Tag Archives: World War I

International news

Let’s knock off the France-bashing

I am not a Franco-phile. I don’t live, breathe or think of all things French. However, I do want to ask the president of the United States to cease with the France-bashing as he keeps tweeting messages in response to criticism coming from our nation’s old and (usually) reliable ally.

Donald Trump fired off a Twitter message that said:

Emmanuel Macron suggests building its own army to protect Europe against the U.S., China and Russia. But it was Germany in World Wars One & Two – How did that work out for France? They were starting to learn German in Paris before the U.S. came along. Pay for NATO or not!

Macron, the French president, doesn’t like the nationalistic tone coming from Donald Trump. He said so publicly in remarks over the weekend at a ceremony commemorating the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I.

Trump decided to return fire with the tired refrain we hear about France’s participation during both world wars.

I want to defend the French for a moment.

First, I am acutely aware that French forces were defeated by Germans in both global conflicts. However, I also am acutely aware of the resistance that French citizens mounted against the occupying forces. That was especially true during World War II. French fighters terrorized Nazi soldiers repeatedly after the fall of Paris in 1940.

Yes, the French set up a pro-Nazi government in the southern part of the country. However, the “Free French” forces played a significant role in major military campaigns as the Allies began their counterattack against the Third Reich. Normandy? North Africa? The French fought alongside their allies from the United States, Canada and Great Britain — and the Poles, Greeks, Dutch, Norwegians and Belgians.

One more point, as long as we’re discussing historical events.

It has been argued that the United States of America wouldn’t even exist without France’s money and military support during the American Revolution.

France has been ridiculed over many decades. Do the French owe the United States for helping free them during World Wars I and II? Certainly. The gratitude, though, ought to go both ways.

Thus, the criticism from the U.S. president directed toward the French president is unfair, childish and gratuitously petulant.

International news, military news

If only we could change human behavior

This is no flash, no great scoop.

Human beings have been going to war with each other since the beginning of time. Certainly since the beginning of recorded history, which also goes way back.

Thus, when human beings find it impossible to settle disagreements without resorting to extreme violence, we’ll always have veterans. Men and women are answering the call of their governments to take up arms.

I join many others in wishing we could end all war. However, that is perhaps the most unrealistic expectation one can have. I detest having to say such a thing, but you know it’s true as much as I know it to be true.

For as long as lunatics continue to walk the Earth, for as long as there are tyrants or would-be tyrants who seek to subjugate other human beings, there will be war.

The same can be said of the prospect of ridding our world of losers who assassinate world leaders. Indeed, the murder of a central European head of state ignited the War to End All Wars in 1914. Today, we are commemorating the 100th anniversary of the end of what became — sadly, tragically — as World War I.

There would be another global conflagration in the 20th century.

And others have followed since then. They all have produced heroes. They also have turned men and women into veterans. They were called to duty by their government or they volunteered to serve, they chose to sacrifice large segments of their life to defend our nation … or any nation, for that matter.

And, most certainly, many of them volunteered to sacrifice their own lives in their nations’ defense. We must honor them, all of those who served. Not just on Veterans Day, but every single day!

Can we ever end international conflict? Realistically, no.

Instead, we will continue to honor those who defended us — from ourselves. We’ll do so until someone finds a way to change human behavior.

Good luck with that.

military news

Trump — naturally! — blames others for parade cancellation

Donald J. Trump’s penchant for passing the responsibility buck remains intact.

The president wanted to stage a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue ostensibly to honor veterans on the 100th anniversary of signing the armistice that ended the War to End All Wars.

Then the cost of the parade came in. He estimated the cost initially at $12 million. But wait! The cost escalated to an estimated $92 million. Trump called it off, suggesting he might try again next year. Phooey!

Who’s to blame? Trump lays it at the feet of Washington, D.C. officials who — one can only surmise — comprise Democrats intending to stick it to the Republican president.

As The Hill reported: “The local politicians who run Washington, D.C. (poorly) know a windfall when they see it. When asked to give us a price for holding a great celebratory military parade, they wanted a number so ridiculously high that I cancelled it. Never let someone hold you up! I will instead attend the big parade already scheduled at Andrews Air Force Base on a different date, & go to the Paris parade, celebrating the end of the War, on November 11th,” Trump wrote.

“Maybe we will do something next year in D.C. when the cost comes WAY DOWN,” he added. “Now we can buy some more jet fighters!”

Or, how about this, Mr. President? How about putting some of that money into helping veterans who need primary medical care, or who might need counseling to deal with the symptoms of PTSD? Or, maybe you could suggest spending more to combat the alarming rates of suicide among veterans returning from combat duty in Afghanistan, Iraq or other trouble spots where we’ve send our men and women into harm’s way.

What’s more, the president can stop laying blame on others and accept the reality that just maybe he low-balled the cost at the outset, not having an idea what such an ostentatious demonstration of military might would cost.

military news

Trump managed to yank spotlight from WWII heroes

Leave it to the inimitable Donald John Trump Sr. to do the seemingly impossible.

Three men — all heroes from World War II — came to the White House recently to be honored for their exploits during the great conflict.

So, what did the president do? With a thoughtless, careless quip he turned attention from the men and those who they represent and turned it onto himself for all the wrong reasons.

He said he “liked” the men who stood with him in the White House. He then chided a member of the U.S. Senate who has said she, too, has Native American heritage in her background. Trump just had to call Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas,” which he has used for years to deride her claim. That’s what the media have been talking about, not about the men who served so heroically.

The men are Code Talkers. They are of Navajo descent. They were deployed as Marines during World War II to communicate battle plans and intelligence in a language the Japanese couldn’t de-code. They were instrumental in several key Pacific Theater battles.

CNN.com published a story chronicling the men’s heroics.

See the story here.

The story notes that the use of Native American tongues in war began in World War I, when Choctaw soldiers spoke to each other to confound the Germans on the other side of the battle lines. But in the period between the world wars, the Germans figured out that language.

The Navajo was more difficult to decipher. As CNN.com noted, it isn’t a written language. Therefore, the enemy was unable to figure what they were listening to when the Navajo Marines were communicating.

They risked their lives. They fought for their country.

Only 13 of the Code Talkers are still living. They all are old men who are suffering the usual ravages of aging.

The president should have known better than to yank the spotlight from those heroes. He should have shown a semblance of class and grace as he welcomed these brave Americans to salute their commitment to their country.

Indeed, if the president understood or appreciated anything about the sacrifice these men paid, he might have seen fit to keep his mouth shut about a political foe.

 

military news

Putting our troubles into perspective

Michael Grauer is a well-read student of history, which is a good thing, given his standing at the Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum in Canyon, Texas.

The curator of art at the PPHM came to our Rotary Club today and delivered an enthusiastic talk about World War I, which he calls “the forgotten war.” Grauer has worked at the PPHM since 1987. That’s 30 years chronicling the Panhandle’s history and its contributions to global progress.

WWI was called “The Great War,” or just “The War,” because no one ever thought there would be a second world war, Grauer said. How wrong they all war.

But he added some details about the nature of the conflict that consumed Europe from 1914 until 1918 when, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, they signed the Treaty of Versailles.

He told us that the Texas Panhandle contributed thousands of horses and mules to the war. The animals were used to haul artillery pieces, supplies and ambulance wagons. The average life span of the animals on the battlefield, Grauer said, was 10 days. They would be shot in the heat of battle and then left to rot on the field. “The stench of death was everywhere,” he said.

The men who fought in the trenches had their boots rot off their feet as they slogged through mud for weeks and months on end.

The wagons used to carry supplies and evacuate the wounded from the field of battle would break down in the mud.

You want some perspective? “When you drive your car and you’re 20 minutes late to where you want to be,” he said, “think of what those men went through.”

All our WWI vets are gone now. I wish I could tell just one of them how much I appreciate what they did and salute them for the utter hell they endured fighting a 20th-century war with 19th-century technology.

Grauer is right. I don’t think I’m going to grouse any longer about traffic holdups.

International news

Three great Americans

grandparents

I’ve written already about my immigrant grandparents.

And I’ve told you how they loved their country — the United States of America — more than I can possibly measure.

This picture is of three of them.

The lady on the left is Katina Kanelis, my dad’s mother. The gentleman is George Filipu and the other lady is his wife, Diamondoula Filipu; they were my mom’s parents.

I want to share one quick anecdote about my grandfather. He came to this country during World War I. He had settled in Portland, Ore. He wanted to get into the fight, serving the United States.

So, he enlisted in the Army. But before he could join the fight against the Germans, the war ended in November 1918. But a quirk in U.S. immigration law at the time granted him immediate citizenship upon enlistment in the military.

None of them ever looked back.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/07/who-are-the-true-blue-patriots/

 

 

International news, national news, political news

UK leaders want to ban Trump?

Republican presidential candidate, businessman Donald Trump, speaks during a rally coinciding with Pearl Harbor Day at Patriots Point aboard the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown in Mt. Pleasant, S.C., Monday, Dec. 7, 2015. (AP Photo/Mic Smith)

Donald Trump has insulted his way to the top of the Republican Party presidential heap.

Suffice to say that if British Parliament members had a vote in this country, why, they would do all they could to keep anyone from endorsing Trump.

The House of Commons today debated whether to ban Trump from entering the United Kingdom. It’s all in the wake of Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the United States, as well as plenty of other things Trump has said along the presidential campaign trail.

To be honest, I don’t think that Parliament needs to debate this issue. Indeed, the decision rests ultimately with the British home secretary.

Still, we’ve heard a snootful from the Brits about Trump.

It ain’t pretty.

Trump doesn’t care who he insults. He should, at least in this case.

Great Britain is arguably our most loyal ally on the planet. Sure, we shook off the bonds of the British Empire in the 18th century and then fought them again in the early 19th century. Since then? We have been side by side through two world wars, the Cold War and now in the war against international terrorism.

What on Earth could be transpiring here if the Brits were to actually ban someone from entering their country if that certain someone happened to be elected president of the United States of America?

I’m not predicting either event will occur: Trump’s election and the home secretary’s decision to ban him from entering his country.

But members of the British Parliament have delivered a stunning rebuke of a guy who wants to become the next “leader of the Free World.”

Does he care? Again . . . he’d better.

 

national news, political news

Jeannette Rankin: ideological purist to the core

Rankin-2673195x

I started thinking about how I might describe ideological purity and then I came up with the name of someone who embodied it in spades.

Jeannette Rankin was a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Montana. She served during two eras in the House and they coincided with our nation’s entry into the two world wars that dominated the 20th century.

What sets Rankin apart is that she voted against declarations of war in both instances.

While we lament politicians’ lack of ideological core and their willingness to bend in whichever direction the winds are blowing, we have this individual who stands tall as the purest of the pure.

Rankin was elected to the House in 1916, four years before women even had the right to vote! President Wilson came to Congress seek a war declaration in 1917 for entry into the Great War. He got it, but Rankin was among 56 House members to vote “no” on the request.

She left the House, but then was elected again in 1940.

Then came the “date which will live infamy,” Dec. 7, 1941. President Roosevelt came to Congress to ask once again for a declaration of war against the Empire of Japan. Every House member — except one — voted to declare war.

The lone holdout? Rep. Rankin.

She was a lifelong pacifist. When given a chance to vote for war, she opted twice to stick to her principles.

It wasn’t popular, particularly in the hours and days immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack, to stand on a belief against war. Rep. Rankin did.

When I hear of individuals such as that, I become torn between conflicting emotions.

My dark side tells me to condemn these people for failing to heed their constituents’ wishes. My strong sense was that her Montana constituency favored going to war in both instance.

My kinder side wants to give her credit for standing foursquare on a principle she held dear to her heart.

I believe that today, as we remember Pearl Harbor and the war we declared against Japan and later, against Germany and Italy, I’ll give more credence to the part of me that salutes Jeannette Rankin.

 

International news

Call it what it was: genocide

My friend Butler Cain has posted a blog about a recent visit he made to Armenia, where citizens are marking the 100th anniversary of what historians have determined to be genocide.

Turkey fought on the losing side of World War I, along with Germany. In the process of losing that war, it engaged in the brutal slaughter of more than 1 million Armenians.

The Turks have refused in the century since to call what they did an act of genocide.

http://butlercain.com/2015/04/25/armenians-in-singapore/

Others have used that language to describe the systematic extermination of people of a certain ethnic background, which by definition is what you call genocide.

One of the voices that so far has been silent on this matter has been the United States, which also hasn’t called it genocide. Again, by my way of looking at it, the Turks did that very thing.

Why the U.S. reluctance? Turkey is an ally of ours. It’s standing with us — more or less — in the fight against the Islamic State. Do we want to offend our allies by suggesting that its forebears did something so unconscionable that they might withdraw their support for our effort to eradicate the Islamic State?

That well might be the calculation.

Let’s call it what it was. Genocide.

Hitler tried it in World War II in search of his “final solution,” which meant the extermination of Jews; Pol Pot sought to eliminate his fellow Cambodians during the Khmer Rouge’s reign of terror in the 1970s; Rwandans engaged in genocide in the 1990s against their own people as well.

History knows what happened in those instances. We have put the proper name on these evil acts.

It’s time to do the same thing while describing what happened to Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

 

military news

Hey, how does 'conflict' sound?

A good friend of mine has an idea about how to deal with the word games being played over what we call the current war we’re waging with international terrorists.

My pal Jim, who lives in Arizona, writes: “Let‘s call it a conflict. Didn’t we use that term before to soften the impact?”

Boy, howdy! We sure did.

Remember the Korean conflict? Or the Vietnam conflict? The “conflicts” in Korea and Vietnam turned into  “wars” eventually, but many headline writers and journalists writing about Vietnam often didn’t capitalize the “w” in “war,” as if to suggest that it wasn’t really a war.

Perhaps this sidesteps the issue. My earlier blog post noted the discussion about whether the Obama administration is right to avoid using the term “Islamic terrorists” to describe the enemy with whom we are at, um, war. My point is that we need not quibble over what to call the enemy, but we should instead concentrate our efforts solely on actually fighting these monsters.

Whatever we call the enemy, or the fight in which we are engaged, it’s a war by any known definition of the word.

I’ve noted before that we’re in a form of a world war, although it doesn’t resemble the two previous world wars in which we fought — Nos. I and II. Those wars involved nations declaring war on other nations. It involved mass mobilizations of men, who then were sent to battlefields to fight men from other nations that had done the very same thing.

Our wars since WWII, though, have materialized differently. We’ve had no formal declaration since President Roosevelt asked Congress on Dec. 8, 1941 to declare that “a state of war has existed” between the United States and Japan.

But we’ve fought actual wars. The men and women who’ve died in battle have been killed just as dead as they were in World Wars I and II.

I told my friend Jim that I’ve always hated the term “conflict” to describe war.

Instead, I prefer to call these fights what they are. And what we’re fighting today is no less gruesome and deadly than any war we’ve ever fought.