Friends, devious, bloodthirsty supervillain Vladimir Putin is on the cusp of conquering the noble Ukrainian people, and thereafter rolling his tanks into Berlin and Paris, but one thing is for sure: he won't get his diabolical hands on the ice fields of Alaska, because -- thank God! -- our check cleared in 1867, so we own it. The U.S. purchase of Alaska is just one of several interesting historical themes that we cover on this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil. We also discuss "shell shock" in WWI and how it reshaped our understanding of courage and cowardice in modern war, the sterling acting career of Sir Michael Caine, the dynamics of "Iran-Contra", and Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812.
In terms of current events, Brian and I hash over the interminable battle for the Speakership of the House of Representatives, the border crisis and its political fallout, the dangers of escalation in the Middle East and Ukraine, the sad fate of George Santos, and the evolving Russian-Chinese partnership and the degree of threat that Americans should perceive in it.
It's a show that rises to the very high standard that Brian and I have set heretofore... Truly, you are blessed to have the opportunity to listen to it! Might this prove, therefore, that we really do live in the best of all possible worlds? Hmm. Could be.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Just imagine, had we not acquired Alaska, we would have had Stalin balefully regarding us from the Alaska SSR. Then when the USSR flew all to hell in 1991, then what. . . ? Ultra trivia: would Lincoln have approved the Alaska purchase?
ReplyDeleteRAY TO JACK
DeleteThe reason we purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867, is that our leaders then had a vision that in the future, our people could enjoy taking cruises there.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the broadcast: So Western New York's own now NY Gov. Hochul offers Israel her in person condolences and encouragement. Its an honorable gesture, given NYC's very significant Jewish population. Her stated concern about illegal imigrants is disingenuous. You are right that she sees them bringing oodles of federal money for her to toy with; their votes, which she would hasten to enable since she presumes they would be only for their dem saviors,would be welcome too.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: WWI beggared the imaginations of all involved in it, I think. Inability to endure the indescribably violent artillery regime which developed often did render its victims physically unable to participate further. But I'd suggest that willful refusal to fight might also have been motivated by the correct perception of how incompetently they had been led. Massed assaults on machine guns;astronomically incalculable casualties in extended battles yielding no tactical or strategic advance; nonsensically repeated resorts to proven discredited tactics;tragically but stubbornly wrong headed Generals like Haig and Nivelle: it was just too much for some perceptive soldiers. Several French units actually mutinied, I think in 1917. Maybe that Brit who stood down on his own sacrificed himself to prove a point. May the memory of General Pershing, who wisely refused to feed the American Expeditionary Force, including my grandfather, piecemeal into the insanity manifested by the Allies up until then, always be celebrated!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Being an Anglophile, I've always looked on the Napoleonic wars as having ended favorably. The Brits were almost reflexively opposed to the establishment of any one competely dominant power on the "Continent" and that determination may have been fortunate . France has not been exemplary of political stability and a French ruled Western world might have been subject to something of the vagaries of French history from 1789 to 1945. Better "Rule Brittania". Napoleon was an extraordinary, supremely able leader, organizer and visionary. Then again, Hitler made a respectful visit to his tomb. Ironic that, since Napoleon defended Jews in territories he conquered. But "deep, very deep Russia" swallowed Bonaparte as it later did to the truly fearsome German machine.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Then again, could a 19th century Napoleonic Europe have prevented the catastrophic rise of Germany?Napoleon worked some beneficial measures when he occupied part of Prussia.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Well Biden made a sow's ear out of a silken purse yesterday: resolute support for Israel, that's good. But then " oh while we are at it, let us similarly rededicate our backing of Ukraine, just sayin', I mean same difference right? " WRONG. Yes, Russian determination to prevent Ukrainian accession to Nato is analogous in the intensity of its execution to Arab antipathy to Israel. But Russia does not purpose the annihilation of Ukraine's population; it simply wants NO Nato membership for Ukraine. Woe to world civilization if Israel is not defended by lands claiming love of justice! !The West did Ukraine a great wrong in casually encouraging it to seek Nato membership. As bitter as it is now, the West must admit its mistake and perhaps end Ukraine's agony,by abjuring any possibility of Ukraine in Nato. Russia's fundamental refusal to countenance such a plainly antiRussia alliance is historically, geographically and grimly, understandable.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: The left hoped to reprise its Watergate victory over uppity Nixon when it used the "infamous" "Iran-Contra" misconduct of the Reagan administration to gum up his second term. It hoped to make a custom of similar uses of politics by prosecution. Reagan was a happy warrior who was uncowed by the MSM which, after Watergate, reinforced by leftist compromised boomers in its "profession", was feeling its oats ! Why they intended to become a fourth branch of gov ernment! Almost four decades later the left has made a rare old carnival of our politics by its prostitution of the law to its incipiently totalitarian partisan purpose. They just don't give up, do they.
ReplyDeleteHmm. I rather doubt Russia would have maintained its grip on Alaska beyond the 1917 revolution and ensuing civil war. In fact, I strongly suspect that the Russians sold Alaska because they realized that it would be impossible to defend.
ReplyDeleteJack, I think you would find that the tactics of the AEF in WWI were no better than those of other armies, and possibly worse, in that we were hot on the idea of proving our mettle in a conflict that was clearly winding down. We suffered appalling casualties...but we did benefit from the hard lessons that our allies had learned in the previous four years. And, yes, charging the enemy trenches was a daunting prospect, but it was generally also a very rare occurrence. Artillery bombardments were...daily life, for all too many soldiers. Now THAT is hard to take!
Boy, a Europe ruled by Bonapartes on a permanent basis... It's difficult even to imagine! I guess I find it hard to conceive of France in a position of lasting European hegemony, but if the backward Russkies can almost manage it, then maybe all things really are possible.
Agreed: Ukraine and Israel are totally different kettles of fish.
That's a wise observation, Jack: having failed to cow their enemies with the pen, the Left must now take up the sword -- in this case, wielded by prosecutors, the DOJ, and federal law enforcement. To put it another way, if you can't bully dissidents into silence and subservience, then there's no choice but to round them up and lock them away.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: On WWI: the Germans had launched a huge last all out offensive to win before the AEF was ready. They got within 70 miles of Paris. The Brits and French could not have won the Second Battle of the Marne which, by November 1918 brought about the Armistice, on their own. They were in mortal danger. Had the Boche won before the AEF was ready, not only might they have captured the advance cadre of the AEF but a beheaded France might have capitulated. Then what? A Normandy type invasion would probabl not have been possible. Meddling Hitler was only a Pfc.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Napoleon, being an extraordinary person, would probably not have been succeeded by one of his stature.Andunless he improbably conquered England, France would always have had the baleful Brits to contend withal. Its also hard to imagine the French ruling the bustling Boche for a long time. But1914, which has defined the modern world, I think, might just have been another year and Bolshevism might have been a footnote.
ReplyDeleteYes, it was a near thing in 1918! Timing is everything, and the AEF was present in force just early enough to make a huge difference.
ReplyDelete