This is Stephen Ambrose at his best; after conducting interviews with over 1000 veterans, on both sides of the line, and reviewing outstanding studies by Russell Weigley, Paul Fussell and other excellent historians, some of who fought in the theater, Ambrose has created a fast-moving history from the ground level.  The cold, the thrill of the chase, the shock of retreat, the realization that the war is almost over and the fear of being the last man to die are brought home in a book that is difficult to put down.

Numerous other books have cast doubts on the fighting skills of the average U.S. soldier, especially in the infantry arm, especially in relation to his counterpart on the other side.  While Ambrose does not dispute that debate, he does not acknowledge it, instead focusing on the amazing ability of eighteen-year-old teenagers who served as privates and even officers to learn quickly how to survive during the terrible winter of 1944-45.  There is no doubt that thousands died due to poor training and an inability to master their weapons (young men trained as infantrymen were suddenly given a two-hour course on how to drive and use a tank with the result that in many instances, they did not last a day against the more professional German army).  Yet enough did to stop the German’s time and again and create the conditions for victory.

Ambrose does focus on the infantry as they are the sharp end of the bayonet, yet he also has chapters on the medics and nurses who provided the difference between life and death for literally tens of thousands of G.I.s who were wounded and rescued from the battle field and cared for by over worked nurses at the aid stations.  The relationship between the G.Is and those who treated them was one of mutual respect and admiration.

There are dark scenes and he discusses the execution of prisoners by Americans.  Some killings are done in the heat of battle, some are done coolie as a soldier is detailed to take prisoners back to battalion but somehow the prisoners never make it back.  How much killing of prisoners went on?  It is difficult to say, as only one veteran admitted to killing a prisoner, but hundreds “heard” of such actions.  Did the veterans condemn such actions?  Not to any great degree and the general impression from the book that such actions happen in war and that is that.

I used to believe that child sacrifice went out of style, at least in the West, thousands of years ago, yet today we see child sacrifice in the name of a new religion, transgenderism.  How is it that after being disgusted by the crimes of a doctor named Mengele, less than one-hundred years later we are seeing blatant experimentation on the youngest and most innocent of our population, mere children.

What has happened that children who cannot vote, sign a contract, who are considered incapable of making common ordinary everyday decisions due to their inexperience in the world, are suddenly capable of taking unproven and dangerous drugs and approving irreversible surgery which they will carry only with the help of more drugs for the rest of their lives? And who are those who are going along with the mutilation of children?  They are those whom we consider the best and brightest of us, those who have taken an oath to do no harm, doctors.  Since when has the medical profession become an adjunct arm of a political or social fad? The attached article gives a glimpse into the freighting world that is existence today, where life-changing actions are taken very often with little or no consultation or support of medical science.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/transgender-ideology-and-the-corruption-of-medicine

“As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X.  Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X, or in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X…What I want to do is to look up C.  I want to show you what manner of man he is.  I call him the Forgotten Man.  Perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct.  The is the man who never is thought of… He works, he votes, generally he pays-but he always pays…  William Graham Sumner, Yale University, 1883

Shales excellent book covers the period of the late Coolidge Presidency, through that of Hoover into the Roosevelt terms up to his defeat of Wilke.  We see these personalities but also many others who attempted to find solutions to the Great Depression while receiving conflicting messages and directives from President  Roosevelt.  Roosevelt was a crafty politician who kept everyone guessing as to which direction to go and which was the best policy to achieve his unclear goals.  This led to duplication of effort and mixed signals to those with whom he was attempting to achieve an agreement.  It was not unusual for Roosevelt to sent out two sets of negotiators with conflicting instructions and then even if an agreement were reached, he might reject it as it did not agree with some new idea of his.  This led, in the real world, to a hesitancy on the part of business to commit to long term planning as they were unsure of the next set of taxes, regulations, etc. and how they would impact them. This of course, let to reduced hiring and an extension of the Depression. Internationally, it led to a mistrust of U.S. policy.

The book provides an excellent overview of the battle the President had with the Supreme Court and they with his various new laws and governmental agencies.  To put those agencies and the growth of the Federal government in context and why the SC was viewed by FDR as obstructionist, within a few months of FDR’s first term, his new agencies had written more regulations than the entire U.S. government had written since the founding of the Republic.  The SC, struck down many of his rules and agencies. At his second inauguration, FDR stated that his goal was “unimagined power” which set him on a collision course with the SC.  FDR suffered a major defeat when he attempted to “pack” the SC in a political effort to control it (as we hear today from various politicians) yet in the end, due to retirements (the “four old men” on the Court were in their mid-seventies) and FDR was able to place Justices more in line with his political thinking.

FDR is remembered as a great President I believe for a couple of reasons;

1. His “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself” speech when he gave the American public hope for the future
2. His constant activity which made it appear that something constructive was being done for the American people (even though for example, he and his advisors realized that programs such as Social Security were unsustainable and would saddle future Presidents with a huge burden)

Originally published 06.01/2023 on Fox News.com by Alex Epstein

The “green energy” movement claims that it wants cost-effective energy—affordable, reliable, plentiful—just without fossil fuels’ pollution or GHG emissions. But this is contradicted by its hostility toward clean, non-carbon nuclear and hydro—the most proven alternatives to fossil fuels.

You might expect the “green-energy” movement to be the Number 1 supporter of clean, non-carbon nuclear and hydroelectric energy, but instead, it is the Number 1 opponent. “Green” groups have opposed nuclear for decades (leading to crippling costs) and worked to shut down hydroelectric dams. 

Why does the “Green” movement oppose nuclear and hydro?

It is because “green” solar and wind are just so cost-effective and so “green”?

No. Solar and wind have not proven to be cost-effective at all, and in many ways, they are the least “green” form of energy.

“Green energy” isn’t really energy

Calling solar and wind “green energy” makes them seem like other forms of energy, just “green.” But they’re not. All other forms of energy provide reliable energy—real energy—whereas solar and wind are unreliable parasites of reliable energy.

Despite claims that solar and wind are rapidly replacing fossil fuels, they provide less than 5% of world energy—only electricity, one-fifth of energy—and, crucially, even that small percentage depends on huge subsidies and reliable (mostly fossil-fueled) power plants. 

Calling solar and wind “green energy” makes them seem like other forms of energy, just “green.” But they’re not. All other forms of energy provide reliable energy—real energy—whereas solar and wind are unreliable parasites of reliable energy.

Solar and wind’s basic problem is unreliability, to the point they can go near zero at any time. Thus, they don’t replace reliable power, they parasitize it. This is why they need huge subsidies and why no grid is near 50% solar and wind without huge parasitism on reliable neighbors.  

The popular idea that we can use mostly or only solar and wind with sufficient battery backup is not being tried anywhere because it’s economically absurd. Batteries are so expensive that just 3 days of global backup using Elon Musk’s Megapacks would cost $600 trillion, about six times global GDP!  

“Green” solar and wind may someday become a part of real energy solutions—if generators using solar and wind are willing to guarantee reliability, instead of generating unreliable power and forcing everyone else to clean up their mess. But today’s “green energy” is not real energy. If solar and wind ever become truly cost-effective, you can be certain of one thing: the “green energy” movement will oppose them as insufficiently “green” given their huge “environmental impacts.” 

“Green energy” isn’t really green

If solar and wind became cost-effective and deployed on a large scale, they would have a level of “environmental impact” from mining and land use that would make the “green movement” oppose them. In fact, this is already happening. “Green” means minimal or nonexistent “environmental impact.”

Because sunlight and wind are dilute sources of energy—they take up more space and use more of many materials than fossil fuels or nuclear. This massive “environmental impact” is not at all “green.”  

Consider the land use requirements of solar. The world uses over 165,000 TWh of energy per year, which requires ~19 billion kW of power on average. An optimistic, real-world power density for solar projects is 10 Watts per square meter. To power the world, you’d need ~1.8 million square kilometers of solar PV projects.  

If 1.8 million square kilometers of solar panels doesn’t seem like much, note that it is more than all cities, towns, villages, and human infrastructure combined (~1.5 million square kilometers).  

And this excludes the huge footprints of solar and battery mining, manufacturing, and transmission. Consider the mining requirements of solar, wind, and batteries. An International Energy Agency projection for a “net zero” scenario shows an increase in mining and processing of minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel, and rare earths by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900%, and 700% by 2040. 

Because “green energy” has so much enviromenatal impact even on today’s small scale it faces huge “green” opposition to its land use, mining, and transmission-line-building requirements. For example, the Biden administration recently shut down a prime “green energy” mining site in Minnesota.  

If “green” solar and wind aren’t really energy, and if they have so much environmental impact that the “green” movement opposes them in practice, then why does the green movement so enthusiastically support them rhetorically? To hide its real goal: radically reducing energy use.

“Green”—”minimal human impact”—is a fundamentally anti-energy idea. Energy is “the capacity to do work,” which means transforming—impacting—our environment. The more energy we use, the more we transform Earth, the more impact we have. If you don’t want us to impact Earth you ultimately must oppose every form of energy.

The fundamental hostility of the “green” movement to energy explains why throughout its history it has never supported current, cost-effective sources of energyand only “supported” imaginary sources of energy that might exist in the future.

“Green” leaders supported nuclear—until it became cost-effective, at which point they demonized and criminalized it. “Green” leaders supported natural gas—until it became cost-effective on a global scale thanks to shale energy tech, at which point they demonized it as “fracking.”

Because the “green” movement is anti-energy any enthusiasm its leaders express for fusion is phony; while they may claim to want clean, cheap, abundant energy before it exists, they will not like the impact it has once it exists. And in the past, green leaders admitted this.  

Amory Lovins, the leader of the modern “green energy” movement, said in the 1970s: “If you ask me, it’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we would do with it.”  

The world needs to reject the “green” movement and instead embrace a “human flourishing” movement that embraces intelligent human impact on Earth as a good thing. It’s one that both embraces today’s most cost-effective energy sources—including fossil fuels—and is eager to improve on them.

Alex Epstein is the author of “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal and Natural Gas,” and the creator of Energy Talking Points on Substack a source of powerful, concise, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.

On April 3 of this year, I posted an article from the Claremont Review of Books regarding the political atmosphere in India.  This quarter, Claremont provides us with an excellent article which asks if France is governable.  Lead by President Emmanuel Macron, a man who admires General Charles de Gaulle and imagines that the “Jupiterian” powers within the French Constitution allows him to lead France in directions which are clearly not supported by the majority of Franch citizens.  Although he has won two national elections, both through run offs, his base popularity during the elections stayed at about twenty-five percent and his current popularity rating is at about the same level.

France and Macron face numerous challenges, the most recent and visible being the French retirement system.  Fourteen percent of the GDP of France is dedicated to the pension system and while the high national debt (112%) and high deficits (5%) are within the range of the United States, the French currency is the Euro and France is under pressure to live within the restrictions of the EU regarding debt.  This at a time when there are calls for higher military spending as the French have allowed their military to decline since the Cold War.  Additionally, the basis for the French economy is being tortured by the rise in the cost of living as “producers” exit the cities for less expensive housing in the surrounding areas, only to find that whatever savings may be found are whittled away the high fuel costs. Increasingly, those left in the cities are those unable to escape, such as the lower working class and those who live on the hand outs of the State.  The time of the “yellow jackets” may arise again as Macron has lost the support of the major unions and farmers. 

Unfortunately, the greatest danger to France is not covered in detail in the article; Muslim immigration, the strain they put on the welfare system and their inability to assimilate (we suggest going to the Gatestone Institute and checking their article entitled, “France: Submission to Islamist Quickly Gaining Ground”).  Approximately ten percent of the Franch population is Muslim with hundreds of thousands arriving both legally and illegally each year.  There are over 750 “no go zones” in France and major steps are taken in the public sector not to “upset” the Muslim minority (one example being that the Holocaust is not taught in French schools).  This is a long-term problem which has no easy answer, but the strain on the French economy, security and growth is huge.

As stable and beautiful a nation may appear, this article shows that it is impossible for any nation or set of politicians to sit back and wile away the hours.  Challenges only seem to multiply and more than ever there is a real need for real “leaders” to accept the challenges they face.  The challenge for the average person is trying to find those politicians who can tackle the problems not only of today, but of the future while refusing to buckle to the often-outlandish cries of those who fail to understand the realities of the world.  

Governments around the world have already spent more than two trillion ($2,000,000,000,000) on projects to go “green”.  Despite this vast sum, the percentage of energy produced which is “green” has not increased as a percentage of total energy used around the world.  Why is that?

One reason is that the people of developing countries, for some strange reason, want to live a better, easier, and longer life.  They want substantial housing, a better diet, warmth in the winter and coolness in the summer.  As a result of these strange desires, they are using more energy and they want the energy to be efficient and cheap.  How selfish of them!  For some reason they are more concerned about improving their standard of living than worrying if the Earths temperature will go up one degree in fifty years. The fact is that the demand for energy is growing faster than the “green” movement can produce; the technology simply is too inefficient.

Another reason why “green” energy has not replaced fossil fuels is that “green” is neither inexpensive nor efficient.  Germany for example which has made a major commitment to going “green” has seem their carbon footprint increase due to the unreliability of “green” energy.  Who would have thought that solar panels do not work well in parts of a country where many of the days are overcast. Image that!

Despite the high cost and inefficiency of going “green”, there are those who still believe.  After all, they believe in science and if you disagree with them, you don’t believe in science. True or not, one thing the environmentalists do not understand or believe in is the basic rules of supply and demand.  They resist the fact that to go “green”, they will have to scar the Earth’s surface with thousands of mines to reach the minerals (also known as rocks) which are needed to build all the windmills and solar panels that are currently being resisted by communities around the world.

The video linked below explains the massive projects and huge amounts of money which need to be allocated to moving “green” energy forward.  At the current time, not one new mine is on the drawing boards in the United States (there was one in Minnesota but by Executive Order, President Biden shut it down).  Due to environmental regulations (which of course cannot be eased) and lawsuits, it takes ten years from the start to production of a mine.  As a result, the United States is putting its energy future in the capable and loving hands of Communist China (remember what happened to Germany when they did the same with Russia?).

This excellent short video should make you wonder who is running this “green” agenda and what do they have against progress.  Do we really need or want to march boldly backwards into the fourteenth century?

https://www.prageru.com/video/how-much-energy-will-the-world-need

James Megellas was the most decorated officer in the 82^nd Airborne division in World War II.  He fought in Italy including at Anzio, took place in the invasion of Normandy, parachuted into Holland as part of the disaster of Market Garden and following the Battle of the Bulge took the long road through Germany all the way to Berlin.

Using letters, he had written during the war, interviews with former comrades, and excerpts from memoirs of men he served with from the ranks through to Generals he takes us on almost a day-by-day description of hundreds of days of combat.  He gives credit to those who served with him, writing of how being on the front lines for sixty days and longer, through all different types of weather, never bathing or shaving, the average American soldier fought and won against a long serving German army.

The citation for his Distinguished Service Cross (one step below the Congressional Medal of Honor) is as follows:

“First Lieutenant Megellas led his platoon on a combat patrol to secure information and prisoners.  Arriving at the enemy observation pose, he crawled forward alone and killed two outpost guards and the crew of a machine gun nest. He brought forward his patrol, attacked the mail enemy defenses and singlehandedly secured three prisoners and killed two more.  Two blockhouses were then attached and destroyed.  The aggressiveness of this patrol action thoroughly demoralized the enemy in the sector.  His mission completed, first Lieutenant Megellas withdrew his platoon through the enemy lines and under mortar fire.  He personally carried a wounded man while firing his Thompson submachine gun with one hand.  The extraordinary heroism and brilliant leadership displayed by First Lieutenant Megellas enabled his patrol to inflict disproportionate causalities on the enemy, secure vital information and force the Germans to abandon their planned offensive in the area.  His conduct was an inspiration to his men and a credit to the United States Airborne Forces.”

Aside from the DSC, he won two Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars with “V” and 2 Purple Hearts.  Forty years later a bill was introduced to upgrade one of his Silver Stars to the Congressional Medal of Honor based on the recommendation of his commanding officer, but the bill died in Congress. 

One of the highlights of the book is his description of the crossing of the Waal River during Operation Market Garden.  This dramatic and heroic assault against and entrenched and numerically superior enemy was one of the major battle scenes in the television series Band of Brothers.  Reading his description, one will feel as if they are not only in the assault boats, but you will also catch the feelings of the men before the assault.

I had a phone conversation with Mr. Megellas in 2006 (he died in 2020) after I read his book the first time.  His matter-of-fact descriptions reminded me of some of the writings of Ernst Junger in his classic Storm of Steel.  Unlike Junger, and despite his well-earned pride in his actions during the war, he did not see or feel a higher mystic feeling in the war.  As he said, “We realized the more Germans we killed, the faster we would get home.”

So I made the reservations a year ago, never giving it a second thought and then suddenly, out of the blue, the Palace calls to let me know that “Charlie” (he loves it when I call him that; he always says, “Mr. Klazura, I love it when you call me that, it makes me feel so unroyal), has scheduled his coronation the very week I shall be in London.  Of course, I know why he did that and it was nice (I mean he wanted me to have a good time), but I insisted that I could not join him in the Royal Coach as really, it was his special day.

    OK, maybe it did not happen exactly that way, but somehow my favorite wife and I landed in London a couple of days before the coronation and it was wonderful to see the streets alive with the Union Jack, flowers, etc.  We dared not try to get close to the route (folks were camping out two nights in advance) but watching it on TV surrounded by Brits was a lot of fun.  And, while so many Brits were sleeping along the route, it made roaming through Harrods much easier. 

     London is always special and the five nights we were there went by very quickly.  What did we do?  The first AM I always have an appointment at Trumper in Mayfair for an old fashioned shave. Then onto Fortnum & Mason for a typical British breakfast.  It lets us know we are really in London.  Actually, we spent time as if we lived there as we felt quite comfortable with the city.  No need to hurry to certain exhibits, and we ate at some of our favorite haunts (the caviar and champage bar in Harrods is great for food and people watching and the Polish restaurant Ognisko is as great as ever).  The cigar bar at the Connaught was nice (although as is the case in the U.K., the measures are a wee-bit small).  See my review of the cigar room at the blog (www.andontheotherhand.com, dated 5/19/2023).

     Leaving London is a sweet sorrow but we had to catch our ride to the port where we embarked on our sixteen-night cruise on the Cunard Queen Victoria.

 Factoids

* In some parts of the U.K., there is only one doctor per 100,000 people

* Appox. 48% of pregnant women receive inadequate or no pr-natal care

But hey, their health care is free.

THE BALTIC CRUISE

16 Nights

After an initial day at sea, we landed in Gothenberg Sweden which is the second largest city in Sweden.  As expected of Sweden, the city was clean, orderly and not terribly interesting.  Sorry.  Haga, which is the celebrated old city is sleepy with many shops not opening until noon, and one can only stop at so many shops for coffee and a roll. This is a prime example of the advantage of a cruise; I have been there, seen it and can quickly cross it off my list of places to go back too.

     From Gothenberg, one more day of cruising (lots of reading, quiet, figuring out where to have lunch, etc.) we landed in Helsinki for an overnight stay.  Helsiski is spotless, not a bit of graffiti, litter, etc.  The locals speak excellent English, are bright and welcoming while they (at the seaside market), have very nice local crafts and small booths featuring reindeer sausage, moose meatballs, etc.  It is a nice town to walk around and we were fortunate as we had two wonderful sunny days with perfect weather.  The locals laughed every time I said it was a typical Helsinki day.  Being so far north, it did not get dark until about 10PM and the sun rose early, so the time for exploring is wonderful.  Overall, Helsinki makes one want to explore more of the country as it is welcoming and so civilized.  It shows what a homogenous nation with a strong work ethic and a strong sense of national identity (Finnish flags are everywhere and they appreciate their Russian neighbor for what it really is) can create.  Very enjoyable!  

Misc Tips for Helsinki

* If you want an excellent lunch with great service, try Bardot at Kluuvikatu 1

* For cigars, try the oldest cigar shop in Finland, Havanna Atta at Pohjoinen Makasiinikatu 6 (say that quickly 6 times)

     From Helsinki we sailed to Tallinn which has a wonderful old city surrounded by a wall that dates back to the 1400s.  They have preserved the old city quite nicely and there are several shops where you can purchase Soviet and German WWII helmets, medals, magazines, etc.  It makes you realize that the country was occupied from 1939 until 1989 under two brutal regimes and that is one reason why the populace is so strongly committed to being the left flank guard of NATO.  As you would expect, the streets can be narrow and winding and being of cobblestone, comfortable walking can be a challenge.  The city has some beautiful churches, including an Orthodox church which is quite pretty.  English is widely spoken and it would be a great base to explore more of the country, which is quite nice during the summer.  During the winter, ah no thank you!

     Sailing overnight at a slow seventeen-knots, we arrived in Stockholm, the capital of Sweden. One thing that hits you as you drive into the center of the city is the wonderful architecture; the government buildings are stately, reflecting the wealth and historical culture of the nation.  A major power player in much of European history, Sweden decided after the Napeonic age to become neutral and it has benefited quite handsomely from that move.  

     Located by the King’s palace, the old city is a great warren of cobbled streets with smaller side streets that take you between buildings going back hundreds of years.  There are numerous coffee shops offering wonderful pastries and on a rainy cold day we were there, it was a joy to step into a shop and feel a warm welcome by the friendly staff.  The winters are cold, the springs are rainy and, as a local said, when the sun comes out, one feels guilty being indoors.  I would visit the city again in any of the seasons (even winter), but only if I was prepared psychologically for the protracted hours of darkness (during the winter) or sunlight (during the summer).  Just become a local!

     One of the best parts about a visit to Stockholm via ship is when you are leaving, you travel for 3-4 hours through a huge number of islands, small and large where the locals have built wonderful summer homes.  Some are inhabited all year long, but given the cold and ice of a typical winter, I wonder how those individuals survive what must be a very isolated existence.  Many of the islands are as close as fifty years off the ship and many fellow travelers are all but glued to the windows, watching the wonderful scenery and the beautiful inviting homes.

Klaipeda, Lithuania

Founded in the 13th century by the Livonian Knights, Memel as it was known by its German name was expanded by the Teutonic Knights into a major fortress stronghold.  It’s German majority was the premise for Hitler’s demand that pre-WWII Lithuania hand it over to Nazi Germany and it was mostly destroyed during the Soviet advance later in the war.  With the German population expelled by Stalin, Memel reverted to its Lithuanian name of Klaipeda.

      The town, the third largest in the country is a relatively new addition to be added by cruise lines so it is still relatively unspoiled.  For example, a heartly traditional lunch for two (two different soups, two different entries, bread and a half bottle of local wine) costs about $40 at Etno Dvaras which has been certified by the Culinary Heritage Fund.  But before you have that lunch, a hot chocolate and a couple of excellent chocolates at The Chocolate House ( Turgaus g. 2, near Theater Square) might be just the thing.  The hot chocolate is enough for two and you get to pick the special chocolates to enjoy with the drink. Wait for the prices to catch up to Tallinn!  Unlike Tallinn I did not find any WWII/occupation antique shops but then unlike Estonia, Lithuania does not have a large majority Russian population.  

     This is a pleasant stop which will take you back a few years to the period just after the fall of the Soviet Union.  It will make you want to visit more of the country.

Gdansk & Gdynia, Poland

Between 1919-1939, Gdansk was known as Danzig, an old trading city on the Baltic.  A protectorate of Poland, its mostly German citizens longed to be united with Germany.  With the rise of the Nazis in 1933, the city became a hot bed of political intrigue and, in response to the troubles, Poland started to build up Gdynia, about 20 km. away, as a rival ship construction port and shipping port.  It quickly surpassed Danzig in revenue, which infuriated the Germans even more.  At the start of WWII, after the fall of Poland, Gdynia took second place to Danzig but both cities were destroyed in the final year of the war.

     Today, Gdansk is part of Poland, the German population being expelled under orders of Stalin.  It has been beautifully rebuilt and the old Hanastic architecture is the gem of the city.  Gdynia was the home of the Solidarity movement which was a key element in the fall of, Communism in Poland.

     Gdansk is the more charming city, full of restaurants, and home of the museum of World War II, one of the best in the world.  Most museums on the war, such as the Imperial War Museum in London, deal more with the military aspect, while Gdansk deals with the human suffering of the war.  There are numerous exhibits of those who lived through the war, mostly as children or young adults.  It is a moving museum and well worth the visit.

     No visit to any Polish town or city is complete without a meal, but don’t let your eyes get you in trouble, for the servings are large and the food can be quite heavy.  We stopped at Pierogarnia u Dzika at Piwas 59/60 just off the water front.  We had four shots of vodka (outstanding), a serving of eight pirogi (four different fillings), grilled salmon, a glass of wine, then for dessert, and eight sweet pirogi (two different fruit fillings), all for $46.88!  Now that is a deal!  Forget dinner!

     My wife and I agree that Gdansk is worth a two-day visit and we shall begin to plan our trip to the Baltic area soon!  Nice people, plenty of history, great food and not as many tourists.  Enjoy!

Copenhagen

Each visit to that beautiful city reveals new treasures!  Walking around the opera house, one finds a mosaic on the ceiling of the port which welcomes autos to the theater.  The mosaic ceiling is made up of small tiles of gold, lapus, silver, etc. that show the detail the Danes have to create beautiful mouments to their culture.  Walking around the city on a sunny day one cannot help but feel uplifted; the city is orderly and clean.  Everyone obeys the rules, even the cyclists who stop at traffic lights and make way for those who walk (amazing!!). It is easy to understand why Denmark was very tough on deporting immigrants who ran afoul of Danish law, but one feels that they will not allow those who migrate to upset the harmony of their society.  In some ways, Copenhagen seems too good to be true but I have yet to find a fatal flaw in their system.  A visit to Copenhagen will make you wonder why your home town can’t (seem) to operate so smoothly.

General Thoughts on the Trip

The trip consisted of five nights in London and a sixteen night cruise on the Cunard’s Queen Victoria.  As previously mentioned, we are very comfortable in London, it can feel like home.  Enough said.

     One does need to be careful regarding a cruise to make sure it matches your goals, finances, family needs, etc. 

1) This particular cruise had mostly Brits who were in the late 70s and older, so definately not a cruise for someone with young children, teens, those who seek constant entertainment, etc.  Keep that in mind when looking for a cruise. Another thing to consider is your trying to understand what Brits are saying; more than once I would hear one Brit ask what another Brit was saying and they only lived about 40 miles apart!  It is true, we are two nations separated by a common language.

2) The food was very good, not as good as Oceania, but then Oceania charges a premium and advertises themselves as the finest food on the ocean.  Yet, I never had a bad meal and always had a great selection.    

3) The first time you go on a three week vacation you realize that two weeks simply ends just when you are going to really enjoy yourself.  I believe it is the same with a cruise.  Seven nights?  OK.  Ten or longer, now you will really get into cruising.  On this trip, many Brits I met had taken three around the world cruises and were booking other shorter cruises.  It is definately a way to leave the world behind (they were able to afford it as they are under the old UK pension plan which was more of a private retirement plan as opposed to the current plan which is much like our Social Security system).  

4) As usual, I found the most interesting individuals in the Churchill Cigar lounge; one author of two books who has interviewed numerous interesting historical figures and their families to bring to light little known historial facts, another a high manager in the British gas industry who shared some stories when he was working on a project founded by (then) Prince Charles and some of their conversations, etc.  Each evening after dinner, we headed up to the cigar lounge (I have the most accomdating and lovely wife) to talk with other passengers in a relaxed atmosphere.  Excellent!

OK, I am sure I have bored you enough but I hope you will have picked up some ideas on cruising, places to visit, etc. I hope you have a great summer and if you have any questions on cruising or even financial or insurance matters please feel free to reach out to me.  Thank you for your patience!

An excellent little book which reviews why various military air forces have failed since WWI. They cover the Imperial German and Russian air forces, the Polish air force of 1939, the French of 1933-40, Luftwaffe, Arab air forces, etc. Broken into short easy to read chapters, the common failures center around the following key factors:

• Lack of strategic vision
• Lack of logistics
• Inability to meet changing challenges
• Lack of governmental support in key areas

Some air forces started strong (Luftwaffe), some were the victims of national degeneracy (France), some the result of inability to deal with reality (Italy), but all went through a cycle of attempting to deal with forces beyond their control. Most of those forces were civilian, some were political, and most examples attempted to fulfill missions that were clearly beyond their means from any objective standpoint. While the pilots and mechanics did their best, the politicians simply failed to understand the weapon that they had at their disposal.

This little book is a quick informative read for anyone who wishes to understand the importance of logistics, strategy, tactics and will as they seek to come together to create a successful weapon.  The interesting thing that comes out is that no matter what has happened in the realm of military science, many are slow to recognize and learn from history. This book goes to prove a point that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

On a recent voyage, I had a discussion with some Brits about their history history.  The subject of Churchill came up and one elderly lady mentioned what a terrible job he had done with the Dardanelles during the First World War. I was surprised she held that view given the research, commissions, etc. that have been held since the war.  She must have gone through the school system or perhaps her parents belonged to the party which opposed Churchill for her view to be held so long after the fact.  I mentioned some counter information and she was genuinely surprised to hear the information I provided.  History is not dead, and it continues to shape our view of our world.

This brings us to this review of Churchill and the Dardanelles by Christopher M. Bell.  I was familiar with Bell as I had previously read his excellent book, Churchill and Sea Power and this book only goes to increase his reputation as an historian of note.

After the failure of the Dardanelles, there was much finger pointing as to would shoulder the blame for both the naval and army failures.  Was the campaign supported by the major players?  Did the Navy consult with the Army regarding joint action? Did the Navy go into the campaign with a full understanding of the Turkish defenses?  Who oversaw each operation?   The questions went on and on, but the initial blame landed on the desk of Churchill.  As a result, with all the politicians and military leaders running for cover, Churchill who was viewed as head-strong and much too pushy was left alone by most of his political allies.  He lost his position and was all but cast into a political wilderness.  Although the Prime Minister realized that Churchill was being sacrificed and that his skills would be helpful to the war effort, he was simply beyond the pale until tempers cooled down and a more objective analysis of the failures could be found.

Churchill immediately began to build his case for his political resurrection.  He gathered documents, spoke with is political allies and when a commission was formed to review the entire campaign, he labored hard and long for the ability to be actively involved not only to be in the commission but to also examine witnesses who were called.  Although he felt betrayed by Jackie Fisher who he had brought back to the naval board, they realized that they needed one another, and a temporary truce was called.  Numerous witnesses were called and after lengthy hearings, it was decided that Churchill came out with a much-improved position.

Churchill, however, was not one to rest and he took the entire episode to heart, becoming less naïve and careful to work to create his own image.  He used his political allies including the press to reconstruct and improve his image and the publication of his monumental work, The World Crisis in which he managed to paint his actions in the Dardanelles in a positive light while at the same time not burning any political bridges all but secured his resurrected reputation.

Although he would make political errors in the future (re: the Royal abdication, self-rule for India, etc.), he had learned that careful control of the press and public opinion could save him from his own errors.  Lord Birkenhead once commented, “When Winston is right, he is unique. When he is wrong-Oh My God!”.  Churchill knew that history would treat him well because he was determined to write it and write it, he did.  Yes, he made errors and could drive those around him to distraction, but in the end, his legend which he wrote was not that far off the mark.