire as Kusaka reveals that the two planes chasing Satake's craft aren't ordinary seaplanes but interceptors armed with 7.7mm and 20mm weapons.
And, of course, since keeping the Mirai a secret is paramount Satake is allowed to do the sad but sensible thing and shoot them down and -. Oh, wait. What? He's ordered to do what? Okay, scratch that, he's ordered to under no circumstances fire the first shot and try to fly away from the planes chasing him, even though they are faster than he is. Yeah, that sounds logical.
Naturally, the IJN pilots don't buy the idea of a "JMSDF" plane of a design they don't know of even though it flies their flag. They go for the kill. Prudent move, I'd say. The episode ends with Satake's co-pilot being shot whily Kusaka watches the whole fight with great interest. A propos interest: Kusaka's so far by far the most interesting character, leaps and bounds ahead and above the rest of the cast. I'm looking forward to where the show will take him. His internal dialogue makes me suggest that he's already got a longterm plan brewing in his mind.
Now, regarding the Umidori VTOL I've got a question: why? This thing doesn't make any sense to me. Does it carry any specialized recon equipment? None that I can see. Is it any good as a transport? No, it's only got two seats: pilot and copilot/weapons' officer. Is it useful as a combat aircraft? It doesn't carry any pods for missiles or rockets or guns and it seems too flimsy to carry modern torpedoes. All it's armed with is a three-barreled gatling gun. What good does that do on a craft designed for naval duty?
All in all a good episode, but it felt terribly short.
Zipang, Episode 5: KUSAKA's CHOICE
Review of Episode 4: Here.
Okay, one thing that bothers me for some reason. In the recap done at the beginning of the episode the narrator calls the Mirai an "Aegis class" vessel. But the name "Aegis" doesn't designate the ship class. It's just a missile guidance & combat system. In fact, if I'm not mistaken the manga makes it clear that the Mirai is an improved version of the JMSDF's own Kongo class! FYI, it's real world pendant therefore would be something like the Atago class destroyers.
As a side note, why are these ships so ungodly expensive? Honestly, who's keeping their books? The projected German F125 frigates weigh almost the same and cost just ~60% of the price of an Atago class!
Ah, there's nothing like starting a review with some nitpicking and bitching. The episode starts with a weird atmosphere. The crew's talking about the whole submarine attack and how they felt, and Cmdr. Yosuke, Lt. Commander Masayuki and Lt. Commander Kouhei are discussing about what they have to do next. Naturally, Masayuki is still going on about not changing history, risking that their 21st century never existed, and you know what? I've seriously had enough of this baloney at this point, Butterfly Man! By your own logic of the Butterfly Effect - check back for my review of Episode 2 - you've already set in motion things with major repercussions that will invariably make major changes to history!
The IJN saw you. The U.S. submarine saw you. Attacked you! And got away with the data. Admiral Yamamoto has qualified people he trusts investigating you! You changed history. The deed is done, god damnit! Why is that so hard to grasp?
Let me stray away from that for a second and proclaim my profound disappointment with this anime's dubbing (except for, again, Lt. Commander Kusaka). Half the voice actors deliver extremely bland performances while the other half speak their - Japanese! - character with such a drawl it becomes comical. It's on par with a show in German where half the cast would speak a Saxonian dialect! *shudders*
Anyway, back to the plot. While Kusaka spends more than a day in the ship's library, having - as he describes it - an epiphany, the fictional VTOL Umidori is sent on a recon mission over the Japanese naval base at Chichi-jima in the Ogasawara Islands to evaluate the situation before sailing towards Honshu.It's pretty much the command crew grasping at straws, hoping to find the base to be "up" in their timeline rather than in 1942. The pilot, Lt. Satake, is an almost prototypical fighter jock, ignoring Yosuke's warnings about not "engaging the enemy" (are the Japanese "the enemy"?) and staying out of reach. Interestingly, Satake's grandfather was born on the island, as he recounts to his co-pilot during the flight.
The Mirai's crew watches their mission via a video-link while Masayuki bitches about the risk of someone getting that signal, because the chances of someone in 1942 picking up a digital videosignal - and being able to read it - are soooo high. God damnit, man, why can't you go die in a ditch somewhere? You seriously annoy me.
Turns out picking up the signal isn't the problem - doing a low-level flyby over a military base at wartime, however, is. Two A6M2-N "Rufe" floatplane fighters quickly rise from the harbor basin and catch up with the Umidori. Lt. Satake who boasted before the mission that he could outrun any danger isn't so loud-mouthed anymore now as the fighters easily match his speed. I've got to assume the speeds are given in Kp/H and not knots or miles since it's the only number that makes sense given the "Rufe's" capabilities.
This and the lack of modern infrastructure at Chichi-jima quickly drive home the point that they are indeed stranded in 1942. The crew now has to ask itself what course of action they'll take. Luckily Kusaka has a plan (he seems to be the only one doing some actual thinking around there): refuel at Java, the fmr. Dutch East Indies. In the air teh situation gets dire as Kusaka reveals that the two planes chasing Satake's craft aren't ordinary seaplanes but interceptors armed with 7.7mm and 20mm weapons.
And, of course, since keeping the Mirai a secret is paramount Satake is allowed to do the sad but sensible thing and shoot them down and -. Oh, wait. What? He's ordered to do what? Okay, scratch that, he's ordered to under no circumstances fire the first shot and try to fly away from the planes chasing him, even though they are faster than he is. Yeah, that sounds logical.
Naturally, the IJN pilots don't buy the idea of a "JMSDF" plane of a design they don't know of even though it flies their flag. They go for the kill. Prudent move, I'd say. The episode ends with Satake's co-pilot being shot whily Kusaka watches the whole fight with great interest. A propos interest: Kusaka's so far by far the most interesting character, leaps and bounds ahead and above the rest of the cast. I'm looking forward to where the show will take him. His internal dialogue makes me suggest that he's already got a longterm plan brewing in his mind.
Now, regarding the Umidori VTOL I've got a question: why? This thing doesn't make any sense to me. Does it carry any specialized recon equipment? None that I can see. Is it any good as a transport? No, it's only got two seats: pilot and copilot/weapons' officer. Is it useful as a combat aircraft? It doesn't carry any pods for missiles or rockets or guns and it seems too flimsy to carry modern torpedoes. All it's armed with is a three-barreled gatling gun. What good does that do on a craft designed for naval duty?
All in all a good episode, but it felt terribly short.
July 30, 2012
Iran & The Great Game
The website Strategy Page has an article about Iran up that I found rather interesting since it shines some light on the conditions and constraints the Iranian government is laboring under. The article has some bias - I, for one, wouldn't exactly equate internet censorship with "terrorism" - but then how many people can claim to write about a terror-financing theocracy that hangs homosexuals and hosts conferences on holocaust denial without at least some bias?
I think it is important to keep in mind how the western embargoes affect the Iranian people and not so much the Iranian regime itself. While I'm not really enthusiastic about a nuclear-capable Iran (it reminds me of the old quote by Carl Sagan about two opponents standing in a room awash with gasoline, both of them having too many matches) I also don't believe that current (U.S.) schemes of undermining the Mullah's rule by fostering internal dissent will work. In the face of foreign aggression - and don't start harboring any illusions that the bulk of Iranians see it as just that - people, especially proud ones like the Iranians, tend to stick together.
It goes on to state that
You can read the full article here.
July 27, 2012: The government
confirmed rumors that it was importing additional food (mainly wheat,
cooking oil, sugar and rice) and explained that it was doing this to
create a three month emergency supply of food for the entire population.
This was to allay growing fear of food shortages and provide a tool to
control rapidly increasing food supplies. That has been caused by
difficulty importing some food items, and prices for those items
skyrocketing. There's also more panic buying of staples, causing local
shortages of those basic foods (wheat, cooking oil, sugar and rice) and
driving up prices. Inflation is currently running at over 30 percent a
year. The official government rate is 21 percent, but no Iranian who has
gone shopping lately believes that. While the government subsidizes the
prices on some food items, many unsubsidized items cost three times
what they did a year ago. There have been videos of recent street
protests against the high prices for meat.
I think it is important to keep in mind how the western embargoes affect the Iranian people and not so much the Iranian regime itself. While I'm not really enthusiastic about a nuclear-capable Iran (it reminds me of the old quote by Carl Sagan about two opponents standing in a room awash with gasoline, both of them having too many matches) I also don't believe that current (U.S.) schemes of undermining the Mullah's rule by fostering internal dissent will work. In the face of foreign aggression - and don't start harboring any illusions that the bulk of Iranians see it as just that - people, especially proud ones like the Iranians, tend to stick together.
While Iran has added a lot of
new weapons (especially Chinese missiles) to its arsenal in the last
decade, its military leaders are well aware that their opponents (the
Gulf Arabs and their Western allies, especially the U.S.) have also
upgraded, and generally beefed up their military power more than Iran
has. Much of the Iranian buildup was largely propaganda. Most Iranians
don't know this, but Iran's enemies, and Iranian military leaders (most
of them) do. Thus Iran recently backed off on its threats to try and
block the Straits of Hormuz (the entrance to the Persian Gulf, through
which most of world oil exports move) as long as Iran was still allowed
to use it.
Iran continues to refuse to negotiate restrictions on its
nuclear power program and denies that it is working on nuclear weapons.
Iran is equally opposed to any limitations on its ballistic missile
program and is apparently trying to develop an ICBM that could hit North
America. Iran appears to understand that possessing nuclear weapons (no
matter how primitive) will compensate for their growing inferiority in
non-nuclear weapons. Israel and Gulf Arabs are terrified at the prospect
of Iranian nukes.
It goes on to state that
Iran is accusing Israel of carrying out the July 18 suicide
bombing in Bulgaria that killed seven (including five Israelis). This is
in response to the growing pile of evidence that Iran was behind the
attack, in an effort to strike back at Israel for the many successful
Israeli assaults against Iran's nuclear weapons program in the last two
years. Iran has openly vowed to strike back, and Israel claims that Iran
has agents in 24 countries trying to organize attacks. In the last
year, Iranians have been arrested in eight countries and charged with
planning terrorism against Israel. Documents, weapons and explosives
have often been seized as well. Iran denies everything, but the pattern
is embarrassing. Bulgarian and Israeli investigators have tracked the
July 18th attacks to a team that had spent a month in
Bulgaria setting things up. It is believed that Iran used Hezbollah
personnel to help organize this operation. It is believed that the
bomber was a European (he had fair skin and blue eyes) who had been
hired to smuggle drugs and that the bomb was set off remotely by the
terrorist team that hired him. The bomb was apparently set off
prematurely because the bomber (who had the bomb in his backpack) had
gotten into an argument over wanting to carry his bag onto the bus
instead of keeping in the cargo area under the passenger compartment.
The bomber was carrying fake American documents and remains
unidentified. Hezbollah is heavily involved in the drug trade and has
many operatives and supporters in Europe.
You can read the full article here.
July 29, 2012
The WAR BLOG STORE
As you've probably already seen above I've added a new category to this page:
The WAR BLOG STORE
It's just a way for me to make a few cents off this blog by offering you the convenient way of being able to buy the stuff I've reviewed here off Amazon. If you buy something off Amazon through the link above I receive a small referal fee. It's no big deal, but since I'm keeping this blog otherwise ad-free I need to look out for other forms of income. Thanks for your understanding.
The WAR BLOG STORE
It's just a way for me to make a few cents off this blog by offering you the convenient way of being able to buy the stuff I've reviewed here off Amazon. If you buy something off Amazon through the link above I receive a small referal fee. It's no big deal, but since I'm keeping this blog otherwise ad-free I need to look out for other forms of income. Thanks for your understanding.
![[image error]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IFPSmVxEIGE/UAqBSCRecqI/AAAAAAAAAXQ/s_rebd9eL5Q/s1600/Zipang+05.jpg){kind=link}