Bang the Tin Drum Slowly

Günter Grass has died, at the age of 87.

Not quite 30 years ago I read The Tin Drum (in the original).  Haven’t read it since, but the ol’ boy’s death suggests I might ought to re-read it.  I also saw the film version a number of years ago, but in all honesty I can’t say I recall much about the movie.

The Tin Drum is set in and around Danzig (as it then was), a city whose 20th Century past was, to put it mildly, troublous.  That part of Europe — where what had been Poland for centuries was finally partitioned out of existence in 1795 — had long been a mish-mash of ethnicities, and Danzig was no exception.  The novel begins before the war and ends after the war, in an insane asylum in what had by that time become West Germany.

Grass’ own life arc mirrored the turbulent history of his home town.  Born too late to serve in the Wehrmacht during its triumphant years, by the time he was subject to compulsory service the war had irretrievably turned against Germany.  His first, unsuccessful brush, with military service was when he attempted to volunteer for the U-boat service in 1944.  He was turned down, most likely because of his age (he’d just turned 17), thereby setting himself up to survive the war.  Had he been accepted for U-boat service there is a strong likelihood he would not have lived; of the 40,000-odd men who served aboard the boats, almost exactly 30,000 never came home.  By 1943 Germany had lost the Battle of the Atlantic.  In March, 1943, the Allies sunk over 40 U-boats in one month.  Doenitz withdrew them from the North Atlantic patrol after that and from then through the end they were hunted beasts; many boats didn’t even complete a single patrol before their destruction.

Shortly after being turned down for the U-boat service he was drafted into the Waffen-SS, where he served in an armored unit from February, 1945 until his wounding on April 20.  He was captured by the Americans (again a fortuitous circumstance: most of the Germans captured by the Soviets were sent to their deaths in the Gulag) and eventually released a year or so after the war.  By then Danzig had become Gdansk and the Poles, to whom it was turned over, had ejected all ethnic Germans (in fairness, the Soviets had ejected the Poles from the 150 or so miles of Poland that Stalin took as part of the post-war Great Carve-Up).  Grass fetched up in the Ruhr district, where for a time he worked in a mine and later did an apprentice as a stonemason.  He began writing in the 1950s; The Tin Drum was published in 1959.

For years he was a reliably left-wing voice, although he did speak against the most radical elements, at least in terms of their aim of immediate socialist revolution.

In 2006 the facts about his service in the Waffen-SS came to light.  In all his prior and very public statements he’d never mentioned it.  Not a few people took him to task for it, precisely because he had been such a prominent critic of Germany’s engagement with its Nazi past.  In truth he ought to have known better than to let something like that lie fallow for so long.  If he actually was drafted, and unless he did things in uniform he’d just as leave we didn’t know about, then there was no reason to have buried his past.  If anything you’d think it would have made him a more credible, more effective advocate for his public positions.

Was Grass a volunteer or a draftee?  I have no way of knowing whether any draft papers or other illuminating documents would have survived this long.  What did his unit do while he was on active service with it?  If it was on the Eastern Front it most likely spent most of its time getting shot to pieces by overwhelming Soviet forces.  But was it involved in massacring a few civilians on its way out of town?  I haven’t seen anything one way or the other.  You’d think that, given how Grass suppressed a biographical phase that the ordinary viewer would see as highly significant — one way or the other — someone would have taken the time to dig up the facts.  That is, after all, how Kurt Waldheim came to grief.  His unit was known to have been in the Balkans during his service and it was easily discovered what it had been up to during that period.  It didn’t bear the light of day very well.  [Aside: I still remember seeing Waldheim’s campaign posters from 1986 in Vienna, when he was running for president:  “An Austrian the World Trusts”.  Cue Inspector Clouseau:  Not any more.]  I may be entirely wrong:  That investigation may already have been undertaken and discovered that there’s a whole lot of absolutely nothing at all to see.  If that’s the case, however, then why did he bury his past so long?

Grass expressed some trepidation about German reunification, a sentiment in which he was hardly alone, either in the world at large or even within Germany itself.  Konrad Adenauer was far from the last German not entirely to trust his countrymen with their own power.  Among Americans, I still recall a professor of mine, who’d fought in the U.S. Army during the war, laconically observing that he got “a very peaceful feeling” when he contemplated the existence of a forcibly divided Germany.

Nonetheless, the collapse of the international communist experiment and the unwinding even of large aspects of the European social democracy model left Grass, like many on the left, casting about for some point of relevance.  In the U.S. we see the left-extremists clustering around two overall approaches to the problem:  The first is to embrace the descent into irrelevance, as with the “social justice,” “micro-aggression” would-be thought police.  The other is doubling down on the 1930s-vintage neo-communist expansion of the state, as with the EPA’s nascent attempt to regulate your back-yard hamburger grill.  In Europe it’s taken, and is taking, the form of collaborating in the Islamization of the continent, and its hand-maiden, hatred of Israel.

In April, 2012, Grass published “Was gesagt warden muß,” (“What must be said”) a so-called “prose poem” in which he takes issue with Germany’s delivery of a nuclear-capable submarine to Israel.  He claims to fear that Israel may assert a right to an alpha strike on Iran, in order to prevent its development of nuclear capability.  He asserts that a nuclear-capable Israel endangers a fragile world peace.  He claims to speak now, because he is tired of the hypocrisy of the West.  And so forth.  The piece is short; here’s a translation of it in The Guardian.  Read it all.

Left unsaid by Grass is any mention that of the two states he specifically names, one — Iran — has adopted for its formal policy the extermination of the other, its “wiping from the map,” and the killing of as many of its citizens as possible; the other — Israel —  for whom Iran has such sanguinary and explicit intentions, has adopted no such policy in respect of any other nation or people.  One of the two nations — Iran — at that time was, and remains today, a known sponsor of some of the most bloodthirsty islamo-fascist terror groups in the world, almost all of whom expressly address their violence against the United States and its interests.  The other is not a sponsor of international terrorist groups.  One of the two nations — Iran — hangs homosexuals from construction cranes, stones adulteresses to death, and regularly practices torture on its own population.  The other — Israel — does not.  One of the two nations — Iran — sentences Christians to prison or death for practicing or preaching their faith.  The other — Israel — has in its parliament political parties representing its minority ethnic populations.  One of the two states Grass mentions gives every reason to fear its possession of any weapon of mass destruction.  The other has never.  One state — Iran — has never been the object of an attack by its united neighbors with the intent of eradicating it.  The other — Israel — has repeatedly weathered these attacks.

There is no other way to characterize Grass’ point:  Iran and Israel are morally equivalent quantities.  The attack of either on the other would be equally worthy of condemnation.  The attack of either on the other is equally to be feared (although, you know, Israel has, you know, never actually, you know . . . attacked Iran).  The world, presumably, would be equally injured by the extinction of either.  The attack on Iran by an Israel fearful that the mullahs mean precisely what they say about wiping Israel from the map, and Germany’s having enabled any of that attack, would splash a further taint of guilt on an already guilty-ridden land which could never be washed clean.

At the risk of understatement:  I am profoundly uninterested in any person, in any ideology, in any theology which cannot tell any material difference between the Iran of the mullahs and Israel, the only functioning democracy in that entire area of the globe.

Maybe his poem was nothing more than a desperate grasp for relevance in a world in which his chosen politics has been refuted pretty thoroughly by the march of time.  Certainly his later bleat in favor of Greece, and how awful it is that the rest of Europe, and Germany in particular, are just being such meanie-pokers to decline to shovel sand down a rat hole indefinitely, argues in favor of that hypothesis.  Or maybe it could be something more sinister.  Maybe it has something to do with why Grass chose for some 60 years to cover up his service in the SS.

In any event, we have lost another anti-Western voice from the world’s babble.  Whatever his talents as a writer may have once been, he won’t be missed.

Flossenbürg, April 9, 1945

In addition to this year marking the sesquicentennial of the events surrounding the end of the American Civil War, it also marks the 70th anniversary of the last year’s events in World War II.  I’ve already blogged the destruction of Dresden.

On this day in 1945, at Flossenbürg prison in Germany, a small group of people were stripped naked and hanged.  For those who are unfamiliar with continental practices, I’ll point out that the trap door was never popular with the Nazi regime.  When they hanged you, they put a short noose about your neck then kicked the stool out from under you.  So you strangled.  A few years ago I read a book, My Father’s Country, written by a woman whose father was a major in the Wehrmacht.  Before the war he’d been a successful businessman.  Although not directly involved in the July 20 plot, it had been mentioned to him shortly before by a cousin of his or something, and because he didn’t rat them out, he too was tried and hanged.  I recall the scene in the execution chamber, where a group was gathered to be hanged together.  One of them — I think it was the major — went from one man to the next, saying, “Brace yourself.  It takes about 20 minutes.”

In pondering over the events at Flossenbürg I realized today that I have biographies of the three most prominent victims: Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Major General Hans Oster, and Oster’s former boss at the Abwehr (the Wehrmacht’s counter-intelligence organization), Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.  Alarmingly I can’t seem to find the Oster biography online anywhere any more, not even on Amazon.

This is unfortunate because of the three, Oster is the least known and the one who was by a wide margin the most fearless of the group.  Oster came to despise the Nazis very early in the game, and on religious grounds.  He was almost foolhardy in his opposition, openly discussing his desire to rid Germany of the pestilence.  He was also willing, after much soul-searching, to go so far as to commit what was undeniably treason in an effort to sabotage the German war effort, repeatedly warning a Dutch acquaintance who worked at the embassy in Berlin of the exact date and time of the planned invasion.  He wasn’t believed.

Oster’s opposition to the Nazi regime was, if not as inextricably so as with his fellow victim, Bonhoeffer, an outgrowth of religious conviction.  Nonetheless he had initially supported the national socialist movement.

How could that be?  The Nazis never made any secret of their anti-Jewish sentiments (their 25-point program adopted in 1920 already in Point 4 states right out that a Jew can never be a German and therefore can never be a citizen) and, even if you are not willing to charge individuals with foreknowledge of the Nuremberg Laws, or the Einsatzkommando operations, or the Operation Reinhardt facilities, or the slave labor or death camps, still:  How difficult could it have been to see what direction they were facing?  You’ve got an organization which (i) readily turns violent (although in fairness to the Nazis, their most active opponents were equally as violent towards them, when they could manage to be), (ii) has aspirations about the ordering of society which, if not explicitly totalitarian, were easily recognizable as laying down the marker of a claim to be the central organizing structure in the lives of everyone (the Nazis very much meant it when they described themselves as “socialist”), and (iii) defines its other central tenet — “national” — in such exclusionary terms, and with reference to such unabashedly identified not-our-kind-dear groups.

I’m not impressed by the proposition that these otherwise-decent people simply chose to overlook the warning signs of what the Nazi party could become given a chance to because of desperation to do something, anything, to restore the political integrity of the German state relative to its international pariah status.  By the late 1920s the Weimar Republic had largely managed to put Germany back on an equal footing as a player in international affairs.  Yes, they still had to pay reparations, but then so did France in 1871.  Yes, they were still prohibited from setting up any but a minuscule military apparatus . . . but then other nations, e.g., the United States, also drastically curtailed their militaries, and voluntarily so.  By the late 1920s Germany was a country with whom other countries did business as an equal, and no longer as a conquered territory.  So I can’t accept that things were just so awful for Germany that a reasonable person could have concluded that the Nazis for all their faults were the lesser of any two sets of evils.

At least Oster opened his eyes in fairly short order after the Nazis took power.  The doings of June 30, 1934, when several hundred people, including the last chancellor of the republic, were slaughtered in an orgy of retribution, finally seem to have rung his bell.  Others, like Canaris, it seems, never did tumble to the fact that the wickedness was inherent in the philosophy and the system, and was not just an aberration of Hitler’s character.  Canaris towards the end even specifically affirmed his faith in national socialism, repeating that his objection was to Hitler.  In this respect he was indistinguishable from the communists who want to draw a distinction between “communism” and Stalin’s bloody reign.

However different were their paths towards opposition, both came to that place well before the war.  This was in contrast to the numerous officers who only turned against Hitler when it became apparent he was losing their war for them.  Both Oster and Canaris were at the heart of the plot that, were it not for Neville Chamberlain’s craven knuckling under at Munich, would have spared the world a war.  Very briefly, there were a number of officers who were terrified of a war in September, 1938.  They knew that Germany wasn’t ready for it and yet Hitler was giving every indication of being intent on provoking exactly that.  So they decided to take him out if it came to armed confrontation with the Western powers.  It really did come down to the last hours, apparently.  Hitler had his troops on the Czechoslovak border, and the plotters had stationed armed men in apartments in and near the government quarter of Berlin, weapons and the ready and waiting only for the signal to seize Hitler, Himmler, Goering, and the rest of the leadership, as well as key facilities.  And then Chamberlain flies to Munich and caves; from that point it became obvious that there was to be no war, and the senior officers in involved withdrew their support.

The plot’s existence remained hidden until 1945, when Canaris’s diary was discovered, detailing the events.  He was already under arrest, as was Oster, on other grounds — Himmler had long since pegged both as traitors although they’d been kept alive in the hopes of further implicating others.  When Hitler found out that they’d been at it since 1938 he ordered them all hanged.

Bonhoeffer, Oster, Canaris, and several others at Flossenbürg were hanged, 70 years ago today.  Whatever may be said about their support for the regime at any point, they did finally oppose it, backing their actions and their words with their lives.  Let him who is without sin, I suppose.

Remind Me Who’s Still Fighting the War?

As I think Gentle Reader will have divined by now, I am from the South.  This fact causes me no shame.  There are millions of people all over the world who disagree with me on that point.  Being from the South is, in their book, inherently shameful, and people who aren’t ashamed of it should be doubly shamed.  Or something.  On the other hand, I’m not particularly cock-a-hoop about being from the South, either.  It is neither more nor less than my home and the place, among several places in the world where I have felt at home, that happens to be the place where I most feel at home.  I am entirely comfortable that there are thousands of other places where, given enough time, I could feel at home.  Providence just happens to have set me down here.

Be all that as it may (as an old priest of mine used to say . . . and by the way, he was 178 years old when I knew him in the early 1970s, was very much Old Southern . . . and he had marched at Selma, a fact he never mentioned; we only found out years later from a third party source that he’d been there):  I suspect that nearly every Southerner who ventures outside the South, or who has had close contact with non-Southerners — “Yankees” we call them, no matter where they’re from, sort of like Bavarians call everyone who isn’t from Bavaria a “Prussian” and the Amish refer to all outsiders irrespective of origin or ethnicity as “English” — shares as a common experience a number of accusations, nearly all centering on either (i) race, or (ii) what a certain generation of Charlestonians until recently referred to as the “late unpleasantness” (World War I was the “recent unpleasantness”).

Specifically, we are, so the Yankees, all secretly yearning for our lost power over the Coloreds, mourning the passing of the day when we could have any one of them who got “uppity” tied up and whipped or worse.  And of course we’re “still fighting the war.”  We hate Catholics, Jews, and any other outsiders.  We’re either too stupid to wipe our sweat off our own sister’s ass after buggering her, or alternatively we’re so damned evil-genius clever that we manage to control the whole stinkin’ country with 22 U.S. Senators and a minority in the House of Representatives.  And so forth.

Now, can you tool about the South and find people who meet some, most, or all of those descriptions?  You bet you can.  You can also — with the arguable exception of folks sporting an on-going fixation on “the war” — find them everywhere else you choose to look if you’ll be so kind as to open your eyes and ears and close your pie-hole for a moment or two.  At least some of the people you’ll find in the South who are, so to speak, more Catholic than the pope on matters pertaining to either or both race or the war are what they know in West Virginia as “come-heres,” people who have moved south from other parts of the country.

All of which is to say:  Whatever, guys.  If that’s what you want to think, enjoy your ignorance.

April 9, 2015, is the 150th anniversary of General Lee’s surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia.  By that time they were so beaten down that Grant had to cough up 25,000 rations to keep them from starving after the surrender.  The men who finally ran them to ground, who had stood shoulder-to-shoulder in ranks a stone’s throw or closer apart and blazed away at them with .58-cal. rifled weapons (seriously: pace of 90 feet — 30 yards — and imagine someone pointing a rifle at you from that distance; the firing lines were that close or closer in numerous battles), receiving fire in return, seem to have thought fairly well of them.  Not that the Army of the Potomac wasn’t over-joyed to have won; not that they entertained any illusions about the cause for which Lee’s men had fought so long and so hard.  But they respected them, as only the mutual survivors of near-death experiences can.

Don’t take my word for it, Gentle Reader.  The officer designated to take the surrender — Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, hero of Little Round Top and who would, in the summer of 1914 become the last man to die of a battlefield wound from the Civil War — has left us his thoughts on the subject:

“The momentous meaning of this occasion impressed me deeply. I resolved to mark it by some token of recognition, which could be no other than a salute of arms. Well aware of the responsibility assumed, and of the criticisms that would follow, as the sequel proved, nothing of that kind could move me in the least. The act could be defended, if needful, by the suggestion that such a salute was not to the cause for which the flag of the Confederacy stood, but to its going down before the flag of the Union. My main reason, however, was one for which I sought no authority nor asked forgiveness. Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve; standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond;—was not such manhood to be welcomed back into a Union so tested and assured? Instructions had been given; and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from right to left, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldier’s salutation, from the “order arms” to the old “carry”—the marching salute. Gordon at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly, making with himself and his horse one uplifted figure, with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual,—honor answering honor. On our part not a sound of trumpet more, nor roll of drum; not a cheer, nor word nor whisper of vain-glorying, nor motion of man standing again at the order, but an awed stillness rather, and breath-holding, as if it were the passing of the dead!”

Thus the men who alone unquestionably earned the right to an opinion about the men they had fought.  It is, however, precisely the respect angle of Chamberlain’s words which so galls the extreme left nowadays.  Having won is not enough for TNR.  Gentle Reader is of course entitled to come to his or her own smug opinions, 150 years after the fact, and without the stench of septic wounds or rotting human or horse flesh in the nostrils.  But I do think that the men who did achieve the result, with their own flesh and their own wounds and privations, are entitled to be heard on the subject, even now, even today.

For a worthy example of today’s left-extremist sanctimony, we have The New Republic’s modest proposal to make April 9 a national holiday.  And of course to remove from public view every name of every person who served in the Confederate armed forces, from buildings, parks, U.S. military installations, everything.  Presumably acknowledging the existence of these people in any other context than to execrate their memory is not harmonious with the vision announced by Dear Leader, and so forth.  The occasion for the article is a speech Dear Leader recently delivered on the 50th anniversary of the fighting at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma (where my old priest was, and not as chaplain to the Democrat party, either).  From the author:

“In the self-critical America of Obama’s imagination, more people would know about the Edmund Pettus bridge and its namesake. The bridge itself wouldn’t necessarily be renamed after Martin Luther King or John Lewis or another civil rights hero; because it is synonymous with racist violence, the bridge should bear Pettus’s name eternally, with the explicit intent of linking the sins of the Confederacy to the sins of Jim Crow. But Obama’s America would also reject the romantic reimagining of the Civil War, and thus, the myriad totems to the Confederacy and its leaders that pockmark the South, most of which don’t share the Pettus bridge’s incidental association with the struggle for civil rights.”

“Self-critical”?  This is supposed to be a trait which the United States shows only in Dear Leader’s imagination.  Similarly, perhaps, to the self-criticism of modern Iran.  But really, is this author so ignorant of American cultural history?  Well, yes, yes he is.  We are a people who has agonized about our personal and collective sins, about what it means to be a free citizen, rather than a subject.  We not only inherited the curse of slavery and nurtured it for another 90 years, but we also fought a vicious civil war to end it.  We have spawned more anti-vice campaigns than you can say grace over, and from the Great Revival of the 1750s to Billy Sunday drawing crowds of thousands to be told what filthy sinners they were, we’ve demonstrated an unquenchable appetite for self-criticism.  When we fought our first war for overseas expansion, there was tremendous and very public gnashing of teeth at the abandonment of our political identity as a country in it for something other than sordid gain, as detailed in Barbara Tuchman’s The Proud Tower.  For over a century we drew back in horror at the thought of fighting on a European battlefield, only to get dragged in twice in a single generation to precisely that.  After the first time around we agonized over what role, if any, America should have in the wider world.  After the second war we got to confront an implacably hostile, murderous system of government, and we spent the next 45 years agonizing over how to fight this blood-soaked system without becoming like it ourselves.

No, when our learned author from The New Republic taxes us with a lack of “self-criticism,” he means that we fail properly to abase ourselves before the rest of the world.  We don’t have to — we’ve got Dear Leader to do that for us.  He’s gone trotting about the place apologizing for us enough to last several generations.  [Aside:  And what is it with left-extremists and “self-criticism”?  Are they all really that transparently Maoists?]

I have additional news for our author:  The Edmund Pettus Bridge gets just as much play in schoolbooks as the Civil War.  And American students ignore both just as predictably.

“It’s unfathomable that anyone today would attempt to name a new military installation, or rename an old one, after a Confederate general. But at the time these bases were named, there wasn’t nearly as much of a consensus behind the argument that the Confederates committed treason against the United States in support of a war for slavery.

That lack of consensus was an ineluctable consequence of concerted postbellum efforts to sand down the seams reuniting the states. There was a real but inadequate constituency for crushing the Southern establishment after the Civil War, and reintegrating the country under an entirely different paradigm. Instead, the North enabled the South by giving it unusual influence over shaping the official mythology of the war. Yes, the South surrendered. The states ratified the 13th Amendment. The Union survived. These facts couldn’t be altered. But memorializing the rebellion as a tragedy of circumstance, or a bravely fought battle of principle—those narratives were adopted in part for the unspoken purpose of making the reunion stick.”

Other than the transparently bogus notion of the North somehow “giving [the South] unusual influence over shaping the official mythology of the war,” (I mean, was there a vote somewhere?) my principal quibble with the above quotation, and in fact the entire article, is that those who served in the Confederate armed forces were traitors.  He’s perfectly correct, of course, that the war was, when you really pull all the onion layers back, a war to preserve slavery.  Anyone who thinks that the South would have seceded in the absence of the slavery question is deluded.

On the other hand it was also a war about the fundamental nature of the union itself.  It was slavery which made confronting that question unavoidable; no other issue penetrated so deeply into the fabric of the economy or the society that existed in the South.  But 1860 wasn’t the first time the question had come up, either.  The Hartford (that’s Hartford, Connecticut, I’ll remind the author) Convention during the War of 1812 was gathered for the specific purpose of discussing secession in response to the economic catastrophe that was that war.  The nullification “crisis” of 1832, when South Carolina did no more than what Dear Leader has done — declare entire chunks of lawfully passed statutes of Congress to be nullities — certainly pointed the way to the issue.

This author’s characterization of the Southern military as “traitors” presupposes a settled answer to the question, “Is the union indissoluble?”  There was and had never been any such thing.  I defy anyone to point to any provision of the U.S. Constitution which addresses the subject of whether or under what circumstances a state may or may not leave the union.  It sure as hell isn’t implicit in the very notion of a national government, either.

I’ll give the author a quick history refresher:  In 1787 the United States consisted, with markedly few exceptions, of a narrow string of settlements along the coastal plain, with an enormous back-country populated by hostile aboriginals, and beyond that terra incognita.  It wasn’t just some grandiloquent gesture that caused the Lewis and Clark Expedition to be named the Corps of Discovery.  We really had no idea at all of what was on the far side of that river.  For all we knew Prester John was lurking somewhere out there.  Such “roads” as existed were stump-clogged mud bogs that were in the most literal terms a threat to the lives of all who traveled on them.  Rivers ran free, meaning you floated downstream — there being no steam navigation, Best Beloved — until the next rapids, then unloaded your flat-boat and either portaged around them or, if they were too high, built yourself a new boat below the falls.  A simple letter could take weeks to make it up or down the East Coast, even; heaven help you if you were at Harrodsburg in the Kentucky wilderness.

No one knew whether it was even physically possible to govern such a vastness, with such varying climate, topography, and ways of life, as a single nation of free and equal citizens.  No one had ever tried it before.  In part of his interviews for Ken Burns’s The Civil War, Shelby Foote, whose massive three-volume history of the war I’ve read (I never thought I could learn so much about the Red River campaign), he points out that the Southern states would never have ratified the U.S. Constitution 1787-88 if they had not thought they had every right to get out if they so chose.  I have no reason to question that statement.  [Aside:  Surely someone has culled through the public statements, speeches, newspaper screeds, and so forth of the ratification process in the different states.  I would be curious to discover whether and to what extent the specific question of dissolution was broached and hashed out.]

What I do know is this much:  The man who had commanded the army of liberation, and who had been president of the Constitutional Convention, in which latter capacity he would have been present for pretty much every session, would have received the committee reports, would have listened to the delegates chewing things over among themselves not only on the floor but in lodgings afterward, or during walks in the evening, and of course as the Universally Acknowledged Disinterested Player would have been the natural person to vent one’s own thoughts to . . . he found the subject of secession sufficiently significant that he specifically addressed it in his Farewell Address, and at length.

Mind you, Washington’s Farewell was not a speech but an open letter to the American people.  Not being extemporaneous, every word in it — and everything not said about the subjects covered in it — would have been the product of hours of earnest reflection.  The Farewell was his political valedictory; he never expected to step before the national public again.  Whatever he was going to say to the nation that he, as much as any man alive, had birthed, was in his letter to his people.  Whatever he left out he had to have assumed would be forever left unsaid.  Let’s hear it from the Father of His Country:

“The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.”

That is his opening paragraph on the subject of the union.  He spends the next paragraphs dwelling upon the mutual advantages of union, in commerce, in liberty within, in freedom from subjugation from without.  Washington recognizes two groups of considerations for solicitude for the union, what he calls “sympathy” and “interest,” with oddly enough the self-interest angle receiving most of his attention.

I’ll also point out, in relation to the question of whether a permanent union were even possible, Washington observes:

“These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment.”

A “full and fair experiment”; it was certainly that.  Our TNR writer would tar with the brush of treason those who eventually considered that the experiment had been unsuccessful.

But the one thing that Washington, in the eight consecutive paragraphs which he devotes to the subject of the union and why it deserved to be, had to be preserved against enemies within and without, there is one assertion he never makes.  He never, not once, states that the Constitution created an indissoluble union and that as a point of law the individual states surrendered their right to go their separate ways.  With all the other reasons of sympathy and interest that Washington laid out for the cause of union, with an eloquence latter-day politicians would do well to study (I watched some of Rand Paul’s recent announcement of his candidacy for president, and it sounded like a collection of one-liner sound bites), he never even skirts with the point-blank conversation-ending claim that the Constitution itself forbids it.

Don’t get me wrong.  I think the South ought to have lost the war, if only for the reason it was fighting to preserve a monstrosity.  I think it is a good thing that the South did lose the war, and not only because by losing the war slavery vanished from our part of the world.  I do suggest, however, that the most important outcome of the war was achieving a final, literally-sealed-in-blood resolution of the most basic of all questions about the nature of the union.  Had the answer gone the other way, then the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments would have been dead letters from their adoption, because they wouldn’t have applied in the seceded Confederacy in any event, and because if anyone up North had tried to enforce them (or any other civil rights legislation), then you would have had states splintering and re-configuring until all you had was something that looked an awful lot like Germany after the Treaty of Westfalen in 1648.

What would the world look like now, had there been only an impotent United States in 1917?  In the spring of 1918 — right about this time of year, in fact — all that stood between the Kaiser’s troops and Paris was a thin line of green American troops.  They held, just barely.  That Britain and France had lasted even that long was only because of the behemoth American economy which could churn out war material in truly mountainous quantities.  Germany would have won the war, in 1918 if not sooner.  True, we’d have been spared the second round of the conflict, but what would a European continent dominated by an authoritarian Germany have looked like?  What luck would Germany have had against the Soviet Union, if they had got into it as they did in 1941, only with no British Empire and United States to back-stop the Soviets?  It’s widely known that the Red Army and its supplies rode in Dodge trucks; what’s less known is that the foot soldiers marched in American-made felt boots.  Even less known is that the famous T-34 tank was an adaptation of an off-the-shelf design by an American; would that design have existed?

Brown v. Board of Education — assuming Kansas were still in the union at that point in any event — would have been a dead letter.  There would be no Civil Rights Act of 1964.  No Title IX.  No Social Security.  No Medicare.  No food stamps.

There would be, in short, almost nothing that either the left-extremists or American patriots hold dear, had the result of the Civil War been that the union is dissoluble, that the experiment failed, that government of the people, by the people, and for the people was to perish from the earth.

But in 1860, as leaders north and south had to make up their minds where to stand, none of the answers were known.  Robert E. Lee is merely the most famous example of someone who didn’t jump ship until his own state voted to leave the union.  Had he been in it for the express purpose of preserving slavery, it is not unreasonable to expect that he would have placed his services at the disposal of the slave-mongers much sooner.  But he didn’t.  As Shelby Foote also points out in his interviews for Ken Burns, when Lee referred to “my country,” he was referring not to the Confederacy or to the United States, but to Virginia . . . and in doing so he was merely following a convention that was not at all that uncommon at the time.

I’m not, in fact, at all averse to the notion of making April 9 a formal observance nation-wide.  Can’t say I’m all that interested in the expense of making it a federal holiday (add up the payroll expenses of one day’s pay for the civilian government and that’s what you give away, per national holiday), but it would not at all be inappropriate for us to celebrate the defeat of the Confederacy.  What I don’t agree with our Learned Author at TNR about is why the occasion is worthy of celebration.  He wants to observe it to spit on the graves of the men who marched in front of General Chamberlain that day.  I want to observe it because what April 9 marked was the opening steps in the healing process from a Civil War.

You see, Civil Wars don’t have to end like ours did, with the defeated side laying down its arms and the combatants going home, to be left in peace so long as they never raised their hands against the victors again.  Ours nearly didn’t end that way, either.  Jefferson Davis sure as hell wasn’t interested in that; General Lee received counsel to disperse his troops as guerillas.  But after Lee and Grant (and remember, this was only a few days after Grant, Sherman, and Lincoln had met at City Point and discussed precisely this issue) determined it would not so end, the war in fact stopped.  There were no more burning cities or farms.  Cattle were not slaughtered and the owners left to starve over the winter.  Even in the depths of the war specifically on the civilian underpinnings of the war, during Sherman’s march, there was no rapine, no hanging of random victims.  For all of its outrage, Southern Womanhood was never outraged, not even in places like Clarksville where the occupation was especially hostile and long-lasting.

Contrast the Russian civil war of 1918-22.  Vast swathes of the Russian landscape were reduced to howling, starving, blood-soaked wilderness.  Both sides knew there was to be no mercy for the vanquished, or their families or their homes.  And so both sides fought accordingly.  Is that how our TNR writer wishes our Civil War had been fought, how he thinks it should have ended?  In Solzhenitsyn’s chapter on the beginnings of the Gulag, on the Solovetski Islands in the early 1920s, he tells of a young man, scarcely older than a boy, who when he was arrested gave as his “profession” the answer, “machine-gunner.”  What kind of society do you imagine gets built with those stones?

Contrast the Roman civil wars, with their proscriptions and thousands of necks chopped through.  Remind me, O TNR writer, how the Roman republic came through that experience.  Perhaps our TNR writer would prefer to see the United States enjoy something along the lines of the Taiping Rebellion, with its tens of millions of dead and devastation of enormous areas of the country; hell, we know (from his fondness for “self-criticism”) what he thinks about the Chinese experience of the first half of the 20th Century.  War lords and dead peasants by the million, interspersed with foreign subjugation.  Closer to our own day, and therefore even less excusable to be found in TNR‘s cocoon of ignorance, are the ructions in the former Yugoslavia.

Here, I’ll go ahead and pose a challenge to TNR‘s advocacy of a scorched-earth ending to the American Civil War:  Point to me one single instance in all of recorded human history where a civil war that ended as this buffoon wishes ours had ended — with the losing side not merely defeated but “crushed,” an outcome not sufficiently dear to enough hearts, as this writer moans — produced as a result of having so ended a regime of peace, justice, or prosperity for the most downtrodden of society.  Does this goof-ball really think that the recently freed slaves or their descendants would have been better off in a South that looked like Tambov in 1922? or the Mongolia of Roman von Ungern-Sternberg? or Kosovo in the early 1990s? or China in the years of the Reds’ consolidation of their power after 1949?

I’m not trying to excuse the legalized oppression of Black America that descended on the South for the century after the war.  There’s no excuse for it.  It didn’t have to be that way.  But it wasn’t that way just in the South.  Let’s hear it from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Heart of Atlanta Motel case —

“This testimony included the fact that our people have become increasingly mobile, with millions of people of all races traveling from State to State; that Negroes in particular have been the subject of discrimination in transient accommodations, having to travel great distances to secure the same; that often they have been unable to obtain accommodations, and have had to call upon friends to put them up overnight, S.Rep. No. 872, supra, at 14-22, and that these conditions had become so acute as to require the listing of available lodging for Negroes in a special guidebook which was itself “dramatic testimony to the difficulties” Negroes encounter in travel. Senate Commerce Committee Hearings, supra, at 692-694. These exclusionary practices were found to be nationwide, the Under Secretary of Commerce testifying that there is “no question that this discrimination in the North still exists to a large degree” and in the West and Midwest as well. Id. at 735, 744. This testimony indicated a qualitative, as well as quantitative, effect on interstate travel by Negroes. The former was the obvious impairment of the Negro traveler’s pleasure and convenience that resulted when he continually was uncertain of finding lodging. As for the latter, there was evidence that this uncertainty stemming from racial discrimination had the effect of discouraging travel on the part of a substantial portion of the Negro community. Id. at 744.”

Jim Crow as a legal system may have been peculiar to the South, but Jim Crow as a way of doing business was nation-wide, as the testimony cited by the court amply demonstrates.  Does our TNR author really think that those practices would have been less widely spread, or more gentle, in the aftermath of a civil war ending as he wishes ours had?

Alt-history is always fraught with peril, because you’re by definition discussing something that did not happen.  I’ll say this much, though:  I am entirely convinced that for all of the failures of the post-war United States, north or south, adequately to deal with dumping several million largely illiterate, unskilled, destitute people who had to learn the most basic survival skills as free citizens into the socio-political mix, and for all the outrages committed against them and their descendants over the next century, the fact that, 50 years after the march at the Edmund Pettus Bridge we have made the progress we have (or had made until Dear Leader came long to poison the wells all over again, purely for partisan political advantage) is largely because of, not in spite of, how the Civil War was ended, beginning on April 9, 1865.

And for that reason I’m all in favor of making it a day of national thanksgiving and remembrance.

As far as the Southern combatants being traitors whose very names are or should be unpronounceable in polite society?  I suggest TNR-boy needs to get sent for some re-education, and maybe self-criticism, in a struggle session.  Just like Chairman Mao would have decreed.

 

Good News — An Embarrassment of Riches

Somewhere I ran across the observation that if you’re not outraged you’re not paying attention.

Reader(s) of this ‘umble blog will scarcely accuse me of not paying attention.

On the other hand, sometimes one stumbles across a news item which allows one to break the pattern of endless carping and excoriation.  Something like The Washington Post’s report that there are more museums in the United States than McDonald’s and Starbuck’s outlets . . . combined.

Granted, most of them are tiny.  F’rinstance, on the Gulf Shores Parkway in Alabama there is a Spear Hunting Museum.  Seriously.  Not just spears, or spear throwing, but specifically spear hunting.  I wonder if they include spear fishing in there.

[Aside:  The link goes to a page in Atlas Obscura, a truly wonderful outfit dedicated to the unusual.  I forget how it was that I first came across it, but one day a few years ago they sponsored a specific day for everyone to get out and go somewhere way out of the way.  As things happened I was in a position to visit the Berman Museum of World History in Anniston, Alabama, which is right next door to the Anniston Museum of Natural History.  Both are city museums, and the Berman is especially fascinating.  It was founded by this couple who had met during the war in North Africa, where both were working for different outfits, both doing Things That Don’t Get Into Newspapers (if you know what I mean).  Over the course of what appears to have been a very long and very successful life, they seem to have managed to acquire any number of intriguing objects.  Like Hermann Göring’s Reichsmarschall’s baton.  Not a field marshal’s baton; Hitler made more field marshals at one shot than the Kaiser made during all of the Great War.  But there was only one Reichsmarschall, and ol’ Fat Hermann was it.  They’ve also got a complete toilet set that belonged to Napoleon; let’s just say that however much hair the dear ol’ Emp. had or didn’t have, if he couldn’t comb it, brush it, and perfume it with all the trinkets, unguents, and whatnot in that set, he should have just given up and shaved his head.  But they’ve also got tons of ancient history stuff, stuff from the Far East, piles of Great War weapons, equipment, and uniforms, and all in all just about anything a reasonable person could want to see.  When they died they left it all to the city, for the specific reason that joints like the big cities already had enough museums and why couldn’t Anniston (apparently he was from there) have a nice one too?  The natural history museum is also very well done, I have to say.  Add in the side benefit that I got to spend the day with one of my Favorite. People. Ever. and it was just about perfect.  Cannot recommend both places too strongly.]

Or there’s the Corning Museum of Glass, which the wife and I stumbled across many years ago while wandering around in upstate New York.  It was there, it was about the only indoors thing to do in town at that time of year, and so I figured I was going to squander an afternoon doing something so this might as well be it.  It turned out to be one of the best museums I’ve ever been to.  Fascinating stuff, really, and I can only speculate that it’s got even better in recent years.

Then there’s the Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg Museum in Auburn, Indiana, with emphasis on the three eponymous car manufacturers.  It’s in the old factory museum, which includes the original, and wonderfully restored, factory showroom, the height of 1920s art deco design (it’s so glam that people have their weddings there).  They’ve got several of the 481 total J-Series cars ever made, including one of the only two short-wheelbase models.  Back then, if you were as rich as God, you drove a Rolls; if you were actually richer than God, you drove a Duesenberg.  They’ve got some absolutely priceless other specimens there, including the only Type E-2 prototype which they discovered in pieces, re-assembled and restored, and there it sits with its 193-inch wheelbase.  Think about that:  193 inches between the axles; hell, the radiator isn’t even in the same ZIP Code as the gas cap.  But it’s not just Auburns, Cords, and Duesenbergs they’ve got; there’s an entire wing devoted to Indiana-built pre-1920 cars, a large proportion of which are pre-World War I.

If you like really off-the-beaten-track car museums, it’s hard to beat the Lane Motor Museum in Nashville, Tennessee.  It’s in an old commercial bakery, and like the Berman Museum, it was the collection of a single collector.  They specialize in foreign oddball cars most Americans have never heard of.

If you’re into things a bit less greasy and noisy than cars, and a bit less dusty than Napoleon’s dandruff, there’s the American Quilt Museum in Paducah, Kentucky.

This is one of those areas where the internet really earns its keep.  If you’re even a tiny  bit interested in something, chances are someone out there has collected a bunch of it and for a nominal consideration will let you look at it.

Happy exploring.

From the Dept. of Better Late Than Never

. . . Division of Oopsies! Our Bad, we have the news that, 700 or so years after it turned over their grand master to be burned at the stake, the Vatican is “partly” rehabilitating the Knights Templar.  Or maybe not.

Whether the supposedly blockbuster manuscript was or was not “perfectly described” in a 1912 catalogue, or whether or not scholars have simply been over-looking its existence for however, long, one thing is clear:  The charge that sent Jacques DeMolay to the stake — heresy — was not found to be meritorious by Pope Clement V himself.  His own preference was to reform the order (as happened many times to different orders and houses within orders), rather than suppress it and turn its members over to the civil arm for punishment.

Based on the evidence assembled, Vatican scholars say Pope Clement’s suppression of the Knights Templar was dictated by a combination of political events and ecclesial pressures.  Beginning in 1307, King Philip IV of France arrested and tortured many knights, extracting false confessions of heresy and ordering assets seized.  Pope Clement wanted to end abuses in the order and reorganize it, but eventually he bowed to the king’s pressure and formally dissolved the Knights Templar, because he feared a schism of the church in France.”

Another profile in courage, in other words.

I guess asset forfeiture and the concepts behind RICO aren’t all that new after, all, are they?

Der Himmel Lacht; die Erde Jubiliert

The heavens laugh; the earth rejoices.  The title of Bach’s Cantata No. 31.

The heavens must have been laughing on March 21, 1685, on which date, 330 years ago today, Johann Sebastian Bach was born into a family of very accomplished musicians in Eisenach, previously best known for being the town at the foot of the Wartburg, where Luther translated the Bible.

I know bugger all about the technical aspects of music.  I can’t play an instrument (although I once picked at the banjo).  So I can’t explain just why it is that for over 30 years now I’ve felt deeply moved by his music.  It’s a pleasure I get to enjoy pretty much all by myself, at least among my acquaintances.  Perhaps there are others of my acquaintance who guiltily slip off and let the mysteries of the C-minor Passacaglia wash over them, but if there are, they’ve managed to keep their identities a dark secret from me.

While I was in college, a small church just off campus put on an organ marathon on the tercentenary, March 21, 1985.  I packed by book bag as full as it would go, grabbed a thermos of coffee, and camped out for several hours, studying and listening to relays of organists put the instrument through its paces.  That summer I was in Germany and the local cathedral, which every summer has a weekly organ concert, performed everything Bach ever wrote for organ over the course of the season.  With a student identification it cost may $0.75 to get in, and man alive it was something to hear.

A few years ago the symphony near where I live put on the B-minor Mass (link is to an excerpt) which by way of gentle irony Bach himself never got to hear performed end-to-end in his lifetime.  By an even gentler irony the text is the Roman Catholic Latin mass (Bach composed it for an R.C. prince). I can’t think of anything in Italian, French, or English that Bach ever set to music.  Most of his choral/vocal works are in German (he never worked in any really cosmopolitan city, and the place of his longest tenure — Leipzig — was regarded as being thoroughly provincial).  He did some work in Latin, perhaps most memorably (other than the B-minor Mass) being his absolutely breath-taking Magnficat:

At my age I’m starting to think in terms of bucket list items.  Last month I got to go see a basketball game on Larry Bird’s home court.  I’ve seen Earl Scruggs play at the Ryman, and once, many many years ago I got to see Bill Monroe.  Arlo Guthrie I likewise checked off the list.  Recently I got to see the Wiener Sängerknaben on tour.  I’ve been to Bach’s “home” church, the Thomaskirche in Leipzig, but I do want to hear his choir, the Thomanerchor, perform (well . . . perhaps it’s not strictly speaking accurate to describe them as “his,” since they’d been around over 500 years before he became the director, but nonetheless he spent the final 25 or so years of his life as their director and ever since they’ve been keepers of the flame, so to speak, to the extent that The New York Times once described them as a “Bach re-enactment society,” which I thought was a bit tacky of them).  While not on tour they still sing two or more times a week at the church.

A further bucket list item is to hear Ludwig Güttler and his brass ensemble play.  I have a CD of him performing sundry Bach trumpet pieces with the Neues Bachisches Collegium Musicum and the Leipzig University choir, the disk ending with the final choral of the Christmas Oratorio, “Nun seid ihr wohl gerochen” — Now are you well avenged.  This stuff just puts me in a good mood, no matter how lousy a day it’s been.

At the risk of getting all morbid and all, among my regrets — irremediable, unfortunately — is that when it comes time to go to such eternal reward (for certain values of “reward,” of course) as is in store for me there will be no one and nothing around to play or perform those pieces which I’d most want to have played at my funeral.  Such as, for example, the last movement of Cantata No. 31 — “So fahr ich hin zu Jesu Christ” — “So I go to Jesus Christ.”  Or, even though the tune is well-known in the Anglo hymnary, “Nun danket alle Gott”:

Although most in the English-speaking world don’t seem to realize it, “Bist du bei mir” is actually a death-bed song; the narrator is singing to his love: “Be thou with me, so will I go joyfully to my dying.”  One of my favorite cultural uses of it is in “Joyeaux Noël,” the polyglot dramatization of the 1914 Christmas truce.  They don’t give the entire rendering, but among the most touching moments of the film is when the old couple whose house has been commandeered by the German Crown Prince for his headquarters can hear the protagonist couple singing for the high brass, and the old man wordlessly grasps his wife’s hand.

Lest Gentle Reader suppose I’m thinking of an all-Bach funeral, I’m not.  I have a disk of 18th Century Moravian Brethren music.  On it is “Lob Gott getrost mit singen,” (can’t think of any terribly good way to translate that title), which dates to 1544.  It’s now firmly established as part of the Lutheran tradition in Germany; the link is to an ordinary congregation singing the choral as part of their ordinary Sunday service.  And while we’re reaching back into the very early days of the Reformation and its music, I’d really, really like to have among the chorales sung “Allein Gott in der Höh’ sei Ehr” — “To God in the Highest Alone be Honor” — which, at pre-1525, has to be among the very earliest Protestant chorales.  They sang it at the re-consecration of the re-built Frauenkirche in Dresden (bonus Brer Güttler, who personally raised a boat-load of the money to build it, leading his ensemble):

Even if I can’t have my favorite hymns sung because they’re pretty much all in German, maybe I could have a competent organist?  Contrary to my wife’s assertion, organ music is emphatically NOT all gloom-and-doom.  As brief exhibits I refer to Triosonatas Nos. I, V, and VI.  Those can only be described as jolly.  Same for his transcription for organ of Vivaldi’s A-minor concerto (bonus: this recording is on the re-built Silbermann organ in the Hofkirche in Dresden, the pipes of which had fortuitously been removed for maintenance before the bombing).

Not that Bach’s organ works can’t be rich in dramatic tension and energy.  Here we’ve got another piece recorded on yet another of Johann Gottfried Silbermann’s organs:

In addition to his enormous outpouring of sacred music (some 200 of his cantatas survive, and that may not even be a complete muster of them), he spent a large amount of time exploring the “standard” forms of music in different keys and in different structures.  Perhaps his most thorough exposition is “The Art of the Fugue,” which has fugues in every major and minor key, and in nearly every combination of structure (“similar” motion, “contrary” motion, similar and contrary together, “inverted” motion, and so forth).  As an exercise book he put together the Two- and Three-Part Inventions for harpsichord.  No. 8 is among my favorites.  No. 13 was, for those of a certain age, the background music for the old Commodore 64 television commercials.

The didactic, sometimes nearly mathematical elements of Bach’s music make it particularly well-suited to electronic format.  I’m proud to say I’ve got both Walter Carlos’s Switched-on Bach albums on vinyl at the house.  On the first one he gave us the first movement from Brandenburg Concerto No. 3; on the second we got the complete Brandenburg No. 5.

I supposed I could go on.  But either one is a bit nutty about this or one is not.  De gustibus non disputandum est.  All I can say is Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen — praise God in all lands, that talent, inclination, and opportunity converged so magnificently in central Germany, beginning 330 years today.

 

With Apologies to Dr. Johnson, No. 2 in a Series

Dr. Johnson famously responded to the philosophical claim of the insubstantiality of matter by turning and kicking a rock so hard his foot rebounded off it, saying, “I refute it thus.”  I’ve already once used an allusion to that episode in a post title, and it looks as though I must do so once again.

The battlespace preparation of the lamestream media for the 2016 presidential elections has already begun.  The same organizations who literally camped out overlooking Sarah Palin’s backyard and went combing through Mitt Romney’s junior high school records (but have been strangely silent on the complete lack of information about Dear Leader’s alleged academic achievements) are going to be informing us — breathlessly — that Gov. Christie chalked the word “fart” on the side of a Sav-A-Lot when he was nine, or Rick Perry lifted a Snickers bar from the check-out aisle at 22 months, when mommy was looking away.  At the moment they’re all worked into a lather that Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, dropped out of college and never completed his degree.

The Blogfather, guest-columnist over at USA Today, describes this break from a dreary succession of Ivy League goof-ballery (and he’s Yale Law, by the way), as a potential “breath of fresh air.”  At his home Instapundit, Reynolds has raised the flag of “credentialed, not educated.”  Here’s the nub of his observation:  “All this credentialism means that we should have the best, most efficiently and intelligently run government ever, right? Well, just look around. Anyone who has ever attended a faculty meeting should recognize that more education doesn’t produce better decision makers, and our educated mandarinate doesn’t seem to have done much for the country.”

I’d like to suggest another thought.  Twice in the past hundred years, Western Civilization found itself confronted with ruthless, blood-thirsty and bloody, ideologies which recognized no limits — none at all — to the demands they made on humanity, neither their own adherents nor any other.  Both viewed the extermination of a large part of the species as being not merely a regrettable circumstance of their self-actualization, but in fact part and parcel of their entire package of aspirations.  We refer, of course, to national socialism as practiced by Hitler’s Germany, and to communism as practiced everywhere.

Both ideologies found not merely apologists in the West (and invariably among the highly-credentialed), but outright and active supporters.  Think Kim Philby and his ilk; the world he moved in and betrayed is laid out its touching naïvete in A Spy Among Friends.  Like it or not, Joe McCarthy was right on the money when he claimed that the senior reaches of the United States government were thoroughly penetrated by active Soviet agents (as lately revealed by the Venona transcripts), many of them the products of the best that America could offer, especially in respect of formal education.  Franklin Roosevelt’s people actively admired Stalin and Hitler and sought templates for their own policies in those countries.  In Britain it was the “sophisticated” people, the Oxbridge cultural elite, the new information moguls, who relentlessly cheer-lead for Hitler.  The Times even went so far as to suppress its own reporters’ information flowing back from Germany, lest “Herr Hitler” be offended to see his deeds in newsprint.

What was needed to face down these monstrosities was not nuanced “critical thinking,” but rather the character to recognize evil and accept the battle to the death which is the only prophylactic that has ever proven effective against it.  Fortunately for all of us, in both the United States and in Great Britain, there were men who fought their way to the top who had that character.  Winston Churchill spent years shouting in the wilderness against the menace of Nazism.  He was laughed at by all the Deep Thinkers.  Nancy Astor, the American who was elected to the House of Commons, famously sneered (to Joe Stalin in person, no less) of Churchill:  “Churchill?  He’s finished.”  In America, grimly setting his face against the gale of One Worlders and fellow-travelers inherited from Roosevelt, Harry Truman announced that it was American policy to contain the poison of communism to its current areas of infection.  He then had the good sense to appoint a soldier, Geo. C. Marshall, as his secretary of state to ensure that policy grew teeth, and backed him in what became known as the Marshall Plan.

It was a close-run thing in both countries.  Britain didn’t turn to Churchill until May, 1940 as its only ally, France, was being ground to a pulp beneath Hitler’s tank treads.  Even then the king wanted Lord Halifax as prime minister, the same lord who had been among the most prominent appeasers before the war.  The Labour Party, in what may have been its last patriotic act, communicated to the other parties that it would serve under no man but Churchill.  And the rest is history.  Truman had to fight bitterly against those who wanted the Soviet Union to be handed what it wanted.  Both Churchill and Truman were men of extraordinarily strong character.  Both had ground their way up through adversity that would have daunted most others.  Churchill spent seven-plus years in the Wilderness, scorned by his own party, muzzled by the BBC (lest he offend “Herr Hitler”), a figure of contempt.  Truman had spent years in back-breaking work on the family farm, a bright, passionate auto-didact shackled to a plow.  Had World War I not come along to tear him from the field he would have doubtless have grown old and sour, his talents and energies wasted on making sure the rows of corn were correctly planted.

Oh, and one more thing:  Neither Churchill nor Truman attended so much as a day of “college.”  Neither was a man of subtlety, but the challenges of their day did not require subtlety.  Those challenges required men who were equally ready to kill as to die in defense of all that was best of Western Civilization.

What is also not recognized is that both Churchill and Truman exercised power in a world the very fundaments of which were shifting beneath their feet as they moved forward.  There was no guarantee what the post-war world was going to look like when Churchill vowed that Britain would fight on, “if necessary for years . . . if necessary alone.”  As he correctly pointed out when handed the news of the Alamogordo tests, the nuclear bomb was “the Second Coming in Wrath.”  This was the world dumped in Harry Truman’s lap to deal with.  Neither had a road map to the future; neither could count on the signposts from the past as a reliable guide to the future.  Almost every major decision they had to make had to be made in the context of a novel, unstable, rapidly morphing world.

And both acquitted themselves remarkably well, all things considered.

Despite what Dear Leader may say about the Religion of Peace, we are at war.  We are at war with a religion which utterly rejects almost every value we know as “Western.”  That includes pretty much anything that falls within the rubric of “sanctity of life.”  This religion, well-funded and absolutely without scruple, is bent upon subjugation of the entire world to the thrall of its death cult.  It has no intention of stopping.  Lining up 21 men and simultaneously sawing their heads off, for no fact other than their Christianity, is all in a day’s work for the Religion of Peace.  And all we have to counter them is someone who thinks that faculty-lounge debates are reality (I say this ignoring the equally plausible explanation, at least based upon his observable actions: he’s on their side).  We desperately need a Truman or a Churchill, and all we’ve got is a fellow-travelling disciple of Saul Alinsky.

We are in a world war in which we cannot know what the back-side of this war will look like.  How do you fight a war against an entire widely dispersed religion and not grasp the expedients of a Holocaust?  How do you suppress in public life a faith the central article of which is the duty to slaughter all who do not espouse that faith?  How do you deal with the millions of adherents (however far they may stray from their faith’s strictures on the point) of that faith who in fact do not wish material destruction upon us?  How do we do all of that and not sacrifice our very nature as a Judeo-Christian civilization?  How do we deal with the enemy in our homelands, whom we invited in, in a way which does not make a mockery of centuries of Anglo-American recognition of due process of law?  [I can tell you very much how the continental European tradition would deal with them:  Can you say “St. Bartholomew’s Day”?]  The answers to those questions, if there are answers at all, are not to be found in learned treatises, or in theoretical babble, or “critical thought,” or in any of the nostrums of “community organizing.”  They must arise and be formed from the character of the men and women who will make the decisions that determine those answers.  We need leaders of a strength of character which has within it the ability to answer, plainly and irrevocably, the challenges to our existence.

This need is inconsistent with the politics or philosophy of the American leftists.

Scott Walker fought and won not one, not two, but three elections for governor within the space of four years.  He faced down millions upon millions of dollars of highly coordinated political and legal attacks and three times won, handily, in a state which is not known as welcoming to his end of the political spectrum.  And he’s done so with a certain amount of dash, and completely without apology.  He gives off, at least at this point, a decided whiff of moxie, of character.  He must therefore be destroyed.

And so we are going to hear, relentlessly, about his dropping out of college, as if that is a disqualifier in and of itself.  Referring to Churchill and Truman, I refute it thus.

[Update: 20 Feb 15]  And right on cue, we have an administration spokes-drone claiming that her strategy of fighting people who are willing to saw off another person’s head because of where he goes to church, not by killing the hewer-of-heads, but by offering them all (presumably government) jobs, “might be too nuanced” for people who realize how asinine that statement is.  I can’t say that it was this same goof-ball who said it, because I wasn’t watching the segment, but it was reported to me that someone on a CNN discussion panel seriously claimed that, among other inducements (including, we must assume, lack of government jobs), insufficient “art” was an impetus to American terrorists flocking overseas to join their ideological brethren.  Really?  If readily available “art” were sufficient to calm these savages, how do you explain the 7,000 French Muslims who have gone to fight with ISIS?  Whatever other deficiencies life under dirigisme may exhibit, a lack of access to top-flight art, no matter of what kind, ain’t one of them.

Platerack: 13 February 1945

Today marks a somber anniversary. Seventy years ago this evening, at just around 10:14 p.m. local time, the bombardiers of RAF Bomber Command pressed the release keys and several hundred tons of thermite and high explosive bombs began to rain down on a medieval city in the far east of Germany.

Dresden – the name Drežd´any originates in the Old Sorbian tongue, and means “forest swamp dwellers” – had not been visited by the war thus far, or at least not much. As the capital city of Saxony (Bach had visited and played there from time to time) it was a major traffic center, a place where the Elbe, still navigable year-round that far inland, was crossed by major rail and road lines. The traffic that was crossing at Dresden in February, 1945 was to a large measure decidedly non-commercial, and in fact not even military. Because by then what Dresden mostly trafficked in was what the U.S. came to label “DPs,” or displaced persons.  In February, 1945 they were streaming through the east of Germany by the hundreds of thousands.

From Prussia, West and East, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Saxony, what had once been Poland (and before that Prussia and before that Poland and . . . well hell, you get the point) they came. On foot, in ox-carts, pushing prams, hand-carts, kids’ wagons, anything with wheels, in trucks scrounging rides from sympathetic soldiers, and by train. Any way they could, in fact, manage to escape the Red Army and its vengeance. I have an aunt (by marriage). Her home town is so far in East Prussia it ended up in the Soviet Union after the war. Their father had already been killed on the Eastern Front. He commanded an anti-tank squad, armed with what we called a bazooka and they knew as the Panzerfaust (“armored fist”). In a – successful – effort to avoid a friendly fire incident he deflected the launcher at the moment of launch, and the back blast blew his guts out. Or at least that’s what the family was told. That left their mother and four daughters, the youngest only three or so. To make a long story short, they escaped their town on the last plane to make it out of the airfield, on the way to catch which they were strafed by a Soviet fighter.  During the ride there the oldest sister looked through the rear window of the staff car they were in, and as she described it to me years later, the entire horizon was lined with nearly biblical pillars of smoke and flame from burning farms and villages. A friend of their mother’s didn’t escape. When the Soviets came, she was raped up to 20 times. Per night.

Of course, as the Germans themselves had discovered and exploited wherever they went, a terrorized population getting underway en masse, with no idea of where it’s going or how to get there, plugging the roads and bridges with swarms of desperate humanity, makes a marvelous tool of strategy. Plays all kinds of hell with troop movements, food supply, demands on medical care (just because you’re eight months pregnant doesn’t mean the Red Army is going to slow up by a single pace), lodging (hint: this was in 1945, before George Bush invented global warming, and it got not just cold, but colder than it had in generations . . . and the next winter it got worse), in short, with everything.

The Western allies were concerned with the Soviets’ progress for any number of reasons, not the least of which was the suspicion, already entertained by Churchill in the form of dead certainty, and more-or-less with understanding by at least those who weren’t Stalin’s dupes (e.g., Roosevelt, who to his death thought Stalin was just another ward boss from New Jersey whom he could wheel-deal out of what his soldiers had won and were prepared to defend to the death), that wherever the Red Army stood on the day Germany surrendered was where the borders were going to be drawn. Stalin knew exactly what his military was capable of doing, and thanks to sundry American traitors he had a real good idea of what the Americans were shortly to be capable of.

But of especially the British Stalin would have nurtured scarce other than contempt. A tired, clapped-out, proudly imperialist power, only enjoying the position it did because it drew (“sucked” is the verb Joe would have used) on the manpower and wealth of a good portion of the human population? Stalin could do sums as well as anyone (like how many Ukrainians he could starve to death in any single year), and he would have known precisely how bankrupt Britain was and how negligible a factor it would be in the post-war carving-up of the world (a carving-up Stalin had every intention of seeing happen, no matter what nonsense about One World his acolytes surrounding Roosevelt might think). This was an understanding communicated pretty plainly to Churchill at Yalta. All of which is to say that for the British at least the question of demonstrating itself still to be a puissant world power was very much an issue by early 1945. This realization by the British should not be dismissed as an influence on their decision-making. It was the same reason that in 1914 Austria-Hungary reacted as it did to Franz Ferdinand’s assassination – the convenient removal of someone whom virtually no one in any position of influence in the empire was the least sorry to see laid out on a slab was seized upon as a pretext to “crush the Serbian viper” and prove to the world that a crumbling, imploding, clapped-out, bankrupt, once-glorious empire was still a Player.

So what does all this have to do with Dresden? By early 1945 the Allies had bombed to rubble almost every significant center of manufacturing that could be reached by air, which is to say pretty much all of it. We’d destroyed about as thoroughly as you can with dumb bombs (interesting to contemplate what might have been done with smart ordnance). On the other hand, as Albert Speer showed, unless you hit an industrial machine directly, it’s not all that hard to get it back up and running. Running electrical cable, steam lines, and hydraulic lines isn’t hard. Even re-building rail lines isn’t hard, as long as you’ve got milled rail (which is why Sherman took care to heat and twist them on his marches – “Sherman’s neckties” they called them, and they made the rails useless without being re-milled). Filling holes in roads is something you can do with the rubble of the buildings beside the road. You can bomb the factory until the rubble bounces and unless you destroy the machines – or kill the men who operate them – you’ve not really made all that much a dent on your enemy’s productive capacity. And in fact in Exhibit A, Essen and the Gußstahlfabrik of Krupp, which first the British and then the Americans and then both together, as often as they could gas up the planes and load the bombs to do it, production increased steadily until the last months of the war. What finally ground Krupp to a halt was not the “precision” bombing of the 8th Army Air Force or the carpet-bombing of Bomber Command, but rather that the Ruhr choked on its own production. We destroyed enough dams, canals, bridges, and tunnels that they couldn’t move – physically move – their output any more. William Manchester tells the story brilliantly (and movingly; the book is dedicated to Krupp’s smallest victims, the infants buried in Buschmannshof, in Voerde-bei-Dinslaken, who until after his book “no other memorial”) in The Arms of Krupp.

What about Dresden, though? As you might suspect, as capital of Saxony Dresden did have some manufacturing capacity, mostly what we’d describe as light industry – optics and so forth. But it was all located in the suburbs. The core of Dresden had not been changed all that much since the 18th Century, and in quite a number of neighborhoods even longer. It had been a Residenzstadt, the official seat of the Electors of Saxony (and later, when August the Strong was elected to the job in 1697, the King of Poland), and as such most of the downtown area was given over to the kinds of activities that monarchy and its hangers-on generate. Nowadays we’d call it a service economy, with cottage industry (luxury smithing, tailoring, and so forth) mixed in. The key thing to remember is that with two exceptions there were more or less zero military targets in downtown Dresden. There were no factories to speak of, no barracks, no facilities for what we could call “C-3” – command, control, and communications – no major political nodes like in central Berlin.

The two exceptions were the bridges over the Elbe, rail and road, and the main train station, the Hauptbahnhof. Destroy those and you really put a crimp in the Wehrmacht’s ability to move troops and supplies to the front, and to get those damned civilians (and casualties) to the rear. Leave those operational and you’ve done no more than create a large garbage-disposal job for prisoners of war carrying shovels, brooms, and crowbars.

Let’s summarize through date: We have a largely untouched city, built of wood and stone (and that wood would have been centuries dried, wouldn’t it?), with no targets of any military value in the urban core, but with two sets of targets of great value, both easily identified from the air. And in February, 1945 it was — and was known to be — choked with civilian refugees, unfamiliar with the city and its environs, not knowing where the air raid shelters were (to the extent there were any . . . the local Gauleiter wasn’t among the more competent, and for most of the city the only air raid protection was the cellar of the building that was being bombed over its head), hungry, sick, stricken with frostbite, and above all numbed by shock and misery. And the Western Allies had a point to prove to Stalin.

In the end, the temptation proved too great.

Let us now take a brief digression to contemplate the mechanics of destruction. Ordnance can generically be categorized as being suited either to soft targets or hard targets. “Hard” targets are of course things that are specifically armored, such as tanks, battleships, bunkers, pillboxes, and other things that are built of materials which resist penetration. Like concrete, stone, and metal. “Soft” targets are everything else. Wood, glass, and so forth. Flesh. Clothing. Ordnance for use against hard targets has to be larger, carry a greater explosive charge, and be itself constructed of materials able to penetrate the target. I’m 6’4″ tall, and somewhere I have a picture of myself standing beside a 16″ shell as administered by USS Alabama during the war. That shell comes up to my eye socket. The “tall boy” bombs which finally sank Tirpitz in 1944 were 21 feet long, tipped the scales at 12,000 pounds, and carried a charge of 5,200 pounds of Torpex. Her sister Bismarck had absorbed 14″ and 16″ armor-piercing rounds by the fistful in 1941 but was finally sunk when her own crew opened the seacocks; two tall boy hits capsized Tirpitz. Ordnance for soft targets can be much smaller (so its deployment systems can be smaller, faster, more mobile, and cheaper to build; think “Saturday night special”) and the projectile can carry a far greater proportion of its own weight in explosive payload. Anti-personnel rounds have thin walls and are packed with explosive and shrapnel.

Among the more common civilian hard targets are railroad facilities and stone, concrete, or steel bridges. Why are they “hard”? Well, because unless you actually strike and obliterate the substance of their construction, it’s really easy to get them back up and fulfilling their function. You can vaporize the ticket booths, the train sheds, the platforms, the benches, the arrival and departure boards, the restaurants and restrooms, but unless you actually so damage the rails, ties, and switches as to render them impossible of further use, you really haven’t done any meaningful harm to a railroad station. As long as trains can arrive, load, unload, and depart in the desired sequence, you’ve still got a working railroad station, even though you have to shovel the dead bodies out of the way to do it. By like token, you can blow the bridge deck to hell and gone, but unless you sever the supports from which the deck is suspended, or destroy the piers on which those supports rest, a few hours with some cutting torches, welders, lumber, and basic steel frame members will have the bridge able to accept normal traffic in a day or two. In contrast, a hospital that is blown apart cannot be used as a hospital any more. It must be completely re-built, which is to say replaced. An apartment building once burned out – with as little as a can of kerosene and a single match – is useless.

You can tell what any mission is targetting by the kind of ordnance that is loaded. If you are carrying ordnance which physically cannot destroy a specific sort of target, then you may not ask me to accept that you were really aiming for that kind of target. Kindly do not insult my intelligence.

Which is why, when we ponder the data point that the bomb load which Bomber Command carried on its two missions over Dresden on February 13-14, 1945, consisted of overwhelmingly (by number of bombs) thermite bombs weighing right at 30 pounds, we are not obliged to accept at face value the statement that the attack on Dresden was intended to take out the few military targets in that city.  In the first wave of the attack there were roughly 500 tons of high explosive dropped, in bombs weighing from 500 to 2,000 pounds each.  If you go with the light end that’s 1,000 bombs.  That first wave also dropped 375 tons of incendiaries; at 30 pounds each that comes to 25,000 bombs, more or less.

We are even less obliged to accept the suggestion that something other than the civilians of Dresden were the specific target of the mission when we observe where the Mosquitoes (very light, built of plywood, extremely fast planes whose mission was to drop marker lights on the target aim point for Bomber Command missions — the British did not go in for daylight bombing; that was a fatuity of the USAAF) were ordered to drop their markers: directly over the center of the old city. The train station was (and is today) well outside the central downtown district; the bridges are over the river.

No, the attack on Dresden was planned and executed to see how many civilians we could kill in the course of an evening.  The RAF even admitted as much, at the time.  In its briefing memo to the aircrew on the night of the attack, it pointed out, “In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westward and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees, and troops alike, but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas.”  The answer to the question of how many can be bagged at once has never been entirely established. So many of them had just got to the city that day or in the preceding few days. They weren’t registered anywhere; no one even would have known their names, or the fact that they were there. Their relatives would at most have known that they’d left their homes in the east, and sometime around mid-February they vanished, somewhere. Maybe buried in a shallow grave hacked into the frozen ground beside a road somewhere. Maybe reduced to ash in a cellar in Dresden. Maybe shot out of hand by the Soviets and just left for the crows and other wild animals to pick clean. Once they were here; now they are not. I’ve seen guesses – and that’s all they can be – from 25,000 on the low end to upwards of 200,000 at the high end. That upper end number is commonly accepted as bunk now, put about by, among others, the notorious Holocaust denier David Irving (who wrote one of the earlier books about the bombing of Dresden; I have a copy of it, in German, at home). But that 25,000 figure also seems suspect, too low.

Why? Can’t you just count the corpses, after all? Well, after your usual conventional air raid you might be able to do that. Count the skulls you find; one skull per body produces the total dead. But what if you can’t get an accurate count of the skulls? In a nuclear attack you have victims who are simply vaporized; there’s nothing left to gather up.

Dresden was a conventional attack, not a nuclear one. But in Dresden Bomber Command managed to hit a sweet spot which was something of a technical feat. They produced a “firestorm.” Now, “firestorm” is a word that remains in common currency today. When some idiot like an NBC newsreader claims to have been in a Chinook which was shot down, but was really nowhere near it, showing up only an hour or so after the crew had succeeded in landing it, we say his dishonesty and his employer’s defense of that dishonesty is producing a “firestorm of criticism.” By that we mean that a lot of people are more or less simultaneously expressing outrage that an organization supposedly in the very business of propagating the truth about observable facts would knowingly harbor as the face it presents to the world a man who is a serial fabulist about his news-gathering activities.

But O! Gentle Reader, a “firestorm” is a very specific physical manifestation. It occurs when you ignite a highly dense concentration of very combustible facilities – apartment buildings, stores, and offices will do very nicely – over a wide area and within an extremely compressed space of time. When you do that the heat of the conflagration develops massive up-drafts which generate tornado-force winds, winds which will pick a streetcar train up and hurl it the length of a boulevard. The winds also propagate the flames horizontally, not only by blowing them – say, across 100 feet of main thoroughfare – but by fanning their own flames to an intensity which will spontaneously combust nearby fuel sources that haven’t themselves been hit. Remember that the heat of a fire is a function of how much energy is released and over what period of time. High-energy fuels like coal or petroleum will generate good heat even at fairly low rates of fuel consumption because they are so energy-dense. Wood (and human flesh) is much less energy-dense and so at normal rates of combustion simply won’t generate heat that is much more sufficient than to keep the fire itself burning. But when you produce a firestorm, Gentle Reader, you turn an entire city’s downtown into a blast furnace, and then you can generate heat and destruction of an entirely different order. Think of a firestorm as being a non-volcanic pyroclastic flow and you won’t be too far wide of the mark.

The first modern firestorm was produced over Hamburg in 1943, during the course of several nights’ consecutive missions. We managed to take out something like 46,000 civilians, which is pretty stout. In fact, even producing a firestorm in Hamburg was something of a technical achievement, given how much of that city is water. Not even Bomber Harris could light off water (and he would have given it a try if he’d thought he could). As I recall, we managed another over Braunschweig. Wikipedia lists some other attacks which may have generated firestorms (the deadliest being Tokyo, with something like 100,000 dead, although it’s not confirmed to what extent it was a “genuine” firestorm . . . as if that mattered to the dead).

Dresden was Bomber Command’s masterpiece. Everything came together just perfectly. The weather over Central Europe, which sucks at that time of year, produced a gap in cloud cover just over the city, just at the right time of night. The city’s defenses had long since been stripped to bare minimum, to free 88mm batteries for the Eastern Front. The city was full to bursting with ignorant civilian refugees. And it was very densely built and tinder-dry. The RAF’s tactics, honed to perfection over the rest of Germany, worked like a finely-tuned machine.

First came the Pathfinders, dropping the strings of colored flares which the Germans knew as “Christmas trees” over the old town, the Altstadt.  Then came the Mosquitoes to drop specific marker bombs.  Within minutes the Lancasters were overhead, decanting tons upon tons of thermite bombs down onto the city. There was some high explosive mixed in, to break water pipes and so forth, the better to hinder firefighting, but the big thing was to get the fires started. Because then, roughly three hours later, came the topping: a second wave of Lancasters. Why the delay? Why not a steady stream of aircraft? Because, Gentle Reader, you have to give time for the organic firefighting forces to deploy, and for the resources of the surrounding district to arrive and get into the fight. So that your second wave not only fully blooms your firestorm, but also kills as many as possible of the people trying to put the thing out.

And so it came to pass. The fires of Dresden so lit the night sky that the bomber crews could read by their glow . . . over 100 miles away. I forget how many corpses they gathered together over the ensuing days, but on the Altmarkt, the old market square, there’s an outline in red paving stone, several yards long and several wide. There’s melted metal drizzled between some of the stones inside the outline, with the inscription that over 6,800 corpses were burned on that spot alone. There were many such places throughout the city. And with the heat generated by a firestorm, human bodies vanish, reduced to ash. So we’ll never get a reliable body count from Dresden.

The next morning the 8th Air Force, not to be outdone, showed up to make the rubble bounce. By that time in the war it went on missions escorted by phalanxes of P-51 Mustangs, among the very best propeller-driven combat planes ever built. While the B-17s added of their plenty, the fighters dropped down low to strafe.

At this link the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has an article, with some pictures, of what Dresden looked like by February 15, 1945.

I first visited Dresden in February, 1986. They’d re-built the Zwinger and a few other of the baroque jewels of the city. Whatever other sins must be taxed to the commies of East Germany, when they went to re-build a place like Dresden they did it right. The Hofkirche was still, if memory serves, a shell, and several of the other major landmarks were likewise as they’d been left in 1945. The Frauenkirche was still a pile of rubble with a couple of chunks of blackened wall protruding.

I next went there in 2011, by which time the Hofkirche, the Semperoper, the Schloß, and the Kreuzkirche had been re-built, the latter only to a limited extent. What I’d really gone to see, however, was the Frauenkirche, re-built from 1993 to 2005, in painstaking exactitude, and with something like 35-40% original stones. I’d not realized it when I first saw it in 1986, but it was the largest dome structure north of the Alps, and exceeded anywhere only by very few buildings (such as St. Peter’s in Rome).

So what to make of the attack today? Was it “unnecessary” in either a tactical or strategic sense? Was it a “war crime”? The first question is much the easier to answer. It did close to nothing at all to hasten the war’s end or alter the circumstances of its ending, or to facilitate any other significant military operation, or to avoid any knowable casualties to the Allies. If Bomber Command and the USAAF had dropped their payloads into the North Sea and flown home they would have done precisely as much good for the Allied war effort. If it was meant to impress Joe Stalin it couldn’t have fallen more flat. This was, after all, a man who slaughtered his own people by the million, and who had observed what the Germans themselves had done to his country on their advance and on their retreat.

The second question is one which I confess I can’t answer. You’ve got so many imponderables to factor in, from the civilians who shouted and rejoiced and voted the Nazis into power, who managed not to notice as their Jewish neighbors disappeared, family by family (except when several thousand at once were rounded up and marched through downtown to the train station), who congratulated each other as their soldiers marched across a continent, one harmless nation at a time. On the other hand it’s hard to tar the children with that brush. You’ve got the feedback loop of total war, where every blow is its own purpose, its own justification; it’s no easier to explain than why climb a mountain. You are enemy; your homes are enemy; your churches are enemy; your fields and forests are enemy; your land itself is enemy. Whether I can put a number to it or not, all that harms you — however it harms you — is by definition part and parcel of my objective.

Maybe the best way to frame the questions to oneself, all in a lump, is to ask whether, knowing then what we know now, one would be willing to accept a bomb-for-bomb repetition of the attack, under the circumstances that existed and with the government in power that Germany had then.  Remember that cultural recollections of events like Dresden is a large part of why Germany so thoroughly abandoned the militarism and aggressive nationalism that had characterized it since Friedrich Wilhelm proclaimed himself King of Prusssia in the early 18th Century.  And this is where contemplation gets uncomfortable for me. As much as thinking about the city’s destruction, and all the dead civilians, and the horror of their deaths, and the wanton destruction of beauty can move me to tears (and it can, literally), if the price of destroying Nazi Germany, or any of its analogues of today, or even inducing another would-be conqueror to think twice, is the annihilation of a Dresden, then I have to confess to myself that I would more likely than not give the launch order. All over again.

Maybe that’s why we need to remember what happened in the skies over Dresden, 70 years ago today. It reminds us what we are capable of doing to each other, and why, and those are truths that are never reassuring to confront.  We can “promise” ourselves “never again,” but that’s not really a promise, is it?  It’s more in the nature of a hope, a prayer, the pronouncement of a totemic name — actually it’s a paraphrastic — by the speaking of which that primitive part of our brains which seems to run an awful lot of how we behave to each other somehow expects to exorcise the demon.  To borrow a line from Lincoln, fondly to we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war will never again visit us.

Realizing that hope, that prayer, must start within each of us.  Therefore we remember Dresden.

I’m Rinso-White, Herr Bundespräsident

“I’m Rinso-white”; that’s a line from one of the scenes in Hair, specifically the lead-in to “Ain’t Got No.”  The expression is actually older than that, and comes from the laundry detergent’s old advertising campaigns.  Rinso-white apparently was the thing to be.  In Europe the equivalent was and remains Persil.  John Mortimer uses the brand-name as a nickname for a notoriously “bent copper,” D.I. “Persil” White.  In the late 1940s and 1950s the product’s name acquired a more sinister overtone, at least in central Europe, and among a very definable group.

It’s very much true that success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.  And seldom has there ever been a more orphaned orphan in that respect than the Nazi state.  After May, 1945 all those tens of thousands — hell, millions — of Germans who cheered themselves hoarse as Hitler and his jack-booted thugs, his legions of soldiers, fleets of tanks, and swarms of aircraft marched, rumbled, and screamed past mysteriously vanished into the ground, as if they’d never been there.  Whatever else they may have said among themselves, publicly at least you couldn’t find a True Believer with a search warrant.  It’s sort of the flip side of the phenomenon that after the war the entire population of France turned out to have been active in the Resistance (makes you wonder how they managed so effectively to round up and ship off their Jewish population . . . perhaps the Jews self-deported?).

[In that connection I’ll observe that when my father served in Army counterintelligence, stationed in Germany from 1964-65, he was alerted to listen very carefully to what the slightly older Germans, the ones who would be in their mid-40s by that point, got to saying when you’d poured enough beer down them.  Sure enough, it was even so.  Paul Fussell may have noticed a reluctance to speak — while sober and with an American present — about just exactly what one was doing during those twelve years from 1933 to 1945, but maybe that’s because he didn’t get drunk enough with enough Germans of the right ages and backgrounds.  The expression “the good old days” meant something very specific to Germans of a certain age range, and it was an expression they used not infrequently among themselves.]

The inability to find anyone who’d ever agreed with the Nazis, either as a philosophical proposition or just from the standpoint of practical politics — by which I mean taking over Europe and subjecting it to direct rule by or effective subordination to Germany — was nowhere more pronounced than among precisely those groups who had been the most effective at implementing the take-over.  The very senior officials of Nazi Germany were unredeemable, by and large.  Too many corpses about the place and all.  Too bad, that; for them the “good old days” would never come again.  Oh sure, there were exceptions — Field Marshal Erich von Manstein (who point-blank refused to join the anti-Hitler conspiracy with the statement that “Prussian field marshals do not mutiny”) comes to mind — who managed to pick back up their old Nazi careers under the federal German banner, but by and large they were, officially at least, tainted goods.  It was in the next level down, among the faceless bureaucracy, still pretty senior and able not only to implement policy but to have had a direct hand in formulating it, in steering the “right” — by which is meant the wrong — people to the right places, that post-war Germany presented a conundrum.  There were way too many of them for the networks of mutual support to keep up outside active employment; they had no skills other than being government bureaucrats; and they couldn’t all run to the welcoming arms of South America.

These were the people at the level of Adolf Eichmann.  His defense, if you recall, was that he was just a functionary implementing decisions his superiors had made, that he was bound to follow at peril literally of his life.  Except he wasn’t any such thing.  He was, in fact, the Holocaust’s johnny-on-the-spot for rounding up hundreds of thousands of Jews and shipping them off to be exterminated.  He was not just an executive but rather also a decision-maker.  And in the end he was convicted as such and danced at the end of a noose for it.

Eichmann’s central difficulty in defending himself may well have been his institutional affiliation.  He was SS, an organization which started out as Hitler’s personal bodyguard and by the end of the war had metastasized into nearly a state within the state.  Nowadays people associate the concept of “Auschwitz” with extermination.  What isn’t as well-known, at least not in the Anglosphere, is that the extermination camp was Auschwitz-Birkenau, or “Auschwitz II,” and that camp only came into its own as an industrialized killing facility towards 1943-44, by which time three-quarters of all the Jews who would die in the Holocaust had already been killed.  There was, however, more to Auschwitz than just Birkenau; there were extensive industrial facilities, owned and operated by the SS and manned with the inmates who had not been killed upon arrival.  The SS owned other industrial facilities all over Germany and the occupied territories.  By the end of the war the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA), or the Reich Main Security Office, an SS sub-organization, had encompassed the SD, the Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service), a secret police principally employed outside Germany in the East, and the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei, or secret state police), which was the principal secret and political police within Germany and in the West.  Then there was the Waffen-SS, the separate army run by the SS, and numerous other unsavory organizations.  The SS managed to liquidate and absorb the competencies of the Abwehr, the military counterintelligence department (in April, 1945 they hanged its former head, Admiral Canaris, and his assistant, Hans Oster, the latter among the most committed and vociferous anti-Nazis; it was Oster who went to the Dutch embassy on the evening of May 9, 1940, and told them, “Tomorrow morning at 4:00.”)  The entire SS and all its works were damned by the Allies after the war as a criminal enterprise.  No one wanted to know anything about it, to have had anything to do with it, even to admit that it had once existed.

Other organizations did not have the public relations problems the SS did.  One agency in particular managed for decades to maintain the fiction that it not only had never willingly cooperated with Nazism but had been a hot-house of active opposition conspirators.  We refer to the Auswärtiges Amt, the Foreign Office.  Internally it referred (and still refers) to itself as “das Amt.”  Its politico-cultural antecedents were the old nobility of Prussia and the Empire.  Commoners, the recently-ennobled, and of course Jews needn’t apply, in those days.  The Prussian foreign service was the preserve of people like Otto von Bismarck, who while still a junior diplomat simply took off, without formal leave, for several months to pursue an affair with another man’s wife.  When someone back at home office observed he might as well get back to the job he was being paid to do, Bismarck huffed that he had no intent of giving an account of his domestic arrangements to anyone, and carried on as before.  He suffered no career repercussions.  In 1862 King Wilhelm I called him to Berlin to become minister-president of Prussia and steam-roll the Prussian Landtag on the issue of army appropriations.  It was the place where the “mediatized” nobility, who had lost their sovereign powers and territories in the Napoleonic invasions and the subsequent pan-European settlement of 1814 but who were still considered marriageable by the remaining sovereign houses, found a home if they absolutely had to earn some income.  Not a few of them could — and doubtless did — sniff with Bismarck that the Hohenzollerns were no more than a “Swabian family no better than mine.”

After the Great War — a war, by the way, which the Amt played no small part in bringing about with its combination of ham-fisted confrontationalism towards France and Britain (e.g. the Agadir incident in 1911) and its crawling subservience to Wilhelm II — it remained to a large extent what it had been.  It did, a tiny bit, open its ranks up to a few Jews and the classes who formerly would have become officers in the army or navy.  But as the major national institution which survived intact (Versailles annihilated the army and navy, flat prohibited an air force, confiscated most of the merchant marine, and laid crippling indemnities on the economy which had to be satisfied from the major industries) it was able to preserve to a large degree its internal culture.

Then came 1933.  If you buy the official line from the post-1949 Amt, for the next twelve years its officials and functionaries seldom let a chance go by to pour sand in the gears, shove wrenches in the spokes, and generally gum up the works of the Nazi enterprise.  This was when they weren’t outright conspiring to bring down that horrid regime.  And so forth.  In truth there were senior members of the Amt who actively joined the opposition, or who publicly opposed the regime in the years after it seized power.  The latter group were mostly forced out well before the war started.  Of the former group, after the July 20 Plot failed most of them were executed. Hans Bernd Gisevius went into hiding in Switzerland and survived.  Ulrich von Hassell (irony alert:  Admiral Tirpitz’s son-in-law), who had been ambassador to Italy, didn’t.  Hans Bernd von Haeften was among the first group hanged at Plötzensee in August, 1944.  Friedrich Warner Graf von der Schulenberg had been ambassador to the Soviet Union; he too was executed.

Diplomats are schooled in sniffing out tiny hand-holds on sheer cliffs.  It’s their stock-in-trade, really.  Does Country X really demand thus-and-such, or might it be willing to accept so-and-so with a hint of this-and-that, which is pretty damned close to such-and-such but not quite, or not quite yet.  Sure enough, the (former and soon-to-be once-again) diplomats of the Wilhelmstraße realized that with so many of their actual anti-Nazis dead, there was no one to deny their own affiliation with the dead heroes.  And the myth of the Amt’s nobility and purity was born.

I say “myth” because you see, the Amt was in it up its well-bred shoulders.  Their senior officials voluntarily joined the party and its organizations in droves, even beyond the extent of politely obtaining a party card.  In the occupied countries they actively collaborated with the SD, the Gestapo, the SS, the Arbeitsfront (the slave-labor outfit headed by Robert Ley, who killed himself before he could be tried at Nuremberg; we got Fritz Sauckel, though, Goering’s field agent in the four-year plan program and the Nazis’ chief slaver in occupied Europe), and the entire rest of the Nazi machinery of death and oppression.  In fact, in several countries it was the Amt who took the lead in locating Jews and other candidates for deportation and who made suggestions to the SS/SD/Gestapo about how better to implement the Final Solution and the rest of the program of oppression.

How is this now known, what was for decades successfully hidden?  Because the German government a number of years ago commissioned a study to tell the actual, full story.  Granted, it was long after anyone personally implicated was available to have his pension revoked or — heaven forfend! — go to prison, but at least it was set as its task the puncturing of the thick web of lies.  And it did exactly that, publishing in 2004 an enormous door-stop of a book:  Das Amt und die Vergangenheit: Deutsche Diplomaten im Dritten Reich und in der Bundesrepublik (The Office and the Past: German Diplomats in the Third Reich and the Federal Republic ), a copy of which I picked up in 2011.  They actually sat down and paged through the archives, finding who joined the party under what circumstances and when; who was pressed into early retirement when he wouldn’t join; who joined not only the party but specific party organizations . . . like the SS, for example; who was responsible for making precisely which decisions about specific actions and policies, who communicated with whom about what and when.

And most importantly, the book lays out in sordid detail who was involved after the war in the wholesale production of what became known as “Persilscheine,” or “Persil certificates.”  That’s what they called the official certifications of non-culpability that were the magic ticket to getting back on the government payroll, specifically in the new Auswärtiges Amt of the Federal Republic of Germany beginning in 1949.  Very briefly summarized, what happened was that the old Amt officials attested to each other’s anti-Nazi bona fides; the anchor points were tied to the now-dead, and therefore unable to contradict, actual anti-Nazis.  It was a mutual-exoneration society, in short.

At the center of it was Ernst von Weizsäcker, who’d joined the Weimar Auswärtiges Amt in 1920, after serving in the Kaiserliche Marine during the war (he’d been Admiral Scheer’s flag lieutenant at Jutland in 1916).  He became a bureaucrat’s bureaucrat, deeply embedded in the power structure of the Amt instead of out in the field for most of his career.  He was the go-to guy who made or broke careers by steering friends and stifling opponents.  And at various times he was also involved in the Amt’s policy-making process.  In short, he had pretty much full knowledge of what was going on in occupied Europe, and why, and what was happening to the victims.  And he sat at his desk for most of the war, working the levers, willingly in service to the regime.  There’s no credible indication at all that he was anything other than a willing servant of Hitler’s, although he from time to time did disagree on things like whether liquidating Czechoslovakia just in 1938 was a good idea . . . or whether they maybe ought to wait a bit before liquidating it . . . so as to be better able to fend off Britain and France while feeding on the corpse of Czechoslovakian independence.

We hanged his ultimate boss, Ribbentropp, at Nuremberg.  Ol’ Joachim was an outsider, though, a “Quereinsteiger,” whose first job in the Amt was as foreign minister.  He brought a bunch of his people with him, and they were of course thoroughly resented by the lifers (such as Weizsäcker).  When it came time to try the functionaries at what became known as the Ministries Trial, Weizsäcker was the lead defendant.  That trial was the next-to-last trial of the major Nazi war criminals, and by that point the resources, time, and patience of the prosecuting powers was nearing its end.  The lead prosecutor, Telford Taylor (who’d been chief assistant to Robert Jackson at the first, big International Military Tribunal trial at Nuremberg), had seen his case slowly sift through his fingers as he progressively lost the behind-the-scenes administrative battles to bring the full weight of the evidence to bear on the defendants.  By the time the trials started in January, 1948 he was down to a passel of figure-head defendants, including Weizsäcker.  He convicted almost all of them, but in the case of ol’ Ernst, the conviction was the object of an almost immediate and highly coordinated public relations campaign, which in 1950 succeeded.  He’d been sentenced to seven years in 1949 (inclusive of time served; he’d been arrested on his return from the Vatican, where he’d been ambassador since 1943, only in 1946); that was reduced to five years in 1950, and that same year they let him out.  He died the next year.

A key player in coordinating the exoneration efforts from the outside was his son, Richard von Weizsäcker, who in 1948 had been a law student and an active member of his defense team.  When daddy was convicted he became a central point of organization for the effort to have his father’s conviction set aside, either legally or effectively in fact (as the latter indeed happened).  Doing so also necessarily closely involved Richard in white-washing the war-time deeds of other Amt insiders, because of course their testimony in support of his father was only as useful as their own purity.  All of which is to say that Richard von Weizsäcker was as closely involved as was possible in sweeping under the rug the institutional guilt, the willing collaboration, of his father’s ministry in the butchery that was Nazi Germany abroad.

Over the rest of the 1950s the new Amt absorbed more and more of its former officials, each one holding (proudly? we can hope not) his Persilschein, attesting that he was untainted by his past.  Towards the 1970s and early 1980s these people began to retire, and almost without exception they receded into the twilight accompanied by fulsome official praise, and with full and generous state pensions.

And Richard von Weizsäcker?  Dutiful son, defender of his Nazi father, fetched up as Bundespräsident in 1984, an office he kept until 1994.  In Germany the Bundespräsident is the official head of state; the Kanzler is merely the head of government.  He is chosen by the Bundestag, and occupies a public position that is theoretically supposed to be above politics.  He is, to the extent a nation can be said to have a political conscience, supposedly the conscience of the country.  If there are unpalatable truths to be spoken, it is expected that the Bundespräsident will speak them.  Richard was Bundespräsident while I was spending my second junior year in Germany in the mid-1980s, and he was viewed, both then and later, as something of a secular saint.

He died last week, and yesterday Germany said good-bye to him in a state funeral.  At the risk of understatement, the parade of speakers somehow failed to mention his efforts in the concealment of war crimes, and the critical nature of his efforts in ensuring that war criminals and collaborators in war crimes not only were not punished, but returned to power in the same roles they had filled during the war.  Specifically mentioned was his address to the nation on May 8, 1985, the 40th anniversary of the surrender; he characterized that as a “day of liberation,” by which of course he meant that it was a liberation for Germany as well.  Which is true enough, but one has to ponder how much credit a prisoner is entitled to who viciously fights, to the death, those who would strike the fetters from his arms and legs.  His Christian faith was also praised as a center-point for his effectiveness as a politician and human (he served from 1964-7, and then again from 1979-81 as president of the Lutheran Council in Germany).  I’m sure he was a good Christian boy, as we say around here.

He also was a key figure in the white-washing of an entire institution’s active participation in the crimes against humanity of the regime his father so diligently served.  And in ensuring that the men on whose skirts, if not on whose hands, the blood of millions glared in bright red walked freely the halls of power in the reconstituted Germany.

For those who will never read Das Amt und die Vergangenheit (it’s not available in translation, more’s the pity), I guess that Richard von Weizsäcker is once and forevermore Rinso-white.

Layers of Fact Checkers

Part of the knock of the Legacy Media on the blogosphere is its supposed inaccuracy, nay irresponsibility.  The just-say-anything-to-draw-the-clicks ethos of the bloggers stands in marked contrast, we are told, to the flaying gauntlet of editors and fact-checkers which even the slightest statement by A Journalist must endure before it sees the light of day.

Thus, we can all assume that everything we see or hear that comes from the Legacy Media is holy writ.  This especially applies to statements which characterize large numbers of people, in large areas, and over prolonged periods.  Because, of course, it would be the height of unethical behavior to make some inflammatory statement about an extremely sensitive topic (irrespective of to whom sensitive), and because it would be unethical we can rest assured that it does not happen.  Not with the Legacy Media.  No sirree.

Then, of course, we have this from CBS News (the same folks who brought you “fake-but-true” with their flagship 60 Minutes show in 2004, when they tried to throw a U.S. presidential election).  It’s a piece about a documentary which re-examines a killing in a small Florida town in 1952.  A black woman walked into a white doctor’s office and shot him dead.  At her trial a very sordid story came out, involving a prolonged sexual liaison between the doctor and the woman, and drugs either taken by or inflicted upon the woman and supplied by the doctor, the effect of which were, either separately or together, sufficiently mind-altering that the woman eventually beat the death penalty with an insanity plea at a retrial.  She’d been sentenced to death at her first trial.  The Florida Supreme Court in State v. McCollum, 74 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1954), reversed and awarded a new trial.  Apparently at that time it was within the court’s discretion to order that the jury physically view the location of a homicide.  The trial court so ordered, but then the judge voluntarily blew off the viewing, such that a portion of the trial proceedings necessarily occurred outside the judge’s supervision.  This was reversible error.

I’ll note, by the way, that this was small-town South in 1952, at the very beginnings of what became the final push in the civil rights movement.  A time during which whites all over the South (and north as well . . . recall that Brown v. Board of Education’s full style continued: “. . . of Topeka, Kansas”) were at general quarters to defend the system of legalized oppression which we all know now as Jim Crow.  At the risk of understatement, were I a defense lawyer I sure wouldn’t want to have to save my black client’s neck with an insanity defense in that place at that time.  Too hard to prove; too laden with visceral antipathy (I mean, think about it: that plea has never had good press, not with any defendant and not at any time).  And yet this defendant, while convicted, was spared the death penalty on that basis.  So maybe the racial dynamics of the place and time weren’t quite as simplistic as the CBS News article implies.  I can’t say for sure, although the two data points, viz. hang-’em-high all-white jury (interestingly the article gives the all-white racial make-up of the first jury, but says nothing about the second . . . you’d think that any high school newspaper reporter would ask — and answer — that question) and successful insanity plea, don’t inhabit the same logical space very well.

What I object to in the CBS News article, however, is this statement:   “The slaying stirred racial tensions in Jim Crow-era Suwannee County, when robed Ku Klux Klansmen regularly marched through Main Street in a show of force and lynchings were common in the Deep South.”  Were they in fact “common”?  Does anyone know?

Someone does know, and it only takes five seconds to type in the Google search term to find out.  The Tuskegee Institute (scarcely an errand boy of the Klan, we can safely assume) began keeping records of lynchings, everywhere in the United States, beginning in 1882.  They tracked it by year and by race of victim.  Here’s a summary of their data.  The last year in their database is 1968, so they covered 86 years total.  From 1882 through 1968 they show 4,742 total lynchings, almost 73% of the victims of which are given as black (I’m surprised the proportion is that small; I would’ve figured somewhere north of 95%).  So we can test whether “lynchings were common in the Deep South” during the years around 1952.  Mathematics and all, dontcha know.  For the twenty-one years centered on 1952 (ten before and ten after, plus the year itself, or 24.4% of the entire period for which the Institute keeps the data), the Tuskegee Institute shows, nationally, 32 lynchings, or not quite two-thirds of one percent of the total, with three of the victims shown as white.  To put it in perspective, almost a full quarter of the years covered accounts for less than two-thirds of one percent.  For the period 1952 through 1968 inclusive the Institute shows ten lynchings.  Suprisingly, three of those victims were white.  That was something that really surprised me when I first looked at their data.

To borrow an expression that’s become pretty commonplace in recent months about the supposed “epidemic” of rape on college campuses, “Even one is too many.”  That’s certainly true of rape, and it’s equally true of lynchings.  On the other hand, you cannot look at the data and come to any conclusion other than that by 1952, lynchings were very nearly if not absolutely a thing of the past, all but vanished from the American landscape.  Inclusive of the year that Ruby McCollum whacked either her rapist or her paramour (depending on whose story you believe), there remained a further ten to record, just over two-tenths of one percent of the total lynchings since 1882.  I defy anyone to make an argument that they were therefore “common” anywhere in the United States in 1952, or even terribly frequent during the twenty-one years including and surrounding that year.

But hey, who cares about mere numbers, when you’ve got a narrative to get out there?

Layers of fact-checkers my left foot.