|
|
November 11, 2006GettysburgGettysburg is an impressive battlefield. Despite the fact the battle took place west and south of a village of some 2,400 people that has only grown in the intervening 143 years, most of the battlefield belongs to the National Park Service and has been remarkably well-preserved. The Park Service is even clearing away trees to make the battlefield more true to how it looked on July 1-3, 1863, although that process has some ways to go. A few highlights:
This is the stone fence where Colonel Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine defended the Little Round Top. It's a bit different from the movie, unsurprisingly (only a few scenes of the film were shot on the battlefield); the slope is not nearly as steep as you might think, and the regiment took remarkably few casualties considering it withstood repeated assaults from the 15th Alabama before launching a bayonet charge against Colonel Oates' exhausted men, capturing some 400 prisoners and ending the threat to the Federal flank.
Here we look down from the top of Little Round Top into the Devil's Den. General Hood's division managed to take this position and assault the front of Little Round Top, but it was brutal fighting. The small creek running through the Devil's Den is known as Plum Run, but after the battle it was called Bloody Run, for its waters ran red with blood for days.
This is a view of the objective of Pickett's Charge, looking across the fields crossed by the men of Pickett's Division and Pettigrew and Trimble's brigades. On the right is a small copse of trees, surrounded by a fence today, and on the left is Ziegler's Woods. The area as a whole was where Pickett was to break the Federal lines and win the battle for the Army of Northern Virginia, and some of his men did succeed in breaking the lines, but there were no Confederate forces available to follow up the success, and Federal forces were quickly able to seal the gap. 15,000 men charged across this ground, and roughly 7,000 came back.
This is where the charge broke: the bloody angle. Confederate forces under Brigadier General Lewis Armistead got across this stone fence at great cost.
And this is where Brigadier General Armistead was mortally wounded by troops of the Union II Corps under Major General Winfield Hancock. Hancock was wounded in the charge, but remained on the battlefield until his troops turned back Pickett's Charge, at which time he was carried to the hospital. Hancock and Armistead had been best of friends prior to the war.
This is east of Gettysburg, where Major General Jeb Stuart's cavalry attempted to get around the Federals' right flank and strike them in the rear. Federal cavalry of the 2d Cavalry Division under Major General Gregg met them here and fought a long but inconclusive battle. This monument is to the 1st Maryland Cavalry. Note the inscription: "Maryland's Tribute to Her Loyal Sons." There are very few monuments to Confederate units at Gettysburg, whereas there is one to just about every Federal regiment. This is because the battlefield was controlled by veterans of the Army of the Potomac, and they had no interest in permitting their enemies to put up their own monuments. In more recent years, every Southern state was permitted to place a memorial to veterans from their states, and there are a very few regimental memorials for Southern troops, but that's all. Because Maryland had soldiers fighting on both sides, all Maryland memorials we saw noted that the memorial was to her loyal sons, AKA, those who fought for the Union.
Among the units engaged was the 1st Maine Cavalry, a unit near and dear to my heart as one of my ancestors fought with the Maine cavalry (although I've been unable to determine if it was the 1st Maine Cavalry).
This is a shot of the field and barn where the Federal and Confederate cavalry and horse artillery clashed. Much of the fighting centered around the barn in the picture; Federal cavalry fought around the barn's right, Confederates to the left.
This is the National Military Cemetary at Gettysburg at sundown. The small white markers are graves of unknown soldiers. The monument is to one of the regiments who fought at Gettysburg, as the markers extend even into the cemetary (which, of course, wasn't there prior to the battle).
And this is the Lincoln Address Memorial, which commemorates Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address. While Lincoln was not the featured speaker that day (that honor fell to Edward Everett), his speech remains one of the most stirring and memorable explanations of America known. It was a great day, and I only regret not getting more chances to see the entire battlefield. While we went to just about every spot on the field, we didn't always get out to look around, and there is so much to see that even though I thought we'd seen everything, I can think of several places I hope to visit tomorrow before we leave. Update: Welcome, Pajamas Media readers. Don't forget that there's plenty of more interesting stuff on the main page. Posted at 08:26 PM · History • · Personal · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
June 06, 20066 June 1944: Remembering D-DayBlackfive has a good collection of links to posts commemorating today, the 62d anniversary of D-Day. It is difficult for us to imagine that time, even though barely more than half a century separates us from that day. Today as we fight on in Iraq and Afghanistan, our casualties are scarsely higher after four years than those we sustained in one horrible twelve-hour period on Omaha Beach. D-Day was an exercise in what is known as battlefield calculus: we knew the Germans had fortified the beaches heavily, and that there were troops ready to defend them as we came ashore. But the laws of physics guarantee that a limited number of defenders can only do so much before they are overwhelmed, and so the work of the Allies was to put enough men ashore to overwhelm the defenders. Losses were certain to be bad; men in the first wave would be slaughtered in wholesale lots. But if we put enough men ashore quickly, the Germans simply wouldn't be able to kill them all and we could establish our toehold on Festung Europa. It was nasty and brutal, but it worked, and within eleven months of the invasion, Adolf Hitler was dead and the Thousand Year Reich had fallen some 988 years shy of the mark. Posted at 11:05 AM · History · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
April 07, 2006Rudolf VrbaHow not to be impressed with a man who escaped Auschwitz not to save himself, but to warn the last remaining pocket of Jews in Europe in the hopes of saving a few lives? The term 'greatest generation' is overused, but it's hard not to feel it's appropriate in describing Rudolf Vrba, who died this week at the age of 81. The last eyewitnesses to the Holocaust are passing from view now, and with them those who hope to deny the very existence of the Holocaust will seek to take advantage of their absence to further their own ends. So take a moment to read about a man who risked his life to save hundreds of thousands from the destruction of the Final Solution. (Hat tip: Professor Althouse) Posted at 07:21 PM · History · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
February 01, 2006Coretta Scott KingCoretta Scott King died yesterday at the age of 78, 38 years after her husband was murdered in a Tennessee hotel. It would have been supremely easy for Mrs. King to have spent the rest of her life raising her children and going on with her life. Instead, she adopted her husband's cause as her own and worked for the rest of her life to publicize his work, ensuring that his cause was her own. While there is little possibility America would have forgotten Martin Luther King Jr.'s contributions to forcing the cause of civil rights forward as few people in American history have before or since, Mrs. King's efforts helped to keep that cause in civic discourse, and her efforts were instrumental in making Dr. King's birthday a national holiday. There is an element of irony in Mrs. King dying the day before Black History Month begins. I have inflamed tempers in the past by arguing that Black History Month is the improper solution to highlighting the contributions of black Americans to American history, and I will not revisit that here. I will note, however, that it would be unfortunate if Mrs. King were relegated to the pages of black history rather than taking her place as an historical figure for America. Crispus Attucks, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, Ralph Abernathy, Martin Luther King Jr. and many others are logically excellent role models for black Americans because they happen to share the same skin color. But they are no less valid role models for Americans of any color, because their contributions to America helped make this country what it is today. I do not question the importance of highlighting these contributions as a means to fight back against the prejudices that still exist today and to inspire young blacks to great accomplishments of their own. But it is important to remember that what they accomplished was important regardless of the color of their skin. So it is with Mrs. King. Her life should be an inspiration for all Americans. Posted at 12:28 PM · History · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)
October 17, 2005Rush to JudgementVia Alterman I learn that a plurality of Americans think that President Bush's presidency will be judged a failure by history. Alterman's reaction? "You couldn’t have figured this out, say, last November?" Naturally, Alterman is convinced that the Bush presidency's failure is so plainly self-evident that it may as well already be recorded as an historical fact. Readers will be unsurprised to learn, however, that I think it's quite clear Alterman is jumping the gun by at least a decade. How do we judge presidents? Who were successes, and who were failures? After Washington, you can find people who will point to all other presidencies as bad without looking very hard. Hard-edged libertarians despise Abraham Lincoln's actions in response to secession. Few Republicans think very much of FDR's varied attempts to pull America out of the Great Depression. Despite the general outpouring of love for President Reagan after his death last spring, the average Democrat is unlikely to look back fondly on his presidency and declare it a great success. Granted, historians try to use different criteria in adjudging a presidency, but bias will inevitably creep into all such judgements because it is difficult to apply objective criteria to 43 men's actions in response to vastly varied circumstances. These judgements are all the more difficult when those making the judgements remember the time in question; see the fond reminisces of the Kennedy presidency for evidence of this. Under JFK America saw the Bay of Pigs disaster, the erection of the Berlin Wall, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hardly the hallmarks of a massively successful presidency. Yet even now, 42 years after his death, Kennedy is frequently remembered as a great or near-great president, a ranking completely out of order with his presidency. (See here for the Federalist Society/Wall Street Journal rankings, where Kennedy still comes in as Above Average.)Kennedy has faded as memories of his personal charisma fade, but it will likely be another half-century before any real consensus on his presidency can coalesce. It is therefore far from likely that anyone could realistically expect anyone right now to assess the Bush presidency with any hope of accuracy. Things which appear important now may turn out to be irrelevant in the grand scheme, while issues currently ignored may turn out to be far more important than we now realize. We need look no further than the Clinton presidency to realize that an issue that was on few radar screens in the 1990s, Islamofascism, will now be an important yardstick against which President Clinton will be measured (although it would be improper to mark him down too harshly for it, as it is virtually inconceivable that any president would have reacted with adquate measures against the growing threat we faced at that time). When one considers what is likely to be seen as the defining issue of the Bush presidency, the war in Iraq, it should be clear to even the most partisan observer that there is no way to know right now how history will view the Bush presidency. If, in twenty years, Iraq and Afghanistan are reasonably peaceful and still maintain representative governments, the Bush presidency is going to look pretty good. If not, the Bush presidency will look pretty bad regardless of what happens with the price of oil or whether or not the economy is going gangbusters. Don't believe me? You don't have to: just look at history. There is probably one U.S. President who is notorious for economics during his presidency, and that's Herbert Hoover, who got to take the blame for the Depression (and he did some things to deserve it). Yet his successor, the aforementioned Franklin Delano Roosevelt, presided over eight years of dismal economic news far worse than what happened under Hoover, and FDR is generally ranked as a great president, thanks to his performance during the Second World War. It's hard for us to imagine today, with the slogan 'It's the economy, stupid' still resonating, to believe, but presidencies are rarely rated based on the strength of the economy. In the rear view mirror, such issues are seen as far less important, possibly (although probably not) because the ability of the president to materially effect the economy is nowhere near as great as is assumed by the media. Mr. Alterman has every right to try and declare the Bush presidency a failure. It is good for Alterman politically, and it may help to propel his party back into power. But I suspect Alterman is smart enough to realize that the real judgment of the Bush administration will have to wait a few decades before we can look back on it with any accuracy. Posted at 11:17 AM · History · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)
June 07, 2005The Clinton LegacyVia The Corner I see that President Clinton's legacy is being discussed again, this time in response to John Harris's book, The Survivor. Richard Cohen indulges in some Clinton nostalgia while serving up the (unintentionally) amusing line that Harris's book about Clinton is the first written by an objective journalist or historian. It is left to the reader's imagination to speculate on how Cohen defines objective, although I suspect it leans in the direction of someone who thinks the way he does. This is not uncommon, as most of us like to think of ourselves as far more reasoned and logical than we in fact are, yours truly not excepted. I have some sympathy for President Clinton. Just as his presidency was winding down, my own time as a company commander came to an end. While we were six orders of magnitude apart in our levels of responsibility, we both had reached positions we'd looked forward to for many years, and now we had to hand over that position to someone else with the knowledge we would never again serve in that capacity. While I managed to get through the ceremony without tears, it was no easy task and I very nearly broke down when my NCOs handed me a framed guidon as their going away gift to me. So it was with some interest that I watched President Clinton during President Bush's inauguration, as I had some appreciation for the pain he no doubt felt on the last day of his presidency. Worse, while I could look forward to other positions and at least the potential for higher command, President Clinton knew that there was no other job in the world where he could have anything approaching the level of responsibility he had in the White House. All that was left for him was how history might remember him. Regrettably for the President's ego, history is likely to remember him much as it remembers most presidents: little if at all. How many Americans can name five presidents who didn't serve during their lifetimes whose names aren't Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt or Wilson? I'll wager the percentage is pretty small. We remember presidents for wars, as a rule, and President Clinton served during a time of relative peace and prosperity. Yes, the Islamofascists we fight today were fighting us during the Clinton administration, but not at a level history will remember. Even if those on the right who want to blame Clinton for failing to act against Islamofascism in the 1990s are successful (and their argument fails against the harsh facts of history: there is no evidence to suggest that a Republican administration would have reacted materially differently to al Qaeda than the Clinton administration), how many Americans can name the president who bore far more responsibility for dropping the ball on a far larger war: James Buchanan? President Clinton, if he is remembered at all, is likely to be remembered in the same vein as President Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached; people may remember the name and the fact he was impeached, but few will be conversant with the details. Otherwise, there simply isn't much in President Clinton's record that will be remembered. He pushed NAFTA and GATT through, but trade accords are rarely considered historic events regardless of their importance. The same is true of welfare reform, a major initiative that will fall into the same category as most presidential domestic initiatives: unknown to all but a few. And President Clinton was involved in some military action, from Mogadishu to Kosovo, but those battles can be expected to fall into the same category as the United States's appalling number of minor military actions in Central America in the 20th century. Is that fair to President Clinton? Perhaps not. But life is not fair and attempts to make it so are more likely to make matters worse. Furthermore, whatever legacy President Clinton has earned is unlikely to be recognized until well after his death and the deaths of the partisans on both sides who will seek to build up or tear down what he accomplished to further their political agendas. At which point he is unlikely to care what history says, since he'll no longer be able to read it. The best he can do for now is acknowledge that he presided over relatively peaceful and prosperous times between the end of the Cold War and the beginning of our current war. If it is not as much as he might like, it is far better than what many presidents can enjoy. Posted at 10:07 AM · History · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)
January 26, 2005World War II and ChoiceI can see that the question of whether or not World War II was a war of choice or a war of necessity will be central to the issue of when to go to war. If World War II was a war of choice, the case for engaging in wars of choice is stronger than if we had no options in World War II. But, while it would improve my case, the consensus seems to be that we were forced into World War II and that Jim Henley's test for going to war was passed in that case. Except that situation only pertains as long as we look at the situation on 7 Dec 41. Yes, after the Japanese attacked us Germany declared war and sent U-boats to the East Coast to attack American shipping, so we were locked in. But the situation on December 7 was the result of numerous policy decisions made by the Roosevelt administration in the months leading up to the attack. By the time Japan struck at the United States, the U.S. was already at war with Germany in many respects. Roosevelt had agreed to guard British shippiing in the western half of the Atlantic, had gifted American destroyers to the British navy to help them protect their own shipping, and was supplying Germany's two primary opponents with war materiel. While we might not yet have actually exchanged shots, FDR had the United States as close to combatant status as he could get us without a declaration of war. Given that, it becomes somewhat more difficult to argue that the United States could not have avoided involvement in World War II. Had we not provided so much assistance to Britain and the Soviet Union in 1940 and 1941, Hitler might well have decided not to bother with a declaration of war against the United States following Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor itself might have been avoidable as well, if not for the Roosevelt administration's insistence on blocking Japanese moves in the Pacific. Japan struck at the United States only after our support of China had threatened to deprive the Japanese of vital resources. A less aggressive foreign policy on the part of the Roosevelt administration might have prevented American participation in World War II. I believe, and I suspect most of my readers will concur, that such a policy would not have been in the best interests of the United States. Whatever benefits we might have gained through avoiding the war would have been lost in the gains made by Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union in our absence. FDR's policies of inching towards belligerency were logical moves to protect American interests. This brings us back to our original question, however: if World War II was an avoidable war but one we were right not to avoid, where to we draw the line? Posted at 04:26 PM · History · Comments (7) · TrackBack (1)
July 04, 2004July 4, 1776228 years ago today, the Continental Congress printed up a document formally separating the thirteen colonies from their mother country. The document was signed only by President of Congress John Hancock and the congressional secretary that day, contrary to the romanticized version of history repeated ever since, and it had actually already been approved several days prior. As with many such historic moments, the actual timing has been obscured in favor of an easier to remember storyline. But as long as we remember the important part of the storyline, the historic particulars can slide a little without undue harm. Today we will light off firecrackers, watch baseball games, eat more than we should and enjoy a little time off. And sometime today, perhaps we'll take the time to actually read the magnificent document that set our people on the path to becoming the United States of America, for it is well worth reading today as a reminder of what we then believed the purpose of government to be, as well as the source of legitimacy for any government. Those words are no less true today than they were on that hot July morning more than two centuries ago. Have a wonderful Independence Day.Posted at 09:51 AM · History · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
July 03, 2004Electoral GamesThis quiz is very cool. Tom McMahon has put together seventeen quizzes (as of this writing) that consist of an electoral map of the United States. Based on the results (Democrats in Red, Republicans in Blue, Other in Gold), you have to guess what year the election took place. I went 11 for 17, dropping a couple of easy ones. See how well you can do.Posted at 07:18 PM · History · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
June 11, 2004The FuneralA family, a nation, and the world bid farewell to President Reagan this morning. The service very appropriate and moving. I was particularly impressed with the speeches by Lady Thatcher, former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, President George H.W. Bush and, of course, President Bush. Many of them touched not only on his accomplishments, but on his humor, an important aspect of Reagan's life that was well-remembered. There were tears (including, surprisingly, a moment when President Bush (41) choked up while giving his speech), but there was laughter as well. (Which leads into a pet peeve of mine: years ago, at the funeral of Ron Brown, President Clinton caught some flak because he was seen laughing at the service; well, that's part of what you're supposed to do at a funeral. I always found those attacks on President Clinton incredibly mean-spirited and petty.) And yes, some of the tears were mine. The Battle Hymn of the Republic always gets me, and I was most impressed with the work done my the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in making the President's final journey so precise. A fine sendoff for a man who greatly deserved it.Posted at 12:03 PM · History · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
June 06, 20046 June 1944Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces: You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world. Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely. But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory! I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory! Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.General Eisenhower's Order of the Day, 6 June 1944 Posted at 10:02 AM · History · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
June 05, 2004June 6, 1944: Training for D-Day“The more you sweat in peacetime, the less you bleed in war.” -Unknown From the moment the last British troops boarded the various civilian craft sent to evacuate them from the beaches of Dunkirk, it was clear that the Allies would have to reinvade Europe at some future date in order to ultimately defeat Germany. Such an operation would require new tactics and doctrine to ensure the success of the effort. Failure to secure a beachhead somewhere on the northwest coast of Europe might doom the Allied hopes of defeating Germany. All military operations carry some risk of failure, but the invasion of could not afford to do so. The Allies could (and would) struggle once they were ashore. They could make grievous errors both before and after the invasion. But once they started landing, there was no margin for error. The landings had to succeed. Which meant the Allies would have to train for them until there was no question they would succeed. In 1941, the United States Army began doing precisely that. The 1st Infantry Division, the Big Red One, began training for amphibious operations, practicing loading and unloading aboard transport ships and disembarking on beaches along the U.S. Atlantic coast. It completed this preliminary training in early 1942 before shipping off to England. While the initial amphibious training it had received gave it a leg up on any other American unit, the U.S. Army still lacked true amphibious doctrine. It began to remedy this in June 1942, with the formation of the First Amphibious Brigade and the 531st Engineer Shore Regiment. However, the Brigade was shipped to England in August 1942, having taken only a few small steps towards developing amphibious doctrine the Army needed to successfully invade Europe. Fortunately, the British were picking up the slack. Immediately following Dunkirk, the British had begun carrying out small raids on the European coast with units that became known as the Commandoes. Using their experiences as a base, the British constructed training centers to disseminate this information to larger units. To its credit, the U.S. Army began taking advantage of these centers quickly, creating an American branch of what the British called Combined Operations and assigning Brigadier General Lucian Truscott to command the U.S. section. Throughout the rest of 1942, American and British units conducted a series of experimental exercises to develop amphibious doctrine as well as helping American and British units learn how to operate together. While the operations were not always successful, they were able to begin the process of developing the critical doctrine the Allies would need to invade Europe. This included the use of specialized assault troops and the development of airborne operations in support of amphibious landings. These lessons would be of significant value on June 6, 1944. American contact with German forces at Kasserine Pass added new urgency to the need for effective training prior to the invasion. Despite a training regimen that would have stood up against any other army’s in the world, the U.S. Army was rudely shocked by Erwin Rommel’s troops, although they were able to recover relatively quickly. But their experience with their first taste of combat demonstrated the need for better training methods to every American general, not least of whom was Dwight Eisenhower. Ike vowed that no unit under his command would stop training until the war was won. From the moment U.S. units arrived in England, they began training. Soldiers trained on the basic soldier skills they would need to succeed. Soldiers spent hours on firing ranges, developing their marksmanship abilities to a fine edge. Physical conditioning was also a major focus. Allied soldiers would not be slowed because they were worn down simply from carrying their own equipment. But there could be no mistake about what they were training for: the invasion. Units trained to assault pillboxes and other fixed installations they could expect to see on French beaches over and over again, using both blank and live ammunition to ramp up the experience to make it as close as possible to the real thing. Units learned how to embark and disembark off of the many landing craft available to the Allies, until they could debark in the shortest possible time. Thousands of men went through the U.S. Assault Training center, which trained units beginning at the individual level all the way through battalion exercises. Then they began assault exercises. In addition to providing what is now known as echeloned training, the training of units at multiple levels concurrently, the assault exercises provided the Allies with valuable experience about what might or might not work in the invasion. Lessons learned were codified into new doctrine and tactics, and then utilized in future exercises to confirm or deny their validity. The training did not come without a price. Operation Tiger, on 27-28 April 1944, saw the deaths of 749 American troops when German E-boats sank two LSTs and damaged six others. Yet even this catastrophe provided important lessons to the Allies, including the need for rescue ships at the beaches and the fact the Americans and British had been operating on different frequencies despite being involved in the same operation. Discovering these flaws had been costly, but resolving them probably saved many other lives on 6 June. Airborne troops didn’t have to worry about capsized landing craft, but instead were making jump after jump into the English countryside. These jumps carried their own risks, from parachutes that failed to open to landing in trees or water. Over and over again airborne units would fall from the sky to begin grueling three-day exercises that forced them to quickly assemble in their drop zones, determine their location, move to their objectives and take them against varying enemy opposition. When Allied soldiers acted on their own or in small groups to disrupt the defending German forces early on June 6th, much of the credit belonged to the commanders who forced them to do so over and over again in the months leading up to the invasion. Other units received more specialized training. Major John Howard’s company prepared for their assault on Pegasus Bridge with six days of training attacking a similar bridge in England under all conditions. The glider pilots conducted some 43 training flights, each more difficult than the last, to ensure they would be able to put their cargos on the ground in the right places when the time came. American Ranger battalions, meanwhile, were learning how to climb sheer cliffs in record time to prepare for their assault on the Pointe du Hoc. And combat engineers were learning about the numerous obstacles that made up Hitler’s Atlantic Wall, to ensure they could breach them quickly and efficiently once they hit the beaches. On D-Day, years of training paid off in every facet of the invasion. Major Howard’s troops landed within a few hundred meters of Pegasus Bridge, thanks to the training of his glider pilots, and his men seized and held the bridge until relieved. American paratroopers, although scattered beyond belief during their drop, found their way to their objectives and ensured that the troops from Utah Beach were able to clear the beach via the causeways across the flooded areas. Rangers scaled the Pointe du Hoc and seized the gun emplacements, only to learn that the guns had never been installed. And the battered and terrified troops on Omaha Beach, despite facing a situation so bad American generals considered abandoning the beach, instead banded together and forced their way off the beach, maintaining the vital link between the American troops at Utah Beach and the British forces. By dusk on June 6th, the Allies were ashore in sufficient force they would not be dislodged. The Germans would fight on for another ten months, but both Allied and German generals knew the truth: with the Allies back in northwestern Europe, the outcome of the war was now a foregone conclusion. Check out Blackfive's collection of D-Day posts in honor of the 60th anniversary of D-Day.Posted at 11:10 PM · History · Comments (6) · TrackBack (1)
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911-2004As most Americans are probably already aware, President Ronald Reagan died at his home today at the age of 93, presumably from complications due to his battle with Alzheimer's disease. President Reagan was a fascinating figure, as people will no doubt point out ad nauseum over the next few days, a conservative devoted to smaller government who presided over a significant expansion of the federal government. Immensely popular, yet a president whose second term was marked largely by the Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan was ranked as a Near Great President by the Federalist Society in 2000, and that ranking will likely stand the judgement of history. Why? Probably because of his optimism and his openness. Ronald Reagan wore his love for America on his sleeve, and he made clear his confidence in America and Americans' ability to make the world a better place. More importantly, people knew where Reagan stood. Certainly, many people disliked his policies and even hated him, but there was never a question where he stood. In this more 'modern' era of politicians who strive to walk on air to avoid leaving any footprints that might show where they stand, Reagan's committment to his beliefs seems a stark contrast, and one that many people miss. Regardless of what most people think of others, it's hard not to respect someone who stands up for their beliefs. So it was with Ronald Reagan. He will be missed.Posted at 03:53 PM · History · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)
March 23, 2004Must See TVBlackfive notes that the History Channel will be showing HBO's mini-series Band of Brothers starting April 11. If you have not seen the series, I cannot recommend it highly enough. The series is based on Steven Ambrose's book, Band of Brothers, which follows a company from the 101st Airborne Division from their initial training in the United States through D-Day, Operation Market Garden, the Battle of the Bulge, and the end of the war. Produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks, the production values of the series are superlative and the acting is excellent. If you have any interest in learning what life in a military unit is like and what people go through in combat, Band of Brothers is well worth your time. Check it out.Posted at 06:37 PM · History · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)
December 07, 2003Remember Pearl HarborNever forget.Posted at 08:32 PM · History · TrackBack (0)
September 03, 2003The Death of OratoryFor those who wonder why statesmen don't make great speeches anymore, check out this PowerPoint version of the Gettysburg Address. Via Donald Sensing, who's got a damn good site for a gunbunny. Posted at 08:10 AM · History · TrackBack (0)
June 06, 2003To Remember59 years ago, Allied soldiers began the liberation of Europe in a little-known French province known as Normandy. While there are those who now question our wisdom in spending American lives to save France, those are only the angry words of the short-sighted. The Allies' bravery, valor, and sacrifice made the world we now live in possible. If you happen to know any who served during World War II, whether they were physically at D-Day or not, today is a fine day to take the time to thank them for their efforts. Posted at 09:25 AM · History · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)
February 06, 2003Happy Birthday, Mr. PresidentHere's hoping that President Reagan enjoys a happy 92d birthday as best he can. And let us all reflect for a moment on the man whose policies helped end the Cold War and eliminate the ruinous policy of Mutual Assured Destruction. Posted at 09:02 AM · History · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)
January 22, 2003Bill Mauldin, R.I.P.Bill Mauldin, World War II cartoonist extraordinaire, has died. Mauldin was best known for his Stars and Stripes cartoons portraying two infantrymen named Willie and Joe. His cartoons were an important touch of humor for GIs who spent years overseas risking (and often losing) their lives during the war. His influence was exemplified by the impact he had on fellow vet Charles Schulz, who printed a similar cartoon every Veteran's Day: Snoopy heading over to Bill Mauldin's to quaff a few root beers. Hopefully the two of them will have the chance to quaff a few wherever they are now. Posted at 11:18 PM · History · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)
December 07, 2002Remember Pearl Harbor61 years ago today, Japanese aircraft struck at the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor and other American military bases on Oahu. The surprise was near total. Three hours after the attack began, more than 2,000 Americans were dead, more than 1,000 entombed in the remains of the USS Arizona, and the United States had been plunged into the deadliest war in history. Today we are running short of Pearl Harbor survivors, as the event grows ever dimmer in our memory. If you know any Pearl Harbor survivors, or even just someone who was alive that grim Sunday, take some time to talk to them about what they remember. We should never forget the damage done by a combination of isolationism and ill-preparedness. We must always remember Pearl Harbor. Posted at 10:09 PM · History · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
December 06, 2002It All Started With a MouseA quick (belated) happy birthday to Walt Disney, who would have been 101 yesterday. Instead he died of lung cancer in 1967, but his legacy lives on in his films, shorts, parks, and most of all, in Mickey Mouse. So take a minute to reflect on a man whose life's work went to make so many people happy. Certainly there are far worse legacies. Posted at 06:27 AM · History · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
December 01, 2002Preserving the Memories of WWIIRachel Lucas has found her calling: recording the stories of World War II veterans while she still can. She's looking for assistance from those who may know something about applying for grants and other assistance for such projects, so if you happen to know anything in those areas, stop by and let her know. Posted at 08:29 PM · History · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
November 11, 2002Lest We Forget“No sweat, sir. You can count on me. We’ll stop them.” Last words of SP4 James K. Stoddard as he lay bleeding out. And he knew it. “Red Hat Six, this is Ghostrider Two-Seven. I’m sorry I won’t be able to help you any more today. I’m gut shot. I’ll have to leave you now. Hang on and good luck.” Radio transmission from helicopter pilot to Army captain and his unit facing the 174th and 66th NVA regiments “It don’t mean nothin’.” Words of SP4 Henry Lawrence when told his unit was surrounded by 66th and 174th NVA regiments “Look out, they’re coming.” “Many of the wounded will not live until morning.” “This is Red Hat Eight-One, we need a MEDEVAC bad, three soldiers are hurt bad by a mine and my legs are blown off. Tell them to hurry!” Last words of 1st Lt. “Chuck” Hemingway “I know, I’ll be careful, but they need this machine gun up front.” Last words of 1st Lt. Bob Arvin “I can see you, you are coming up on the left. Be careful, they have a 57 recoilless in the brown building.” Last words of Cpt. Terry Sage, killed by 57 Recoilless fire in JGS compound Posted at 11:22 AM · History · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
October 25, 2002Come And Fight By My SideToday being St. Crispin's Day, it seems only appropriate to reproduce the famous speech attributed to Henry V (actually written by Shakespeare long after) before going into battle at Agincourt. I suspect many will see it as glorifying war, and I suppose it does to some extent. But it speaks to the hearts of men who served together, who were prepared (and often did) go into battle together. "Westmoreland: Oh, that we now had here but one ten thousand
Posted at 09:40 PM · History · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)
|
