Today has been a historic day. With preliminary estimates indicating a voter turnout of some 11 million, well over the lower projections and indicating a high turnout, this month's election in Iraq is yet another step forward toward success, and the difficult goal of providing an alternative example of free choice to people of the Mideast that are still burdened by despotism and violence.
Without denying the fact that the White House public relations have done a very poor job of both articulating the goals and specifics of various actions in the prosecution of the Iraq War, the basic idea has always been sound. With few exceptions, like the Gulf Emirates and Turkey, the choices in the Arabian peninsula have generally since WW II fallen into choosing between a charismatic or strong despot or monarchy, or an Islami-fascist style of fundamentalist theocracy. Starting in 2003, for better or worse (this writer feels for the better) America and its allies have sought to provide another choice --- some form of elected representation, of freely chosen or at least accountable representative government. That's a laudable goal, and even for those unconvinced that intent was benevolent, or warranted, today's election should serve as reminder again that however it exactly came about, that this is a future worth trying for Iraq, as well as the United States, and the world.
It is this basic fact that more than any other throws into stark relief the deplorable condition of editorial comment and vision these days, whether in print or televised. Put frankly, all partisan bickering aside, each success in Iraq is arguably more proof of the mass media's failure. Failure to have vision, to have any sense of daring, or able to see beyond the next moment. Since our forces went into Iraq, most of the media to varying degrees have worked tirelessly to stress the failures, the setbacks, the problems, involved in warfare. And only America's faults. They have used their power in a very real way to constantly "talk down" the war's possibilities, and our fighting forces. Even the character of our military is hastily and almost eagerly impugned and called into question on the basis of isolated incidents. Incidents which have little importance in the grand scheme of things, and reflect a dangerous emphasis on the opinions of the enemy and of political forces with the interests of the United States far from their mind.
The same holds true for the chronicling of the attacks of the enemy. Footage re-run constantly, the losses stressed, and hyperbolic commentary. While similar coverage of our military's victories or successful sweeps or even reconstructions get scant comment. In one sense, the losses inflicted by suicide bombers -- while individually tragic and significant --- in the larger sense are little more than the kind of attrition strafing and bombing fighters inflicted on our forces daily in World War II or Korea, or any conflict. Attrition losses cannot be avoided, and while every effort must be made by officers in command to limit them, they should not be allowed to dictate the verdict on a war effort. For example, attrition losses did not lead to the U.S. Navy abandoning the push through the Solomons in the 1940's, because the overall success was clearly discernible. The election in Iraq today is just such a discernible success and step toward progress. Yet except for these most obvious of moments, too big to ignore, the mainstream media generally focuses only on the results of a suicide-bombing, or isolated examples of misconduct. With an overwrought anxiety for the welfare of the enemy and a magnification of our cost that is mind-boggling, given the scale of what we are attempting.
No one with any knowledge of the history of the region could have expected this attempt to establish any form of representative government in Iraq to go either easily, or swiftly, let alone, free of murderous violence and opposition from reactionary forces. Today's election shows that process is still moving forward despite the enemy's efforts, just as it does in a war that is being slowly but surely won. Its really high time many Democrat party leadership and the media get on board with the potential, and stop carping about how we got here. Very few good decisions were made diplomatically after the end of the first Gulf War to present. We need to accept that and work with the moment and toward the future. Now is not the time to lose heart and go wobbly at a time of historical paradigm shift potential. Backing away from the task we have both been handed, and stumbled into, is not an option now.
- Anthony
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Hitler's Death -- Some parting secrets from Soviet Archives
"Hitler's Death: Russia's Last Great Secret from the files of the KGB"
by V.K. Vinogradov, J.F. Pogonyi and N.V. Teptzov.
Chaucer Press, London, England July 2005.
This is the most recent work to come out regarding the endlessly interesting and elusive story of the last days of Adolf Hitler and his regime in the Berlin bunker in 1945. Already chronicled in many books, these are the events captured so dramatically in the recent film "Untergang" (2004) (Released in English as: `Downfall' 2005). However, where that movie is a dramatized recreation, albeit some of the most accurate kind of recreation, this book deals with the very nuts and bolts of history: primary source documents. True, there have been many books published on this saga (n the writer's opinion the best, most accurate and comprehensive being "The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends - The Evidence - The Truth" by Anton Joachimsthaler)this book is still important. In many ways, it is more a reference volume, than a narrative, of the last days and Berlin and the shadowy and contradictory details surrounding the suicides of Hitler and Goebbels. However, something sets this one apart, and makes it a must for any who have followed the twists and turns of the mystery and various accounts over the years. This is the fact that the primary source documentation is in Russian, including facsimiles and reproductions of the original Soviet investigation and collected documents pertaining to the last gasp of the so-called `Reich Chancellery group'.
It is far from being the first time that Soviet reports and accounts were published, but heretofore, those have been `doled out' and presented in paraphrases, amalgams, and intermittent selected quotes. In this book however, even familiar segments or photos appear in startling fuller and detailed context. For those familiar with the case, this book purports and indeed appears to be, the larger bulk if not nearly all, of the never before published Soviet folios on the subject, the so-called "Operation Myth" files. To appreciate the value of the book, a brief digression into some of the popular works on the subject and is in order.
It is well known among aficionados in the field that tantalizing segments and descriptions of the Soviet side of the investigation into Hitler's death were first released in the mid-1960's, but contradicted the then most accepted Western interpretation --- Trevor Roper's "Last Days of Hitler" -- by saying that Hitler, Eva Braun Hitler, Goebbels and his family, and General Krebs all suicided by poisoning, and not by gunshot. This and other discrepancies led to some general discounting, but there was always something fairly persuasive in the photos and documents published in the Russian book. At the very least, it appeared to quoting parts of a genuine Soviet report, if omitting certain facts and sections for political purposes.
This state of affairs remained basically unchanged till the mid-1990's when after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 previously hidden records and photographs began to come to light. Particularly important in this regard was the 1995 "Death of Hitler" by Ada Petrova and Peter Watson. This claimed, and did, to reveal large sections of never before published information from the declassified archives of the former KGB, and among other bombshells, revealed that there had been two investigations, not one. It was the details of the first, in May 1945, that formed the corpus of Bezymenski's 1968 book which had so puzzled western historians. It turned out there was a second, larger follow-up investigation, carried out thru the spring of 1946, termed by the Soviets "Operation Myth". Its findings in places contradicted the earlier one, and in other places confirmed it. Both collections ended up filed under `Operation Myth' folios in the Soviet archives.
When Petrova and Watson's book came out in 1995, with all of its provocatively incomplete quotations and referencing of the source material, it was speculated whether the day would ever come that the lion's share of it would be published. That is what makes this new book so important --- for it appears that day has come. "Hitler's Death" contains not only some of the same information of the Petrova/Watson work, confirming its own veracity retroactively, but does indeed publish fresh material and documentation instantly recognizable as such. Historians of the Berlin bunker will immediately note and prize the interrogation reports of German officials and figures from the drama, especially those who died in captivity, and whose story never made it to the west. These include General Weidling, last defender of Berlin, and Professor Werner Haase, who was known to have witnessed or been aware of key details in the final act.
Laid out in a stark but useful reference style of quoted documents and occasional photographs from the inquiry, as well as portrait `mug shots' of nearly all of the witnesses question, the book puts the bulk of the Soviet point of view out there, without obvious emendation or revision. The primary sources are there to read and examine and to draw one's own conclusions from. To one such as the author very familiar with course of this mystery, this is strong plus, not a drawback. For example, though the photographs (with a key exception on page 65) associated with the discovery of the remains of Dr. Goebbels and his wife, and the remains identified as those of the Hitlers have often been published before, they have previously lacked clear context. The context now dates them and makes clear they belong to the early-May and mid-May 1945 period and are authentic images from the time frame before the Allied arrival in Berlin at the start of July which has been the source of most of the documentation of the ruins of the Reichs Chancellery and the Fuhrerbunker.
The presentation of the original sources and their form has been noted. What is nearly of equal interest is the extensive Preface of the book. For it too, delivers a narrative from Soviet sources and pulls together the mystery and fragmented chronology of the investigation much clearer than has been done before. It reveals where there had been darkness, and where the light was dim, it casts a brighter illumination. For example, we learn the surprising fact that General Krebs, last Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht, apparently committed suicide in the courtyard of the ruined Propaganda Ministry next door where his body was found, and not in the Reich Chancellery. It also gives the correct names of Soviet personalities that had previously published under cognomens --- for instance, we learn about the famous Elena Ryzhevskya involved in the first published account from the Soviet side, and figuring in Bezymensky's book as well, that her real name is E.M. Kagan. A host of similar such details and anecdotes add to the value of the book.
I hope to review this book in fuller context of prior ones on Hitler's bunker and the end in Berlin at a later date, but wished to call attention to this work as soon as possible. Its not the kind of read the casual laymen might expect, but to any interested in the fall of Hitler it will not disappoint. Its title and form could easily fool weary scholars into thinking they were dealing with yet another `re-tread' of the same sources, but that is not so. In fact, when combined with the greater narrative for 1946/47 in the 1995 Petrova/Watson book, the volume nicely rounds out the picture from the Soviet side.
- Anthony
by V.K. Vinogradov, J.F. Pogonyi and N.V. Teptzov.
Chaucer Press, London, England July 2005.
This is the most recent work to come out regarding the endlessly interesting and elusive story of the last days of Adolf Hitler and his regime in the Berlin bunker in 1945. Already chronicled in many books, these are the events captured so dramatically in the recent film "Untergang" (2004) (Released in English as: `Downfall' 2005). However, where that movie is a dramatized recreation, albeit some of the most accurate kind of recreation, this book deals with the very nuts and bolts of history: primary source documents. True, there have been many books published on this saga (n the writer's opinion the best, most accurate and comprehensive being "The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends - The Evidence - The Truth" by Anton Joachimsthaler)this book is still important. In many ways, it is more a reference volume, than a narrative, of the last days and Berlin and the shadowy and contradictory details surrounding the suicides of Hitler and Goebbels. However, something sets this one apart, and makes it a must for any who have followed the twists and turns of the mystery and various accounts over the years. This is the fact that the primary source documentation is in Russian, including facsimiles and reproductions of the original Soviet investigation and collected documents pertaining to the last gasp of the so-called `Reich Chancellery group'.
It is far from being the first time that Soviet reports and accounts were published, but heretofore, those have been `doled out' and presented in paraphrases, amalgams, and intermittent selected quotes. In this book however, even familiar segments or photos appear in startling fuller and detailed context. For those familiar with the case, this book purports and indeed appears to be, the larger bulk if not nearly all, of the never before published Soviet folios on the subject, the so-called "Operation Myth" files. To appreciate the value of the book, a brief digression into some of the popular works on the subject and is in order.
It is well known among aficionados in the field that tantalizing segments and descriptions of the Soviet side of the investigation into Hitler's death were first released in the mid-1960's, but contradicted the then most accepted Western interpretation --- Trevor Roper's "Last Days of Hitler" -- by saying that Hitler, Eva Braun Hitler, Goebbels and his family, and General Krebs all suicided by poisoning, and not by gunshot. This and other discrepancies led to some general discounting, but there was always something fairly persuasive in the photos and documents published in the Russian book. At the very least, it appeared to quoting parts of a genuine Soviet report, if omitting certain facts and sections for political purposes.
This state of affairs remained basically unchanged till the mid-1990's when after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 previously hidden records and photographs began to come to light. Particularly important in this regard was the 1995 "Death of Hitler" by Ada Petrova and Peter Watson. This claimed, and did, to reveal large sections of never before published information from the declassified archives of the former KGB, and among other bombshells, revealed that there had been two investigations, not one. It was the details of the first, in May 1945, that formed the corpus of Bezymenski's 1968 book which had so puzzled western historians. It turned out there was a second, larger follow-up investigation, carried out thru the spring of 1946, termed by the Soviets "Operation Myth". Its findings in places contradicted the earlier one, and in other places confirmed it. Both collections ended up filed under `Operation Myth' folios in the Soviet archives.
When Petrova and Watson's book came out in 1995, with all of its provocatively incomplete quotations and referencing of the source material, it was speculated whether the day would ever come that the lion's share of it would be published. That is what makes this new book so important --- for it appears that day has come. "Hitler's Death" contains not only some of the same information of the Petrova/Watson work, confirming its own veracity retroactively, but does indeed publish fresh material and documentation instantly recognizable as such. Historians of the Berlin bunker will immediately note and prize the interrogation reports of German officials and figures from the drama, especially those who died in captivity, and whose story never made it to the west. These include General Weidling, last defender of Berlin, and Professor Werner Haase, who was known to have witnessed or been aware of key details in the final act.
Laid out in a stark but useful reference style of quoted documents and occasional photographs from the inquiry, as well as portrait `mug shots' of nearly all of the witnesses question, the book puts the bulk of the Soviet point of view out there, without obvious emendation or revision. The primary sources are there to read and examine and to draw one's own conclusions from. To one such as the author very familiar with course of this mystery, this is strong plus, not a drawback. For example, though the photographs (with a key exception on page 65) associated with the discovery of the remains of Dr. Goebbels and his wife, and the remains identified as those of the Hitlers have often been published before, they have previously lacked clear context. The context now dates them and makes clear they belong to the early-May and mid-May 1945 period and are authentic images from the time frame before the Allied arrival in Berlin at the start of July which has been the source of most of the documentation of the ruins of the Reichs Chancellery and the Fuhrerbunker.
The presentation of the original sources and their form has been noted. What is nearly of equal interest is the extensive Preface of the book. For it too, delivers a narrative from Soviet sources and pulls together the mystery and fragmented chronology of the investigation much clearer than has been done before. It reveals where there had been darkness, and where the light was dim, it casts a brighter illumination. For example, we learn the surprising fact that General Krebs, last Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht, apparently committed suicide in the courtyard of the ruined Propaganda Ministry next door where his body was found, and not in the Reich Chancellery. It also gives the correct names of Soviet personalities that had previously published under cognomens --- for instance, we learn about the famous Elena Ryzhevskya involved in the first published account from the Soviet side, and figuring in Bezymensky's book as well, that her real name is E.M. Kagan. A host of similar such details and anecdotes add to the value of the book.
I hope to review this book in fuller context of prior ones on Hitler's bunker and the end in Berlin at a later date, but wished to call attention to this work as soon as possible. Its not the kind of read the casual laymen might expect, but to any interested in the fall of Hitler it will not disappoint. Its title and form could easily fool weary scholars into thinking they were dealing with yet another `re-tread' of the same sources, but that is not so. In fact, when combined with the greater narrative for 1946/47 in the 1995 Petrova/Watson book, the volume nicely rounds out the picture from the Soviet side.
- Anthony
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Alito, Miers and what the debate reveals to Independents
I had a few thoughts on this that I wanted to share, because they stand outside the debate of how "moderate" or "liberal" or how "conservative" current selections for the Supreme Court, or indeed, any judge's chair, should be these days. In my opinion the question of whether one is an originalist or strict-constructionist comes closer, but even this barely grazes the main issue.
The real issue should be WHY has the Supreme Court taken on such a numinous, almost governing role, in our society in the first place? And by extension, how to start to correct or provide reasonable checks for this. Whether one disagrees or agrees with whether something like RvWade or the ruling this summer on Imminent Domain was faulty law or not (I believe both were) , the real concern is the elevation of the selection of Supreme court members to a significance to now so dominate, and even captivate the public mind. This has been particularly true since the so-called "Borking" of Robert Bork's nomination in 1987 but has reached a fever pitch at present. It has almost become more significant than which party controls Capitol Hill, and in the writer's opinion, this is a travesty of constitutional intent and process.
Yet one hears little questioning of the legitimacy of all this in the first place. What has happened to the legislature? What has happened to the idea that major changes should ultimately reside to some degree in the popular will as expressed at the ballot box, and not through pressure groups? True, the people still allegedly have the power to elect the Chief Executive, the President of the United States, and he will appoint judges in rough conformity with the mandate upon which he ran for office. But the abuses of the confirmation process are undermining this. It has gotten to the point where certain very narrow and unyielding interests on both sides are able to effectively sabotage the entire Presidential election outcome by blocking nominees. This must stop, and the real pressure needs to be to move to a full Senate form of confirmation that is less dominated by litmus tests either liberal or conservative, and more reflective of the national body politic as a whole.
But this is only a first step --- the other must be to re-examine the character of both the length of the terms, and how appointed, of those sitting on the bench. If they are going to regularly, almost unilaterally, shape and determine law for the whole society, then their needs to be some revision of the process -- perhaps including either term limits or direct election, to restore a check. As it is, one of the branches of the government has become dangerously close to not only being unaccountable, but also immune to influence and the general will. Ultimately, tyranny by minority is far more dangerous, for the majority by nature tends to find a balance in its variety and large numbers cancelling its extremes out. But when a minority rules - as the litmust test approach is increasingly empowering, then a few warped minds can take the whole down a dark and uncertain path.
- Anthony
The real issue should be WHY has the Supreme Court taken on such a numinous, almost governing role, in our society in the first place? And by extension, how to start to correct or provide reasonable checks for this. Whether one disagrees or agrees with whether something like RvWade or the ruling this summer on Imminent Domain was faulty law or not (I believe both were) , the real concern is the elevation of the selection of Supreme court members to a significance to now so dominate, and even captivate the public mind. This has been particularly true since the so-called "Borking" of Robert Bork's nomination in 1987 but has reached a fever pitch at present. It has almost become more significant than which party controls Capitol Hill, and in the writer's opinion, this is a travesty of constitutional intent and process.
Yet one hears little questioning of the legitimacy of all this in the first place. What has happened to the legislature? What has happened to the idea that major changes should ultimately reside to some degree in the popular will as expressed at the ballot box, and not through pressure groups? True, the people still allegedly have the power to elect the Chief Executive, the President of the United States, and he will appoint judges in rough conformity with the mandate upon which he ran for office. But the abuses of the confirmation process are undermining this. It has gotten to the point where certain very narrow and unyielding interests on both sides are able to effectively sabotage the entire Presidential election outcome by blocking nominees. This must stop, and the real pressure needs to be to move to a full Senate form of confirmation that is less dominated by litmus tests either liberal or conservative, and more reflective of the national body politic as a whole.
But this is only a first step --- the other must be to re-examine the character of both the length of the terms, and how appointed, of those sitting on the bench. If they are going to regularly, almost unilaterally, shape and determine law for the whole society, then their needs to be some revision of the process -- perhaps including either term limits or direct election, to restore a check. As it is, one of the branches of the government has become dangerously close to not only being unaccountable, but also immune to influence and the general will. Ultimately, tyranny by minority is far more dangerous, for the majority by nature tends to find a balance in its variety and large numbers cancelling its extremes out. But when a minority rules - as the litmust test approach is increasingly empowering, then a few warped minds can take the whole down a dark and uncertain path.
- Anthony
Monday, October 24, 2005
Bill O'Reilly slandered by Dallas Morning News?
I have been following this squabble with some interest because it has the unfortunate facet of stemming from the pen of a commentator who apparently was intending to address a real issue, but chose the most unfair and undeserving target. The real issue was the growing hype and even near demonizing of the complicated matter of illegal immigration from Mexico across the ludicrously open border. Since 9/11 the matter of border security has taken on another dimension, and justly so. However, it is impossible to ignore the decade’s long legacy of weak federal response ranging from half-hearted to outright impotent. It is unrealistic to expect any deep and immediate changes or fixes without some sober discussion of the true stakes and conflicting motives on both sides of the border argument, whether these sides be the right vs. left, or Mexico vs. America's interests. Enter an op-ed piece by Macarena Hernandez of the Dallas Morning News for October 15, 2005. In this article, Ms Hernandez laments of the insidious anti-immigrant climate brewing while discussing the recent tragic and brutal murder of a group of six Mexican farm workers in Georgia. These same workers happened also to be illegal aliens, but arguably, this has nothing to do with the crime, which was motivated by greed and brutality. Still, Ms Hernandez chose to make this about the current `high-volume' debate about illegal immigration in general, and how we look at it. She was actually trying to make this very good point:
"More globally, horrors like these demand that a nation descended from immigrants take a hard look at the ways we think and speak about these most recent arrivals."
Valid enough, and there is no denying the heated and even true hate talk that seems current these days about it. Not least driven by the continuing flaccid response of high officials on the matter, which fuels a sense of frustration and ire that might not otherwise be present with decisive leadership from both parties.Be that as it may, Ms Hernandez was trying to sound a note of warning about the current tone of the debate, and commenting on the reaction of some complaints to a chivalrous gesture by the Mayor of Tifton went on to make the egregious blunder of this statement:
"Were the complainers angrier about the red, white and green Mexican flag fluttering in the Georgia air than they were about the horrific murders? Do they watch Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, where the anchor and the callers constantly point to the southern border as the birth of all America's ills? (Sample comment: "Each one of those people is a biological weapon.") "
This is where it all went wrong. There are even some radio commentators she could have named that could approximate the charge of being hateful, but Bill O'Reilly does nothing to deserve it on either his TV program The O'Reilly Factor or his radio show. Ms Hernandez could not have chosen a more unjust example, for Bill O'Reilly is on record time and again as not objecting to the actions of illegal immigrants from the immigrant's *point of view*. He has said over and over in so many words, and one readily concurs `that one can hardly blame them. I would probably do the same in their shoes. The blame lies with the government in not taking steps to do its duty to find some way to either regulate the influx, or halt it.' Her error was made worse by attributing the comment of a listerner to O'Reilly, or least letting that impression stand.
Though not directly intended, the net-result was Ms Hernandez ending up insinuating that Bill O'Reilly of all people helped incite anti-immigrant climate. But his sober concern about securing the border is simple logic, and has always been balanced by recognition that the intent of the vast majority of the illegal immigrants is not even remotely malevolent, unlike any would-be terrorists from the Mideast.The resulting blow up was unfortunate, and the fallout from it is still falling, but I inject commentary here on it to point out that it could if harnessed, serve the useful purpose of helping to bring the debate on the illegal immigrant/worker issue back to some sense of equilibrium and sensible discussion. Neither Macarena Hernandez nor Bill O'Reilly would have wanted the impression that resulted, as their own statements make clear that they are simply trying to comment on crucial aspects of the issue, and are not bomb-throwers. I am familiar with both of Bill O'Reilly's shows and his genuine attempts to try to see the whole picture, and on the other hand, it was sad to seem some of the comments quoted by Ms Hernandez to her along the lines of "go back where you came from" (she is from Texas!) and the like.It all points to the over-charging of the atmosphere these days with sheer hyperbole and hype, and is making reasoned dialogue very difficult. But still, we must try.
- Anthony
"More globally, horrors like these demand that a nation descended from immigrants take a hard look at the ways we think and speak about these most recent arrivals."
Valid enough, and there is no denying the heated and even true hate talk that seems current these days about it. Not least driven by the continuing flaccid response of high officials on the matter, which fuels a sense of frustration and ire that might not otherwise be present with decisive leadership from both parties.Be that as it may, Ms Hernandez was trying to sound a note of warning about the current tone of the debate, and commenting on the reaction of some complaints to a chivalrous gesture by the Mayor of Tifton went on to make the egregious blunder of this statement:
"Were the complainers angrier about the red, white and green Mexican flag fluttering in the Georgia air than they were about the horrific murders? Do they watch Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, where the anchor and the callers constantly point to the southern border as the birth of all America's ills? (Sample comment: "Each one of those people is a biological weapon.") "
This is where it all went wrong. There are even some radio commentators she could have named that could approximate the charge of being hateful, but Bill O'Reilly does nothing to deserve it on either his TV program The O'Reilly Factor or his radio show. Ms Hernandez could not have chosen a more unjust example, for Bill O'Reilly is on record time and again as not objecting to the actions of illegal immigrants from the immigrant's *point of view*. He has said over and over in so many words, and one readily concurs `that one can hardly blame them. I would probably do the same in their shoes. The blame lies with the government in not taking steps to do its duty to find some way to either regulate the influx, or halt it.' Her error was made worse by attributing the comment of a listerner to O'Reilly, or least letting that impression stand.
Though not directly intended, the net-result was Ms Hernandez ending up insinuating that Bill O'Reilly of all people helped incite anti-immigrant climate. But his sober concern about securing the border is simple logic, and has always been balanced by recognition that the intent of the vast majority of the illegal immigrants is not even remotely malevolent, unlike any would-be terrorists from the Mideast.The resulting blow up was unfortunate, and the fallout from it is still falling, but I inject commentary here on it to point out that it could if harnessed, serve the useful purpose of helping to bring the debate on the illegal immigrant/worker issue back to some sense of equilibrium and sensible discussion. Neither Macarena Hernandez nor Bill O'Reilly would have wanted the impression that resulted, as their own statements make clear that they are simply trying to comment on crucial aspects of the issue, and are not bomb-throwers. I am familiar with both of Bill O'Reilly's shows and his genuine attempts to try to see the whole picture, and on the other hand, it was sad to seem some of the comments quoted by Ms Hernandez to her along the lines of "go back where you came from" (she is from Texas!) and the like.It all points to the over-charging of the atmosphere these days with sheer hyperbole and hype, and is making reasoned dialogue very difficult. But still, we must try.
- Anthony
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Grand Opening - Introductory Discussion Post
Welcome,
This is my first post in what is intended to be a place where various historical musings, reviews, and comments on current events will be written and offered for discussion. Those familiar with my historical writings on the naval actions of the Pacific War in World War II will find here a broader approach, but of related depth and emphasis on accuracy. I have for my first post chosen to review a very interesting new book of Late Roman Empire history, a favorite epoch of my investigation.
"The Night Attila Died: Solving the Murder of Attila the Hun"
by Babcock, Michael A., Ph.D.
The Penguin Group, New York, NY July 2005.
To one interested in Roman Empire history, the title alone is sure to catch attention. After all, the received conventional view is that Attila the Hun died of natural causes, some manner of internal bleeding or burst vessel, on his very wedding night to a barbarian princess named Ildico, sometime in the early spring of A.D. 453. However, it doesn't take much examinaton of the circumstances and timing to cause one to scratch their head and ask questions. Questions that if pressed, soon end up challenging the veracity of at least the assumption that Attila's death was merely providential.
As it happens, Professor Babcock does far more than just ask questions. He first lays out the available sources and how we have derived the accepted version of Attila's demise. Then the case for at least questioning, if not outright scoffing, at this acceptance is made. Taking up the challenge, the author then launches into his quest and case, presenting one piece at a time the components of a complex tapestry that is as fascinating as its goal. By brilliant use of the sometimes overlooked field of philology, Dr. Babcock, proceeds to trace and unravel the intricate chain of evidence whose story actually begins before Attila's own death, with that of his brother chieftain (and apparent elder rival) Bledda. These events are interwoven throughout with the compelling story of the the "Last Roman" the famous General Aetius, and the complicated intrigues and military genius of the Eastern Roman Empire's Emperor Marcian. The cast of suspects for Attila's assasination, and even how it would be concealed is laid down in eagerly `page-turning' fashion. The context of Attila's famous invasion of Italy in 452 is also explored and some lasting and incorrect myths about this venture and the heretofore maligned strategy of Emperor Honorius and General Aetius convincingly debunked. The scope and range of the facets considered in the case never ceases to amaze and intrigue, including a surprising connection to Wagner's famed "Fall of the Burgundians".
To reveal the conclusions reached in this work would do it a diservice, but as an avid enthusiast of Roman and particularly Late Roman and Byzantine history, I think it is a must read. Even if you don't accept the conclusions (I personally do), there is a bit of something for everyone.
As I plan to post historical breifs and commentaries here, this was an appropriate work with which to begin.
- Antony
This is my first post in what is intended to be a place where various historical musings, reviews, and comments on current events will be written and offered for discussion. Those familiar with my historical writings on the naval actions of the Pacific War in World War II will find here a broader approach, but of related depth and emphasis on accuracy. I have for my first post chosen to review a very interesting new book of Late Roman Empire history, a favorite epoch of my investigation.
"The Night Attila Died: Solving the Murder of Attila the Hun"
by Babcock, Michael A., Ph.D.
The Penguin Group, New York, NY July 2005.
To one interested in Roman Empire history, the title alone is sure to catch attention. After all, the received conventional view is that Attila the Hun died of natural causes, some manner of internal bleeding or burst vessel, on his very wedding night to a barbarian princess named Ildico, sometime in the early spring of A.D. 453. However, it doesn't take much examinaton of the circumstances and timing to cause one to scratch their head and ask questions. Questions that if pressed, soon end up challenging the veracity of at least the assumption that Attila's death was merely providential.
As it happens, Professor Babcock does far more than just ask questions. He first lays out the available sources and how we have derived the accepted version of Attila's demise. Then the case for at least questioning, if not outright scoffing, at this acceptance is made. Taking up the challenge, the author then launches into his quest and case, presenting one piece at a time the components of a complex tapestry that is as fascinating as its goal. By brilliant use of the sometimes overlooked field of philology, Dr. Babcock, proceeds to trace and unravel the intricate chain of evidence whose story actually begins before Attila's own death, with that of his brother chieftain (and apparent elder rival) Bledda. These events are interwoven throughout with the compelling story of the the "Last Roman" the famous General Aetius, and the complicated intrigues and military genius of the Eastern Roman Empire's Emperor Marcian. The cast of suspects for Attila's assasination, and even how it would be concealed is laid down in eagerly `page-turning' fashion. The context of Attila's famous invasion of Italy in 452 is also explored and some lasting and incorrect myths about this venture and the heretofore maligned strategy of Emperor Honorius and General Aetius convincingly debunked. The scope and range of the facets considered in the case never ceases to amaze and intrigue, including a surprising connection to Wagner's famed "Fall of the Burgundians".
To reveal the conclusions reached in this work would do it a diservice, but as an avid enthusiast of Roman and particularly Late Roman and Byzantine history, I think it is a must read. Even if you don't accept the conclusions (I personally do), there is a bit of something for everyone.
As I plan to post historical breifs and commentaries here, this was an appropriate work with which to begin.
- Antony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
