The recent outpouring of support for Hamas across the nation’s universities seems to have caught many people from all classes by surprise.  How is it possible that thousands of what were thought (by many foolish individuals) to be our best and brightest, the future leaders of our nation to openly support an organization that could commit acts unknown in the Western world since the Thirty Years War in the seventeenth century?  Were those students somehow cut off from the news services around the world who presented facts, images, and interviews of those who were attacked?  Were they unable to hear leaders from around the world who have seen the images of the rapes, burnings, and butchery from the cameras of the Hamas murderers themselves?  Or, had somehow, the accepted standards of conduct suddenly been rejected by those students as they marched and sounded like the Nazi storm troopers of the mid-1930s?

Suddenly millions of citizens were shocked by those young people, in many cases their very own children marching in support of terrorists, rapists, arsonists and murderers.  They were like the parents who suddenly realized what was being fed to their children during the pandemic as they were able to see on their computers the day-to-day propaganda being pushed by the radicalized teachers in their very schools.  But should they have been surprised?  Weren’t there warning signs for all to see going back for years?

One of the major warning signs was the change in course of the ACLU.  Since its founding over one-hundred years ago, the ACLU has had a zig-zag course of who it supported and who it favored.  The linked article below follows that course up to today’s organization which seems to have a problem with the Bill of Rights.  It is a disappointing charge of course that started well over a decade ago and one which reflects the product the major law schools are putting out today.  It reflects a mind set that is much closer to that of a totalitarian rather than our Founding Fathers and which aims to overturn the very basic concepts of our society.  There is a direct line between the new generation of attorneys and those students who celebrated the slaughter of innocents last month.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/12/what-happened-to-the-aclu

I certainly give credit to this professor for openly stating the many problems that universities face today.  Plus, he points out what has caused those problems and it all centers on hiring the correct personnel. Programs like DEI place race or politics above academic excellence and the result has been the hiring of radicalized individuals who “are predominantly closed-minded, ignorant ad stupid enough to believe that Marxism works despite overwhelming historical”.

He also provides ideas on how the problems of the universities can be fixed. The true first line of defense is the parents of the students; it is their responsibility to investigate the schools where they will send their children.  Before they commit their child to four years, which will significantly determine the course of their child’s life at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, they need to fulfill their last great significant educational act as parents. A school should not be picked based on the whim of the child, or because it has a great reputation. There are ratings for universities, and they should be used.  Would a diligent parent, for example, send their child off to a university which is poorly rated around freedom of speech, such as Harvard?  What should a rating like that tell anyone about the value of the classes?

Just as the pandemic revealed the problems in our public-school systems, so too we are finding that the same rot is deep within our temples of higher learning.  We must turn the educational system around to survive in a hard and unforgiving world.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/higher-ed-has-become-a-threat-to-america-antisemitism-dei-college-f52bb0b5

The author (1863-19490) was born on the Don and his father was paymaster in a Cossack regiment of the Czar.  In University (St. Petersburg), he was a close associate of Lenin’s brother who was executed for his part in the attempt to kill Czar Alexander III in 1887.  Shortly after this, the author was expelled from the University for a proclamation concerning the Czar.  Exiled, he graduated from a second, “Marxist University” while in the far north.  He then continued to write and be involved in revolutionary activities; this book was written in 1921-23.

Although a short book, it is considered a classic of early Soviet literature and was required reading by students until the fall of the Soviet Union.  It is a typical novel of the time, reflecting “Soviet heroic realism” as it tells the story of, in 1918, the march of thousands of Red soldiers with their families across the Caucasian mountains.  Poorly equipped, often barefoot and hungry, they overcome every obstacle in their march, fighting through various White detachments until they reach their own lines.  Initially they are poorly organized, but under the leadership of a steely leader (who naturally rises from their own ranks), they find increasing cohesion and they strike fear into the hearts of their enemies.

I would recommend this little book for anyone interested in seeking to find how the Soviets viewed themselves and of course, their enemies.  The Soviets are simple, salt of the earth individuals who band together to defeat the shallow, cowardly oppressors.  One reads the book and tends to roll one’s eyes, but it reflects the times and the need for heroics in a time of defeat, starvation and lack of order. 

A few years ago, my wife and I spent a month in France, starting at the Normandy battlefields and driving eastward towards Verdun.  It was an amazing trip as we covered several different wine making areas and ran across many monuments to battles and wars.  It was clear to us that France was a nation that had suffered from hundreds of years of war.  One special find was just outside of the hedgerows of Normandy on a quiet side country road.  A marker had been placed which outlined a skirmish between a U.S. infantry patrol and a German platoon backed up by an armored vehicle.  A small accidental meeting of two groups of men in which the outnumbered and outgunned Americans were pushed back by the Germans.  Some locals had decided to memorialize the long-forgotten clash so that later generations might realize that that lovely, quiet piece of land was not ruled by a hated enemy as it had been liberated at the cost American liberators.

Later during the month, further east, we ran across a beautiful museum which was dedicated to the battle of Gravelotte, during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.  It is still vivid in my mind as it featured beautiful paintings of the battle which was the costliest of that war.  The displays were so dignified and in keeping with the spirit of the current time and gave equal time and coverage to both the French and the Prussians. What a gem of a museum!

I bring those instances up because it was with great delight that I read a very positive review of Rachel Chrastil’s new book, Bismark’s War, The Franco-Prussian War and The Making of Modern Europe.  While I was familiar with the war, it was primarily due to two biographies of Bismark, one by Alan Palmer and the other by Jonathan Steinberg, plus earlier books detailing the war.  I was therefore surprised at the direction of this book, and I could not recommend this history to anyone who does not have some background of the war. Why?  A few reasons:

1. There is little attempt to put the war in context: Most histories would provide the basics of what led up to the war, which in this case could include Bismark’s two previous wars, the downward spiral of Napoleon III government, the tensions between the southern German states and Prussia, etc. The infamous Ems telegram is mentioned but not discussed.  Given this lack of context, an uninformed reader would wonder why the title when it could have been Napoleon’s War.
2. Military equipment: Why was the Prussian Guards unit so decimated by the French Chassepot rifle and the mitrailleuse and why did the Prussians use the needle gun?  What made the Chassepot such a powerful weapon? Why was the Prussian artillery so superior to the French? How did the confusion at the start of the war on the part of the French impact their strategy? Etc.
3. Personalities: While the major players are named, the reader is expected to know the experience/personality of each, such as von Moltke, von Roon, Crown Prince Wilhelm, etc.  A bit of background would help the average reader understand the strategy and restraints on these individuals.
4. Strategy: Early on there is a brief discussion of how military strategy had been changing, based in part on the foreign observers in the American Civil War.  Unfortunately, that discussion was rather short so one is left to wonder why the lessons of that war were not more fully learned by some of the combatants. What was it about the European mind set that allowed it to ignore the terrible impact of modern weapons with their increase in range and rate of fire?  Did the Europeans view the American experience as not applicable to Europe since the Americans were amateurs whereas the Europeans were the masters of war?
5. Personal detail: Since the war was fought on French soil, it is natural that any discussion on the civilian population would be more French based but there is little discussion regarding the impact on the German population.  How supportive was the average Southern German to the war and did the mobilization of so many men negatively impact those economies?  Nearly all the personal detail was based on the French experience and given the higher literacy rate in Germany, one would expect to find more detail on the attitude of the German civilians from memoirs, news reports, etc.
6. Lastly, how was Bismark able to string together the German coalition give the general dislike and mistrust of the Prussian power, the religious differences between the northern and southern Germans and the natural inclination of many German states to surrender their sovereignty over international affairs.  That story is amazing and shows the brilliance of Bismark, but you will not find out about it here.

The author has done good research in several areas but seems to assume a general knowledge of the average reader.  I believe that being the case that most readers who possess a modem of curiosity will walk away with more questions than answers. I would like to recommend another book for the first time reader of this war: The Franco-Prussian War by Geoffrey Wawro.

I recently did something that I do about once a year;  Iwent to a theater to see a movie.  This type of odyssey is only done when what I hope is a good movie is better viewed on a big screen.  At times this trip can be trying, especially when the movie house insists on submitting you to twenty minutes or more of coming attractions.  It is during that time that I lose hope for the movie industry as they seem to believe that childish and loud movies based on comic book characters is what the viewing public craves.  Perhaps they are correct; perhaps the mass viewing audience is made up of intellectually stunted individuals who believe that fireballs are real, and that the world can only be saved by magical powers exhibited by mutants.  At any rate, I digress; this year’s movie of choice was Ridley Scott’s Napoleon.

Why Napoleon?  Well, I like history and most of Mr. Scott’s movies. It was panned by a critic in the Wall Street Journal, but then the critic also did not like House of Gucci and All the Money in the World, two movies that I found interesting.  Then of course there were the reviews from French movie critics.  As you would expect, the idea of an Englishman daring to make a movie about a French national treasure goes far beyond the Pale. I believe that some Frenchmen believe that Napoleon lives in the heart of every French citizen and that he was a precursor to the EU, never mind the millions of deaths caused by his military adventures.  Fortunately, and I give the French credit, “wokeism” has not contaminated their lives nearly as badly as in the U.S.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie; the costumes were great, the battle scenes were exciting (note: Napoleon did not lead a charge at Waterloo), and despite a French critic writing that Napoleon as played was too dour (I don’t recall Napoleon being remembered as a jovial character), there were some rather funny moments in the movie. 

Now there are those purists who criticize the battle scene of Austerlitz and Waterloo, but we must remember that this is a MOVIE not HISTORY.  Given the amount of time that Napoleon held center stage in Europe, it would help if one knew some of the actual history to tie things together.  For example, at Waterloo when Field Marshal Blucher appears, it helps to know that he was Prussian and not just some chap coming over the hill. And who was that one French General always at Napoleon’s side during battles and at his abdication?  Oh, you mean Ney?  Minor point. Finally, Czar Alexander was not some fifteen-year-old boy as portrayed in the film.

Overall, the movie is a refreshing break from the juvenile junk put out by the movie industry.  The love scenes are a bit long but there are three good adventure scenes, plus I felt comfortable with Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon.  Would I see it again?  Sure, even on a home screen and for any history buffs, it is a fun movie to watch and debate with like-minded souls.

Imagine you are a parent, and your bright, young son or daughter wants to become a marine biologist.  Your child has applied to three universities, and you have the financial ability to allow them to attend any of the three that they wish.  You must ask yourself a key question:

Do you want your child to go to a university which has the best professors in their field, or do you want your child to go to a university which intentionally does not seek to hire the best professors but rather only seeks ones which are 67% professional qualified but are a full 33% committed to DEI. Well, what is there to ponder?  Of course, you would prefer the university who refuses to hire the best professors.  Especially in a field such as marine biology where racism is a major problem.

Silly?  Not if your child is thinking of attending Ohio State university.  In the article linked below, the Director of University Policy at the National Association of Scholars states that every search committee must create a “Diversity Faculty Recruitment Report” to be approved by various deans to interview finalists for any position.  Perfect!

You might think that since your child is not going to be taught by the best you will get a substantial break on the out-of-state cost of Ohio State which is about $50,000/year just for room and board.  What a charming and naïve idea!  No, you should pay full ticket so your budding scholar will be exposed to their field by an individual who may have an entirely new theory of astrophysics, engineering, etc., thanks to their adherence to DEI.

Excellence and merit are so yesterday. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-ohio-states-dei-factory-faculty-report-diversity-hiring-cefd804d?page=1

 When the manuscript for this book was first reviewed by the Soviet censor, he told Grossman that the book could be published, in about two hundred years.  Grossman, a Jew who reported on the Great Patriotic War directly from the front lines while in Stalingrad, at the battle of Kursk and all the way through to the battle of Berlin, was rapidly falling out of favor with his Soviet masters.  His book broke so many Soviet taboos; it did not portray the soldiers with Stalin’s name on their lips as they fought, he specifically mentioned the murder of Jews by the German invaders (officially, the Jews were not to be singled out as special victims of the war), a Soviet scientist is self-centered and has a huge ego, etc..  Other writers, such as Babel (executed in 1949) and Ehrenburg (who worked on the Black Book with Grossman) felt the sting of Stalin’s wrath but fortunately for Grossman, Stalin died before the final reckoning.

The novel traces the usual myriad of Russian characters through their lives during World War II.  They like millions of others are caught in the struggle between two totalitarian states who have little if any regard for the “average” man.  Unlike War and Peace, there are not dramatic battle scenes (surprising since Grossman did spend so much time at the front), and in the first reading I could not grasp the general direction of the story.  Except for the egotistical scientist, many of the characters seem to move along in a rather haphazard manner. I would suggest that one keep a pad of paper handy to make notes as there are many individual characters and the names can be confusing.

I certainly do not pretend to be an expert of Russian literature, but I have found these “great” Russian novels to be overly long and missing a clear-cut story (with the exception of the three-book trilogy by Anatoli Rybakov).  Is it indictive of the Russian or Soviet mind set where subterfuge was a means of survival or is it merely a great desire to write another War and Peace? Or, perhaps it is just to my American mind set that I seek writing that is more direct and to the point. I must admit however, that I did find this novel more direct than other Russian novels, such as Solzhenitsyn’s March 1917. 

History is full of “what ifs”, “near things”, and “almost”.  In Hitler’s American Gamble by Brendan Simms and Charlie Laderman, the authors discuss the various scenarios had Hitler not declared war on the United States after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

What makes this book more interesting than one would expect is that the authors follow the fears, thoughts, actions and discussions of the Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Churchill, and various Japanese officials on a day-to-day basis from December 7^th until the German declaration of war on December 11^th.  They point out that serious questions were raised during that four-day period and that contrary to popular history, it was an agonizing time for Churchill.  While he may have been buoyant to those around him, he had numerous concerns about the actions the Americans might take and how it would impact the British.

For four days, Axis, Soviet and British leaders held their breath and pondered the American course.  Concerns included:

1. Would the U.S. begin to scale back Lend Lease support to the U.K. and the Soviets to rearm themselves against the Japanese?
2. If they did, by how much and would that help the Germans at a time when the U.K. especially were just handing on in the Battle of the Atlantic, North Africa, etc.?
3. As Roosevelt only called for a declaration of war against Japan, and with a seriously damaged U.S. navy, would support in the Battle of the Atlantic be scaled back?
4. For the Japanese, their concern was whether Hitler would honor his pledge to declare war on the U.S. and thus force the U.S. to divert some of its immense industrial strength away from Japan and towards Germany.
5. With the sinking of the British warships Repulse and Prince of Wales, not only Singapore but also Australia was in grave danger and the British were fearful of a Japanese thrust into the Indian Ocean towards India.
6. Roosevelt believed Germany to be the greater threat but how to enter the war against Germany when most Americans were either isolationist or calling for revenge against Japan?
7. Aware of the industrial might of the U.S., Hitler knew that sooner or later Germany and the U.S. would fight one another directly, so was it better to declare war now when Japan could divert some of the U.S. strength or stay out of the war and force Roosevelt to zero in on Japan?
8. For the Soviets, who had a non-aggression pact with Japan, would the U.S. cut back on the munitions, supplies, trucks, food, etc., that was vital to keeping the Soviets in the war and would Japan break its pact with the Soviets and attack, creating a two-front war for Stalin?
9. Churchill knew that without increased U.S. aid, he would have to cut back military aid to Stalin to stay in the battle with Germany.  If the U.S. did not declare war on Germany, the future for the Empire was bleak at best.

Fortunately for the world, on December 11^th, Hitler honored his pact and declared war on the United States.  Now Churchill fully believed that the war was won as the U.S. was fully committed to a world war.  Hitler still believed that he had the time build from his European conquests the industrial might to counter the eventual direct struggle with the U.S. and that it was better to begin the fight now rather than wait until the fully industrial might of the U.S. could be brought to bare on Germany.  For Japan, who managed to seriously underestimate the potential might of the U.S., they believed that they could create the defensive zones and exploit the areas they had so easily conquered. And, for Stalin, he had proof that Japan would focus on the U.S. and the danger of a second front was avoided.

In some ways, this book reads like a novel in that the day-to-day questions, routines, discussions, etc. of various leaders takes the reader into the mindset of leaders on a day-to-day basis.  It is an excellent history both for someone who seeks to capture the days and for more advanced amateur historians as a fine reference point. 

Go to any bookstore (remember those?) and go to the self-improvement section.  It is huge with titles all designed to make you believe you have found the secret of the ages, and you can have it for only $19.95.  Or Google self-help on the internet, and you will find more than 13,000 books listed on eBay, all promising to help you become more successful, confident, etc. Financial freedom, happiness, love, everything you have ever wanted will be yours if you only follow what is written on those sacred pages.  I have known individuals who have shelves filled with those types of books, most of which have not been read cover to cover and which are gathering dust day to day, year to year.

In the video linked below, we hear that most people have lust, not passion in their search for a goal.  That is an important distinction and one that a very successful and secure individual makes time and again. Over 18,000,000 people have heard his words, who knows how many have followed his advice. It really does not matter, for no one can force anyone to accept words of wisdom. But really, if you are one of those individuals who has a library of self-help books, invest a few minutes, and listen to what he has to say. 

Asking A Retired Shipping Billionaire If It Was Worth It – YouTube

For 105 days, the small and ill-equipped Finnish army held off the full might of the Soviet Union.  Outnumbered in men, tanks, artillery and aircraft, the Finns were able to cut off, surround and literally slaughter several Soviet offensive thrusts in the northern part of their country.  Striking silently on their skis, the Soviets who were confined to the few roads had little opportunity to bring their superior firepower to bear.  In the end, entire columns of Soviets along with their trucks and tanks, were found literally frozen to death.  With each new defeat however, new masses of men and materials were thrown into the fight.

It was an amazing fight for a country that had gained its own freedom from the Czar only some twenty years before, especially as the nation had fought a civil war between the Whites and the Reds which left the nation divided.  Suddenly, the nation had to fully unite or simply be overrun.  Fortunately, they found a strong if controversial leader in Baron Carl Gustav Mannerheim.  Mannerheim had been instrumental in defeating the Finnish red forces but was an experienced soldier.  He wisely used his forces and was able to switch his forces to key points to blunt the Soviet attacks.

For the most part, Finland fought alone.  Volunteers were being raised in Sweden and Norway, despite the potential problems Sweden could have with the Soviet Union.  France made moves to put together a professional force to help and funds were raised in the U.K., but in the end, there was little real help, especially considering that only a couple of previous months, the Germans had invaded Poland and the Baltic states were swallowed by the Soviet Union. 

Numbers finally told as the Soviets concentrated their forces in the Southern part of Finland were the ports and roads were more friendly to the Soviets level of expertise.  Although the exact numbers will never be known, it appears that the Soviets lost some 400,000 killed, wounded, and permanently crippled, while Finnish losses were around 70,000.

With the end of the war, the Finns had to give up certain territories which Stalin felt was key to the protection of Leningrad as well as some ports and fortifications.  When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Finns joined the Germans but only advanced as far as their old borders.

The war showed Stalin that his military suffered poor logistics, tactics, misapplication of force and a ruined officer corps.  Of course, Stalin was the one who ruined his office corps with his purges of the military (some 40,000 officers were killed, arrested, or put into camps).  Stalin quickly tried to reorganize his army and even release numerous officers from the camps.  Those officers were more forward thinking that Stalin’s clique and many were key in successful actions later against the Germans.

Can one draw a parallel between that war and Putin’s current problems in the Ukraine?  One of the largest differences is the terrible corruption which exists in Putin’s time as opposed to Stalin’s army.  Stalin’s army was not as corrupt, it merely suffered from the paranoia of its commander, Stalin, and the commissar system of command.  Another difference is that Finland never received the level of support from other nations.  In many cases, the only way for the Finns to survive was to turn around captured Soviet tanks and artillery as opposed to the billions of dollars which has been showered on the Ukraine (although at a pace that negates some of its usefulness). In the end, it is a story as old as man; beware they who have that lean and hungry look.