Diplomacy & Crisis News

Either Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders will face Donald Trump in November. Here's how their views of U.S. power could reshape the world.

Le soleil ne se lève plus à l’estPublié le 24/07/2019 par Politique EtrangèreCette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’été de Politique étrangère (n° 2/2019). Frédéric Charillon propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de l’ancien ambassadeur Bernard Bajolet, Le soleil ne se lève plus à l’est. Mémoires d’Orient d’un ambassadeur peu diplomate (Plon, 2018, 464 pages).Ambassadeur en Jordanie (1994-1998), en Bosnie-Herzégovine (1999-2003), en Irak (2004-2006), en Algérie (2006-2008), en Afghanistan (2011-2013), coordonnateur national du renseignement, directeur de la DGSE… : sans avoir occupé les postes dits « consacrés » (Washington, New York, Moscou, Bruxelles…), mais parce qu’il a assumé les plus délicats dans des périodes pour le moins difficiles, Bernard Bajolet compte parmi les grands de la Carrière.Ses mémoires portent la marque d’une passion pour le monde musulman, et l’ouvrage s’ouvre d’ailleurs, d’une façon qui peut surprendre, par un long exposé pédagogique, teinté de souvenirs, de rencontres et de conversations, sur les nuances de l’islam, ses branches, et sur les chrétiens d’Orient. L’auteur s’y confie avec pudeur, mais suffisamment pour brosser son portrait : celui d’un Lorrain fidèle à des convictions, au franc-parler rugueux, quitte à traverser, pour prix de son insolence, quelques déserts. Il en traversera au sens figuré du fait de son caractère entier, puis au sens propre : la France pouvait-elle se passer d’une telle expertise dans l’Orient compliqué ?Les pays traversés font l’objet d’une remise en perspective historique et politique plus qu’utile. Les leaders rencontrés (la famille Al-Assad et son entourage, Ytzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat, le roi Hussein de Jordanie et la reine Nour…) y ont leurs portraits fins. Beaucoup d’hommages, quelques coups de griffe, dans cette fresque claire qui s’étire des années 1970 à la fin des années 2010, et dont, étrangement, le débat public français (ce qui en dit long) a surtout retenu les pages consacrées à l’Algérie et les critiques prémonitoires (juste avant les manifestations algériennes du printemps 2019) à l’encontre du régime FLN. Pourtant, de la Syrie à la Bosnie, des pourparlers israélo-palestiniens jusqu’au drame irakien ou aux affaires d’otages, c’est un cours d’une rare densité que nous offre ce livre. Un cours sur des pays et des sociétés, sur des cultures, sur les relations internationales aussi. Les erreurs de jugement y sont montrées, comme le choix américain de débaasifier l’Irak sans compensations pour une communauté sunnite soumise au nouvel ordre chiite.L’épilogue prodigue quelques conseils prospectifs, brefs mais pertinents. L’écriture est fluide, à la fois précise comme peut l’être un télégramme diplomatique, et empreinte de sensations, de sensibilité, de détails, par amour pour cet Orient qui n’est plus. Cet Orient qui vit naître l’espoir d’un processus de paix aujourd’hui défunt, né pourtant après 1993, à l’époque où Bernard Bajolet allait bientôt prendre ses fonctions comme ambassadeur de France en Jordanie. C’était l’époque où les membres de l’ambassade (et leurs coopérants), sise Mutanabbe Street, se rafraîchissaient à l’ombre des arbres de l’hôtel Hisham tout proche.Les voyeurs, toutefois, seront déçus : nulle révélation indécente pour cet ancien patron des services, qui n’est pas du genre à finir sur des « Un espion parle ». Peu d’évocation de ces fonctions-là, par sens du devoir sans doute. Plutôt un attachement à des êtres, à des moments. Une analyse, un récit (y compris sur le danger qui l’a menacé plusieurs fois), un regard qui se veut à la fois clinique et humain, comme une invite à découvrir le monde, à partir, encore et toujours. Après un tel parcours, ses mémoires étaient attendus, et son expertise reste indispensable.Frédéric Charillon

James Jay Carafano

Culture,

Dune is destined to be another crashing bore, because the actual characters in the story are not very relatable or likable.

True story. Years ago, even before dudes wanted a Dell, a gaggle of Army generals gathered to ponder how to integrate computers into military operations. One prefaced his prognosticating by admitting to being a “Trekkie,” having grown up watching the 1960s TV-series. He went on to talk about the future of warfare as though they would all be Captain Kirks firing photon torpedoes from the command deck.

Science fiction and the future have a messy relationship. Much science fiction either meditates on the present or mines the past. The technology may be mundane (taken from the pages of Popular Mechanics) or magical (casting aside the laws of physics).

Since it’s often not really about the future, using science fiction to plan the land of tomorrow is life imitating bad art. Yet, good science fiction, like all good fiction, can tell us much. We should not ignore the entire genre.

Which brings us to the new film version of Frank Herbert’s classic 1965 sci-fi novel Dune, slated to come out later this year.

This sprawling story first hit the silver screen in 1984. It was a mind-numbingly bad adaptation. Then came two so-so TV mini-series: Dune (2000) and Children of Dune (2003). The latter was largely inaccessible to those who had not already read the books.

Will Hollywood’s latest try be a hit or a flop? Time will tell if it’s the next Star Wars (1977) or just another Jupiter Ascending (2015).

The makers of this Dune start with a serious advantage. The original book sparked decades of writing by the author, his son and a co-author. At last count there are about 18 books on the Dune universe spanning from when humans started to exploit space travel to their scattering to the ends of the universe. The original Dune book sandwiches somewhere in the middle of the story. Thus, the screenwriters start with the advantage of understanding the whole saga, being able to reflect and foreshadow on everything that ever happens. This would have been like George Lucas starting Star Wars knowing who Luke’s father was.

The history of Dune is particularly important. The past turns out to be a vital driving force in Herbert’s version of science fiction. Technology is a bit player. There are no robots, no computers, and a lot of sword play. That is because of a much earlier event called the Butlerian Jihad, when humans destroyed all the “thinking machines.” No Terminators (1984) here.

The lack of advanced weaponry significantly impacts the nature of governance and war in the Dune universe. Great houses compete for power using weapons of intrigue like spying, disinformation, diplomacy, double-dealing, assassination, and troops that look suspiciously like special forces.

Contemporary audiences may relate more to Dune than Cold War audiences identified with the original novel. The interstellar politics of Dune feel a lot like the geopolitics of our age of “great power competition.”

The environment is also a key component of the Dune mythology. That, too, should resonate given our own debates over climate change.

And, like the world of Dune, everyone is fighting over the great substance that controls the universe. In Dune it’s called the “spice melange”—a drug necessary for space travel that is a billion times more powerful than opioids on steroids. In our world, it’s data. The power that can collect, analyze, manipulate, and exploit the most data is on its way to becoming the master of our universe.

Here is the big disconnect between us and Dune. Our future is inextricably intertwined with technology. Unless the screenwriters can figure out how to bridge that divide, Dune will be no more relatable than the dragons in the Game of Thrones.

In the real world, how we handle technology could dramatically impact the course of great power competition. If those challenges are woven into the film, it might well provoke some serious thinking about our future—making the movie truly great science fiction.

Otherwise, we’ll have to hope it has terrific special effects and a music score equal to what John Williams produced for Star Wars. Lacking that, Dune is destined to be another crashing bore, because the actual characters in the story are not very relatable or likable.

A Heritage Foundation vice president, James Jay Carafano directs the think tank’s research into matters of national security and foreign relations.

Image: Creative Commons.

Charlie Gao

Security,

As it could impact arms production.

The disruption that COVID-2019 coronavirus has inflicted on China’s industry is well documented. Wuhan, a major industrial center, is still in lockdown as of early March 2020. Many factories have gone to a standstill, with major effects on the supply of goods around the world. However, less talked about is the effect the coronavirus has had on the Chinese military industry. While this is understandable, given how China has restricted information about the coronavirus’s effects and the general opacity of the Chinese military industry, some information has come out.

Evidently the effect on the military industry is waning, as announcements of resumption of production of certain items have come out. On February 21, Shenyang Aircraft Corporation announced that it was resuming production of J-15 fighters after a short pause due to coronavirus fears. This follows announcements earlier that other aviation industry firms had resumed full production. Measures against further coronavirus infections were also included in speeches in which productions were resumed, including regular temperature checks among the workforce. In other sectors, such as shipbuilding, major efforts have taken place to resume full pace production, including the use of reserve manpower to replace those who are sick.

However, there remains the issue of Wuhan, which is still on lockdown. Wuhan houses many firms related to the Chinese defense industry, being part of China’s “Optics Valley” dedicated to electro-optical equipment. Despite not being on the coast, Wuhan also hosts many naval engineering firms and institutes. Statements by Chinese analysts suggest that work is being minimally affected, as none of the staff at military-related institutions at Wuhan are said to be infected. But there is the admission that there could be an impact on productivity as well as security risks as the number of workers working from home with sensitive information increases.

The implications of the minimal impact, if true, are interesting. It suggests that China’s military industry’s supply chain is relatively insulated from that used to supply the factories that produce goods for export. Articles discussing the start of Wuhan’s civilian industry are not optimistic, saying materials may run out as other sectors of the Chinese economy remain disrupted. Chinese authorities appear to be aware of this, and have initiated pushes to restart production from the bottom up in military industries. A quote provided to the South China Morning Post reinforces this: “Other state-owned enterprises like steel plants have also resumed production, and it’s impossible for the aircraft and naval industry to slow up production once the heat treating furnaces are turned on,”

Whether the return to norms in the military industry will boost the rest of China’s economy has yet to be seen. But their relative insulation from the original shocks of coronavirus suggest that while they may be quicker to recover, their recovery will be isolated.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues.

Image: Reddit.

Roy Morris Jr.

History, Americas

And it led to the rise of Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant...

No one expected this—not the fiercest “fire-eater” in South Carolina or the flintiest abolitionist in New England. By the time the guns fell silent at Shiloh on the night of April 7, 1862, soldiers on both sides of the battlefield realized that they had endured something never before seen in American history. Nearly 24,000 men had fallen dead or wounded among the peach orchards and tangled woods in southwestern Tennessee, more than the total loss from all three of America’s previous wars combined. Small wonder that New Orleans writer George Washington Cable, himself a former Confederate, would later write: “The South never smiled again at Shiloh.” 

Neither, for that matter, did the North—at least not for another three long years. Shiloh was the first truly disorienting battle in the national experience, a battle in which large numbers of poorly led troops stumbled into one another, blazed away, fell back, came together again, and stopped butchering each other only after darkness, rain, and exhaustion put an end to the fighting. There would be other battles like Shiloh in 1862, many of them commemorated in this special issue of Civil War Quarterly.

Where America’s Childhood Ended

But there would never be another Shiloh, for that was where America’s childhood ended. After Shiloh, all cocky talk of bloodless victories and cowardly foes gave way to the sickening realization that a war started almost cavalierly one year earlier would not be ending easily—or any time soon. It was no coincidence that the two generals destined to lead the main armies of the opposing regions rose to prominence in 1862. For the North, it was an unprepossessing, rumpled officer from the Midwest, Ulysses S. Grant, a man who had failed at almost everything he touched since graduating from the United States Military Academy at West Point two decades earlier. Grant began his improbable march to high command with his stunning victory at Fort Donelson in February 1862 and his hairbreadth survival at Shiloh six weeks later. For the South, the rising star was Robert E. Lee, also a graduate of West Point, but a man from a very different background than Grant. The patrician son of old-line Virginia royalty, Lee would lead the Army of Northern Virginia through some of its bitterest battles in 1862: Second Manassas, the Battle of Antietam, and Fredericksburg. Two of those would be overwhelming Confederate victories, but the third—Antietam—would be a crushing defeat (and the bloodiest single day in American history). Grant and Lee would begin their long march toward each other in 1862, although it would be another two years before they met for the first time on the battlefield.

A Watershed Year for Both Sides

In the meantime, there were other battles to be fought in 1862, including the significant Union victory in the western theater of the war at Pea Ridge, Arkansas, in March. Sandwiched between them were other Union victories, these on the water, when Admiral David Farragut successfully seized the South’s largest city, New Orleans, and a Federal ironclad, Monitor, fought off the Confederate behemoth Virginia at Hampton Roads, Virginia, ushering in a new era in naval warfare. For both sides, 1862 would be a watershed year, a time in which the amateur armies raised so hastily the previous spring would learn how to fight, and kill, each other with increasing efficiency. From the men in the ranks to the officers on horseback, the war would progress with a grim inevitability. The only certainty was that there would be even worse days to come. Shiloh had seen to that.

This article by Roy Morris Jr. first appeared at the Warfare History Network in February 2019.

Image: "Plenty of Fighting Today": The 9th Illinois at Shiloh by Keith Rocco. The National Guard.

Fred Lucas

Politics, Americas

A big deal?

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer may become only the ninth senator in the body’s history to be censured by his colleagues. 

Lawmakers in the Senate and House introduced resolutions to censure him Thursday, a day after Schumer made inflammatory comments that seemed to some to advocate violence if two Supreme Court justices did not rule his way in an abortion case.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a measure in the Senate that 14 other Republicans so far have co-sponsored. 

In the House, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., introduced a similar resolution of censure. 

During a pro-choice rally Wednesday on the steps of the Supreme Court, Schumer, D-N.Y., spoke directly to Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both appointed to the high court by President Donald Trump.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh,” Schumer said, according to video of his remarks. “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

The eight senators previously censured in U.S. history were censured by their Senate colleagues, not by the House. Although no rule prevents the House from censuring a senator, it’s not likely in a Democrat-controlled House.

Hawley’s censure resolution in the Senate states, in part: 

Senator Schumer has acknowledged that threatening statements can increase the dangers of violence against government officials when he stated on June 15, 2017, following the attempted murder of several elected Members of Congress, ‘We would all be wise to reflect on the importance of civility in our [N]ation’s politics’ and that ‘the level of nastiness, vitriol, and hate that has seeped into our politics must be excised.’

Republican senators who signed on to the Hawley resolution include Steve Daines of Montana, Mike Braun of Indiana, Rick Scott of Florida, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas, David Perdue of Georgia, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Martha McSally of Arizona. 

Biggs, in introducing a similar resolution in the House, said in a written statement:

Threats towards any elected or appointed member of the three branches of our constitutional government are wrong and cannot be tolerated. 

Minority Leader Schumer is the leader of his [Democratic] conference, and, while he may offer public criticism about decisions with which he disagrees, he should not use rhetoric that is threatening and intimidating towards members of our independent judiciary.

The Arizona Republican added that amid public criticism, including from Chief Justice John Roberts, Schumer didn’t back down.  

“Even after he was called out by many of his own colleagues and the chief justice, Leader Schumer would not apologize for his threats,” Biggs said. “I am introducing this resolution today to send a message that this threatening rhetoric has no place in the U.S. Congress—especially from a leader of one of our parties.”

Roberts, in a formal statement Wednesday, called Schumer’s comments “dangerous.”

Schumer did not apologize Thursday in remarks on the Senate floor, but said he should have used different words.

“I shouldn’t have used the words I did. But in no way was I making a threat,” the Senate’s top Democrat said, adding: “And Republicans who are busy manufacturing outrage over these comments know that too.”

Many of the previous censures of senators involved corruption or ethics cases.

The notable censure of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., on Dec. 2, 1954, said he did not cooperate with a 1952 investigation conducted by a Senate subcommittee on privileges and elections and “abused” a Select Committee to Study Censure.

The first member of the Senate to be censured was Sen. Timothy Pickering, a Federalist from Massachusetts, on Jan. 2, 1811. His offense, according to the Senate, was “Reading confidential documents in open Senate session before an injunction of secrecy was removed.”

The most recent Senate censure came on July 25, 1990. Colleagues said Sen. David Durenberger, R-Minn., engaged in unethical conduct by “his structuring of a real estate transaction and receipt of Senate reimbursements in connection with his stays in his Minneapolis condominium, his pattern of prohibited communications respecting the condominium, his repeated acceptance of prohibited gifts of limousine service for personal purposes, and the conversion of a campaign contribution to his personal use.”

Condemnation of Schumer was especially harsh in legal circles.

“This is an outrageous statement that amounts to a threat against sitting Supreme Court justices,” said David Rivkin, who worked at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 

“It is designed to intimate them,” Rivkin said in a written statement. “This behavior cannot be countenanced. Indeed, it has to be condemned as an unconstitutional conduct.”

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, a liberal, lashed out on Twitter, calling Schumer’s comments to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh “inexcusable.” 

Even the left-leaning American Bar Association criticized Schumer.

Among rare defenders was Daniel Goldberg, president of the left-wing legal group Alliance for Justice, who criticized Roberts instead.

“It’s unfortunate that Chief Justice Roberts’ attempt to defend the integrity of the Supreme Court instead highlighted his own partisan biases,” Goldberg said, adding: 

Sen. Schumer has been a stalwart champion for health care rights, including defending the right to abortion from constant legal threats. His comments reflected widespread concern that the court is considering overturning a ruling it issued just four years ago, as demonstrated by the massive rally he was speaking to. … Schumer wasn’t wrong that if the Supreme Court violates its own precedent simply to advance the conservatives’ partisan agenda, there will be a significant public backlash. 

Schumer should know better and likely does know better, Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told Fox News. 

“Sen. Hawley is right that censure would be appropriate,” Slattery said Thursday. “Sen. Schumer took to the Senate floor earlier today. He said he was offering an apology. In my view, he seemed to be saying, ‘Sorry, but I’m not sorry.’” 

“Clearly, enough people didn’t know what Schumer purportedly meant,” Slattery added. “An opinion writer for The Washington Post, the American Bar Association, all sorts of institutions that are not exactly conservative, have come out to condemn what Sen. Schumer has done.”

This article by Fred Lucas originally appeared at The Daily Signal. This article first appeared in 2020.

Image: Reuters

Stratfor Worldview

Economics, Middle East

Doubt it.

Key point: America can still do more to hurt Iran economically. However, more damage does not necessarily mean that Tehran will fall.

The United States, reacting to the shooting down of a U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle last week, launched two sanctions-related salvos against Iran on June 24. It layered sanctions on top of those already targeting commanders in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which are unlikely to have more than a limited effect on the Iranian economy. The second set of sanctions, targeting Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his appointees, could bite much deeper than typical sanctions issued by the United States by hampering Iran's engagement with the world and damaging its economy.

An Executive Order Lays the Groundwork

An executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump freezes all property subject to U.S. jurisdiction that is held by Iran's supreme leader or the supreme leader's office. In addition, the order allows the U.S. Treasury Department to similarly sanction any person or entity the supreme leader, or his office, appoints, such as a state official or the head of an entity such as a company leader. The order also extends that connection a step further, allowing sanctions to be placed on any appointment made by an appointee of the supreme leader, as well. It also threatens sanctions against anyone who provides support for people or entities sanctioned under those designations.

The Treasury Department has yet to designate anyone under those sanctions, although Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif would be sanctioned later this week. There is no shortage of potential additional targets. After all, Khamenei has made thousands of appointments including key members of the Iranian government and its military and intelligence apparatus. His appointments also cover Iran's so-called bonyads, or religious charities, and other businesses that make up a vast business empire.

The sanctions directly on Khamenei — who does not travel overseas — will probably have a negligible effect, but sanctions on bonyads and companies could further restrict the Iranian economy. But perhaps just as important, the sanctions could hamper any future efforts between Tehran and Washington to make a deal.

Negotiations Become Tangled

Iran's Foreign Ministry said that the new sanctions could lead to a "permanent closure" of diplomacy with the United States. While the statement might be extreme, sanctioning Zarif and Khamenei will make it more difficult to even broach a new set of negotiations — and in the case of Zarif even perhaps inhibit his ability to perform some of his broader diplomatic functions. In April, the White House made another major move potentially affecting Iran's diplomatic abilities when it designated the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. But along with the sanctions, exceptions allowing diplomatic activities by current and former IRGC members were created. The United States will likely put similar mechanisms in place in sanctions against Zarif. But if it chooses not to, Iranian diplomatic activities would be severely curtailed as long as Zarif is in place.

Moreover, beyond the symbolic value of designating Khamenei for sanctions, it will have a real effect on Iran's ability to engage in further talks with the United States, as its entire political system is based on the concept of velayat-e faqih(governance of the jurist). Those in the White House who advocate taking a hard line against Iran could see the sanctions designations surrounding Khamenei and Zarif, and the complications of possibly removing the IRGC from the terrorist list in the future — as an opportunity to make it more difficult — if not impossible — for diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran to resume, even after the current U.S. administration leaves office.

An Economic Move With Teeth

Bonyads and other entities connected to the supreme leader play a key role in the Iranian economy. While many of them do not hold substantial overseas assets, the entities account for an estimated one-fifth of Iran's non-oil gross domestic product and operate in a wide number of industries that import and export products. This means the second- and third-order effects of hitting these entities — if done in a broad way by the Treasury Department — could further strain the already fragile Iranian economy and its financial system. It is not clear to what extent Washington is willing to place sanctions on Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order, the Mostazafan Foundation, the Astan Quds Razavi, or any of the other bonyads and entities connected with Khamenei — but it is clear that Iran hawks in the United States will advocate that those businesses be included.

Despite the limited reach of the United States to directly affect some areas of the Iranian economy with sanctions, it does have room to add effective secondary sanctions. It could, for instance, widen the net for secondary financial sanctions and threaten to sanction third-country banks that deal in certain transactions covering Iran's imports and exports. For example, the United States reserves some of its strongest moves against third countries to use against those buying Iranian oil. Washington has also looked at sanctioning the domestic Iranian counterpart to the European-backed financial channel facilitating humanitarian trade.

No U.S. option — short of sanctioning Iran's entire diplomatic corps — can deal the same blow to Iran's economy as sanctions hitting its oil sector. But the fragility of Iran's economy makes every channel it can use potentially damaging.

Sanctions on Iran's Supreme Leader Go Beyond Symbolism is republished with the permission of Stratfor Worldview, a geopolitical intelligence and advisory firm. This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Jo Daniels

Security, World

Fear is a normal response to threats, but it must be tempered.

As the novel coronavirus proliferates on a global scale, worry and panic is on the rise. And it is no wonder when we are constantly being told how to best protect ourselves from being infected. But how do you stay safe in this climate and simultaneously make sure that the fear doesn’t take over your life, developing into obsessive compulsive disorder or panic?

Fear is a normal, necessary evolutionary response to threat – ultimately designed to keep us safe. Whether the threat is emotional, social or physical, this response is dependent on a complex interaction between our primitive “animal brain” (the limbic system) and our sophisticated cognitive brain (the neo-cortex). These work busily in concert to assess and respond to threats to survival.

Once a threat has been identified, a “fight or flight” response can be triggered. This is the body’s biological response to fear and involves flooding us with adrenaline in a bid to ensure that we are able to escape or defeat any threat, such as a dangerous animal attacking. The response produces a range of intense physical symptoms – palpitations, perspiration, dizziness and difficulty breathing – which are designed to make us run faster and fight harder.

However, this system can be prone to glitches, sometimes responding disproportionately to threats that aren’t actually that serious or imminent. Worrying about health conditions such as heart attacks, stroke and even COVID-19 (the disease caused by the coronavirus) can therefore also trigger a fight-or-flight response.

That’s despite the fact that there is no role for a primitive biological response to COVID-19 – no running or fighting is necessary. Instead, it is our high-level, cognitive neocortex that is required here, a rational and measured approach to infectious disease, without the messy complications of panic.

Sadly, this is easier said than done. Once the fear has kicked in, it can be hard to stop it.

Vulnerable groups

It is highly unlikely that a viral outbreak, even at pandemic levels, will trigger mental health problems in people who don’t already have them or are in the process of developing them. Research shows that most mental health problems start between early adolescence and the mid-20s, with complex factors being involved. Around 10% of the global population experience clinical levels of anxiety at any one time, although some estimates are higher.

People who are chronically and physically unwell – the ones who are the most vulnerable to the coronavirus – are at particular risk of spiralling anxiety. This should not be ignored. Their concern is warranted and is vital in motivating them to take up precautionary measures. But it is important that these individuals have the support they need in dealing with their emotions.

People with health anxiety, preoccupied with health-related information or physical symptoms, are also at risk of worsening mental health as the virus spreads. So are individuals who are prone to frequent or increased “checking”, such as constantly making sure that the oven is off or that the front door is locked. Those at the extreme end of the scale when it comes to such behaviour may be displaying signs of obsessive compulsive disorder.

People who have a lot of background anxiety, and are not easily reassured, may also benefit from assessment and support in the shadow of the coronavirus outbreak. This may include people with generalised anxiety disorder or panic disorder, which have strong physiological features.

Ways to manage the stress

If you find yourself excessively worrying about the coronavirus, this doens’t necessarily mean that you have a psychological disorder. But high levels of emotional distress, whatever the source, should be appropriately and compassionately attended to, particularly if it is interfering with normal day to day activities.

At times of stress and anxiety, we are often prone to using strategies that are designed to help but prove counter-productive. For example, you may Google symptoms to try to calm yourself down, even though it is unlikely to ever make you feel better. When our strategies for de-stressing instead increase our anxiety, it is time to take a step back and ask if there is anything more helpful we can do.

There are actually ways to dampen down the physical and emotional symptoms associated with anxiety. One is to stop checking. For example, avoid looking for signs of illness. You are likely to find unfamiliar physical sensations that are harmless but make you feel anxious. Normal physical changes and sensations pass in time, so if you feel your chest tighten, shift your focus onto pleasurable activities and adopt “watchful waiting” in the meantime.

In the case of COVID-19, checking may also include constant monitoring of news updates and social media feeds, which significantly increases anxiety – only serving to reassure us momentarily, if at all. So if you are feeling anxious, consider tuning off automatic notifications and updates on COVID-19.

Instead, do less frequent checks of reliable, impartial sources of information updates on COVID-19. This might include national health websites rather than alarmist news or social media feeds that exacerbate worry unnecessarily. Information can be reassuring if it is rooted in facts. It is often the intolerance of uncertainty that perpetuates anxiety rather than fear of illness itself.

At times of stress and anxiety, hyperventilation and shallow breathing is common. Purposeful, regular breathing can therefore work to reset the fight or flight response and prevent the onset of panic and the unpleasant physical symptoms associated with anxiety. This is also true for exercise, which can help reduce the excess adrenaline build-up associated with anxiety. It can also give much needed perspective.

Perhaps most importantly, don’t isolate yourself. Personal relationships are crucial in maintaining perspective, elevating mood and allowing distraction away from concerns that trouble us. Even in imposed isolation, it is important to combat loneliness and keep talking – for example, via video chats.

We are globally united in living with a very real yet uncertain health threat. Vigilance and precautionary measures are essential. But psychological distress and widespread panic does not have to be part of this experience. Continuing normal daily activities, maintaining perspective and reducing unnecessary stress is key to psychological survival. In other words, where possible, keep calm and carry on.

If you continue to feel anxious or distressed despite trying these techniques, do talk to your GP or refer to a psychologist for evidence-based treatment such as cognitive behavioural therapy.

This first appeared in The Conversation. 

Task and Purpose

Security, Americas

Huh. Who would have guessed?

Key point: The U.S. Marines are good, but they aren't always the best. In a recent shooting competition, it was actually the Coast Guard that proved their skills. Marine snipers are considered among the most elite hunters of men in the U.S. military with Hollywood movies and countless books dedicated to them, and yet, for the past two years, they have been beaten in competition by the freakin' Coast Guard.

Over the past week, the 2018 International Sniper Competition has played out at Fort Benning, Georgia, with 30 teams going head-to-head from U.S. and international militaries, as well as local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.And for the second year in row, snipers from the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment came out on top, while the Corps' finest got rocked by the service branch most would derisively label "puddle pirates."

Well, who's laughing now?

The best team — 75th Ranger Staff Sgts. Brandon Kelley and Jonathan Roque — was chosen after all competitors went through "a gauntlet of rigorous physical, mental and endurance events that test the range of sniper skills that include, but are not limited to, long range marksmanship, observation, reconnaissance and reporting abilities, and abilities to move with stealth and concealment," according to the competition website.

Second place went to the Colorado Army National Guard, while Sweden's 17th Wing Air Force Rangers came in third.

The Coast Guard team, which is part of the service's Special Missions Training Detachment, came in 9th (They were 3rd place in 2017). The Marine Corps team, which was from the Scout Sniper Instructor School in Quantico, Virginia, came in 10th (the Corps team in 2017 got 7th place).

Still, to be fair, the Marines did beat out other elite units, to include the 1st Special Forces Group and the Navy's Special Warfare Group 1.

Which means that despite the bravado and competitive nature of different military branches, maybe it's time to pare it back a little on crap-talking the Coast Guard.

Because, like Globo Gym, their snipers are better than you. And everyone now knows it.

(This article by Paul Szoldra originally appeared at Task & Purpose. Follow Task & Purpose on Twitter. This article first appeared in 2018.)

Here are the final standings:

More Articles from Task & Purpose:

- 7 Veteran-Friendly Manufacturers That Are Hiring

- The 6 Types Of Contractors You Encounter Overseas

- Here’s How Marines Fared On The New Physical Fitness Test

Image: Reuters

Michael Peck

Technology, Middle East

That's one spicy meatball...

Key point: AI in warfare is increasingly a source of global concern. Yet it looks like Israel went ahead with a bomb that can recognize and pick its targets... doesn't that seem like a bad idea?

An Israeli company has unveiled a smart bomb that is truly smart.

The SPICE-250 glide bomb has the ability to autonomously recognize and select targets. But how safe is a bomb that can pick its own targets?

This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Israeli manufacturer Rafael calls this Automatic Target Recognition, which relies on electro-optic sensors (which process light into sensor data) and Artificial Intelligence. “The newly-unveiled ATR feature is a technological breakthrough, enabling SPICE-250 to effectively learn the specific target characteristics ahead of the strike, using advanced AI and deep-learning technologies,” according to a Rafael announcement. “During flight, the pilot selects the target type to be attacked and allocates a target to each weapon. The weapons are launched towards the vicinity of the targets, using their INS [inertial navigation] for initial navigation. When approaching the target area, the weapons use the ATR mode for detection and recognition of the targets. Each weapon homes-in on the pre-defined target, either autonomously or with a human-in-the-loop, aided by the ATR algorithm.”

The SPICE-250 is a glide bomb with a range of 75 kilometers (47 miles) and armed with a 75-kilogram (165-pound) warhead. A single F-16 can carry sixteen of these weapons.

The SPICE-250 uses terrain data, 3-D models and algorithms to identify targets amid the surrounding clutter of objects and terrain in the kill zone, Rafael deputy marketing manager Gideon Weiss told IT magazine Insight Analytics. A two-way data link and video stream enable a pilot to retarget the weapon until just seconds before impact.

Yet most significant is that if the primary target cannot be hit, the SPICE-250’s AI algorithms can select a secondary target. “This goes into the area of user-defined policies and rules of engagement, and it is up to the users to decide on how to apply the weapon, when and where to use it, and how to define target recognition probabilities and its eventuality,” Weiss said.,

And that’s important, because as Rafael emphasizes, the SPICE-250 was designed to find targets “without depending on GPS navigation in GPS-denied environments.” Given the enormous efforts that Russia, China and other nations are devoting to GPS jamming and spoofing, the world is entering an era where people and weapons can no longer rely on satellite navigation.

Which means the SPICE-250—and similar weapons that are inevitably coming—will be on their own in some situations. The problem is that smart devices aren’t always smart: heat-seeking missiles that home in on the engines of friendly jets, computers that mistake the Moon for a Soviet ICBM strike, and facial recognition sensors that mistake Congressmen for wanted criminals.

Smart bombs have come a long way since the first laser-guided weapons of the Vietnam War, especially with the advent of GPS guidance and AI autonomy. But how well they function autonomously, without a human in the loop to make the judgment calls, will depend on factors such as the quality of sensor data and of the AI algorithms.

These are the same concerns that already spur the “killer robot” wariness about autonomous aircraft and tanks. It is more than plausible to imagine scenarios where a smart bomb, bereft of GPS targeting and human guidance, confuses one hilltop for another and hits the wrong target. Or, mistakes a school bus for a tank.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook. This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Chris White

Economics, Americas

Foreign oil has never been less important to America.

Oil production on federal lands topped 1 billion barrels in 2019, marking a 29% increase from the Obama administration, Department of the Interior officials announced Tuesday.

Technological advancements over the last decade in hydraulic fracturing helped drive the increase, as did President Donald Trump’s rollback of his Democratic predecessor’s environmental regulations. Production was up 122 million barrels from 2018, The Associated Press reported.

“You have to create an environment where folks want to bid on leases and then go develop them,” Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior Casey Hammond told the AP. “One thing we can do as regulators is give people some assurances we’re going to work through the process in a fair and efficient way.”

The fracking boom, which began around 2009, collapsed the price of natural gas, giving public utilities a low-cost alternative fuel as regulations imposed by former President Barack Obama forced coal plants to install expensive equipment or retire. Fracking and the accompanying rules have provided a one-two punch to coal producers, while lifting the fortunes of gas and oil producers.

Such technological advancements were not the only element involved in the production increase.

“This is another example of the Trump administration undoing four or five decades of thoughtful laws to protect the public lands,” Mike Penfold, a retired state director at the Bureau of Land Management, told the AP. Trump is setting up an environment in which “oligarchs” are benefiting more than taxpayers, Penfold suggested.

The increase does give the U.S. a significant geopolitical advantage over the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, according to one analyst.

The sheer amount of production coming from federal lands gives the U.S. a big enough stake in the international oil market to prevent OPEC from lording its crude over the world, Sarp Ozkan, director of energy analysis at the industry data firm Enverus, told the AP.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Image: Reuters.

Belal Alsinglawi, Mahmoud Elkhodr, Omar Mubin

Health, Americas

To develop contingency plans and hopefully head off the worst effects of the coronavirus, governments need to be able to anticipate the future course of the outbreak.

The coronavirus disease COVID-19 has so far caused about 3,380 deaths, infected about 98,300 people, and is significantly impacting the economy in many countries.

We used predictive analytics, a branch of artificial intelligence (AI), to forecast how many confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths can be expected in the near future.

Our method predicts that by March 13, the virus death toll will have climbed to 3,913, and confirmed cases will reach 116,250 worldwide, based on data available up to March 5.

To develop contingency plans and hopefully head off the worst effects of the coronavirus, governments need to be able to anticipate the future course of the outbreak.

This is where predictive analytics could prove invaluable. This method involves finding trends in past data, and using these insights to forecast future events. There’s currently too few Australian cases to generate such a forecast for the country.

Number crunching

As of when this article was published, our model had predicted COVID-19 infections to an accuracy of 96%, and deaths to an accuracy of 99%. To maintain this accuracy, we have to regularly update our data as the global rate of COVID-19’s spread increases or decreases.

Based on data available up to March 5, our model predicts that by March 31 the number of deaths worldwide will surpass 4,500 and confirmed cases will reach 150,000. However, since these projections surpass our short-term window of accuracy, they shouldn’t be considered as reliable as the figures above.

At the moment, our model is best suited for short-term forecasting. To make accurate long-term forecasts, we’ll need more historical data and a better understanding of the variables impacting COVID-19’s spread.

The more historical data we acquire, the more accurate and far-reaching our forecasts can be.

How we made our predictions

To create our simulations, we extracted coronavirus data dating back to January 22, from an online repository provided by the Johns Hopkins University Centre for Systems Science and Engineering.

This time-stamped data detailed the number and locations of confirmed cases of COVID-19, including people who recovered, and those who died.

Choosing an appropriate modelling technique was integral to the reliability of our results. We used time series forecasting, a method that predicts future values based on previously observed values. This type of forecasting has proven suitable to predict future outbreaks of a disease.

We ran our simulations via Prophet (a type of time series forecasting model), and input the data using the programming language Python.

Further insight vs compromised privacy

Combining predictions generated through AI with big data, and location-based services such as GPS tracking, can provide targeted insight on the movements of people diagnosed with COVID-19.

Read more: Why public health officials sound more worried about the coronavirus than the seasonal flu

This information would help governments implement effective contingency plans, and prevent the virus’s spread.

We saw this happen in China, where telecommunication providers used location tracking to alert the Chinese government of the movements of people in quarantine. However, such methods raise obvious privacy issues.

Honing in on smaller areas

In our analysis, we only considered worldwide data. If localised data becomes available, we could identify which countries, cities and even suburbs are more vulnerable to COVID-19 than others.

We already know different regions are likely to experience different growth rates of COVID-19. This is because the virus’ spread is influenced by many factors, including speed of diagnoses, government response, population density, quality of public healthcare and local climate.

As the COVID-19 outbreak expands, the world’s collective response will render our model susceptible to variation. But until the virus is controlled and more is learned about it, we believe forewarned is forearmed.

Read more: Coronavirus: How behaviour can help control the spread of COVID-19

Correction: previously this article said the author’s model could predict COVID-19 infections to an accuracy of 96%, and deaths to an accuracy of 99%, up to one week into the future. This was incorrect and has been amended.

Belal Alsinglawi, PhD Candidate in Data Science and ICT Lecturer, Western Sydney University; Mahmoud Elkhodr, Lecturer in Information and Communication Technologies, CQUniversity Australia, and Omar Mubin, Senior Lecturer in human-centred computing & human-computer interaction, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Reuters

Ploy Pattanun Achakulwisut, Loretta Mickley, Susan Anenberg

Security, Americas

If the world stays on its current greenhouse gas emissions path, rising fine dust levels could increase premature deaths by 130 percent and triple hospitalizations due to fine dust exposure in this region.

The Dust Bowl in the 1930s was one of the worst environmental disasters of the 20th century. Intense dust storms relentlessly pounded the southern Great Plains of the United States, wreaking severe ecological damage, forcing 2.5 million people to leave the region and claiming unnumbered lives, mainly from “dust pneumonia.”

Research has shown that this disaster was fueled by a combination of severe droughts and over-cultivated lands. Today, climate change driven by human actions is enhancing the occurrence of droughts in multiple regions around the world.

As researchers working at the intersection of environmental health, air pollution and climate change, we wanted to know how increasing drought conditions and population growth in the U.S. Southwest could affect airborne dust levels and public health.

In a recently published study, we estimate that if the world stays on its current greenhouse gas emissions path, rising fine dust levels could increase premature deaths by 130 percent and triple hospitalizations due to fine dust exposure in this region.

Harmful effects of inhaling dust

If global greenhouse gas emissions are not sharply reduced, scientists project that the U.S. Southwest – already the nation’s hottest and driest region – will experience unprecedented multi-decade “mega-droughts” in the coming decades.

It is now well understood that short- and long-term exposures to airborne particles, including dust, pose major health risks. Effects range from increased hospital admissions to higher risk of premature death, primarily due to cardiovascular and respiratory disorders.

In our study, “dust” refers to soil-derived airborne particles generated by wind erosion or human activities, such as farming operations or travel on unpaved roads. Any soil particles smaller than 0.05 millimeters – roughly the width of a human hair – can be uplifted into the air. We focused on particles smaller than 0.0025 millimeters (2.5 microns), which are collectively known as “fine” particulate matter (PM). Particles this small stay in the air longer and cause the greatest harm to human health, since they can penetrate deep into the lungs.

Decades of epidemiological research have firmly established a link between exposure to fine PM and adverse health effects. Although more research is needed to differentiate between the potency and effects of various materials that make up fine PM, which also include emissions from fossil fuel combustion and other industrial sources, evidence suggests that dust is a significant contributor.

For example, silica, which makes up around 60 percent of windblown desert dust, is known to cause chronic lung inflammation, lung cancer and autoimmune diseases. Dust can also transport soil-borne pathogens and toxic contaminants over large areas. In the U.S. Southwest, dust episodes have been linked to outbreaks of valley fever and arsenic poisoning.

Dust and droughts in the U.S. Southwest

The southwestern United States, much of which consists of deserts and drylands, has the nation’s highest levels of airborne dust. The first question we investigated was how drought conditions occurring in different hydrologic systems, such as surface soils, river discharge areas and groundwater storage, have been influencing levels of airborne fine dust in recent years.

By analyzing data collected between 2000-2015 at 35 monitoring sites in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, we found that year-to-year changes in fine dust levels observed at each monitoring site tended to occur in sync. This pattern suggests that there is one or more common cause of large-scale changes in fine dust levels.

Indeed, we found that these changes were significantly correlated with soil moisture conditions across southwestern North America. Years with higher-than-normal fine dust levels were also marked by drier-than-normal soil moisture in areas spanning the Chihuahuan, Mojave and Sonoran deserts, the southern Great Plains and the Colorado Plateau.

Studies have shown that dust emissions within these regions primarily come from desert areas, dry lake beds, previously burned areas and lands disturbed by agricultural activities and fossil fuel development. Our findings are consistent with previous field studies showing that soil moisture can control dust emissions by modulating vegetation cover and soil stability.

Airborne dust and health risks under future climate change

In our next step, we quantified potential future changes in fine dust levels and associated public health impacts under two different climate change scenarios used in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The so-called “worst-case” scenario in the report is characterized by unabated, increasing greenhouse gas emissions over time. In the “best-case” scenario, dramatic cuts in emissions are required to hold global warming below two degrees Celsius.

First, we used projections of temperature and precipitation for the years 2076-2095 from an ensemble of 22 climate models in conjunction with our derived dust-soil moisture relationships to quantify future changes in dust due to changing drought conditions under the two climate scenarios. Since there is variation among climate model projections, using a large group of them allows us to gauge the robustness of the results.

We then estimated the resulting public health impacts by applying relationships drawn from studies that have quantified increases in risk of premature deaths and hospitalizations in representative U.S. populations due to exposure to fine PM. In these calculations, we also took into account projections of population growth for the Southwest and changing vulnerability to disease.

Under the worst-case scenario – the path we’re currently on – fine dust levels in the Southwest could increase by 30 percent by the end of this century compared to present-day values. This would result in a 130 percent increase in premature deaths and a 300 percent increase in hospital admissions attributable to fine dust exposure.

Even under the best-case climate mitigation scenario, we project that fine dust levels in the region could increase by 10 percent. This rise would increase premature deaths and hospital admissions due to fine dust exposure by 20 percent and 60 percent respectively, compared to present-day values.

It is worth noting here that we only looked at the isolated effect of future drought conditions. Changes in other factors, such as wind speed and human land use, may enhance or dampen our results.

Dust and droughts are a global threat

Other researchers have found results similar to our study in other parts of the world. For example, researchers have shown that the occurrence of dust storms in China and Saudi Arabia is modulated by rainfall or soil moisture in surrounding regions, which include remote deserts and drylands.

Today, drylands compose 41 percent of the world’s total land area and are home to around 2.1 billion people. On the world’s current greenhouse gas emissions trajectory, droughts will intensify and drylands will expand in parts of South America, Africa, Australia and the Mediterranean. Our findings highlight the potential for climate change to worsen air quality problems in many populated arid regions around the world – one of the many threats posed by climate change to human health and well-being.

[ Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter. ] Screen reader support enabled.

Ploy Pattanun Achakulwisut, Postdoctoral Scientist, George Washington University

Loretta Mickley, Senior Research Fellow in Chemistry-Climate Interactions, Harvard University

Susan Anenberg, Associate Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health and Global Health, George Washington University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Reuters.

 

Warfare History Network

History, Americas

An inspiring story.

General George S. Patton, Jr., was one of the most flamboyant and controversial figures of World War II. His career was also one of the most thoroughly documented of any of the war’s great commanders. Historians have had a treasury of material at their disposal as Patton was a prolific writer, kept personal diaries, and saved virtually every scrap of paper he ever handled. Additionally, his family and heirs have gone to great lengths to preserve the artifacts of his existence. Even with such voluminous, detailed, and often extremely personal material available on Patton, it was not until the 1980s that historians began to form a clear picture of the hidden elements that made up the man.

“A Genius of War”

Historians will inevitably examine the past through the lens of their own time; likewise, historical figures present themselves to their contemporaries according to the knowledge and prejudices of their epoch. Patton, who was always concerned about shaping his public image according to his own lights, did not care to call attention to his dyslexia; nor did those who wrote about his swashbuckling exploits as a tank commander in the aftermath of World War II care to investigate the subject, despite such red flags as the frequent symptomatic idiosyncrasies in his spelling and punctuation. Given the state of medical science in the 1940s and the postwar era, Patton could not have been aware that he may have also suffered from an affliction known today as attention deficit disorder (ADD), which afflicts many dyslexics; nor could historians have identified the condition until recently. Even the importance of Patton’s early family life, which led him to valorize war and model himself as the heir of his heroic Confederate ancestors, was neglected until recently.

Martin Blumenson brought the general’s dyslexia to attention in his 1985 biography Patton: The Man Behind the Legend. Historian Carlo D’Este enlarged upon Blumenson’s pathfinding work in his 1995 study Patton: A Genius for War, painting more clearly a picture of an oddly functioning Patton family that had shaped Patton’s entire life and ultimately enabled him to overcome, or a least deal with, his dyslexia and embark on a storied military career.

In trying to understand Patton’s career, we cannot afford to discount those aspects of his life that had long been hidden behind his martial bluster. Patton’s dyslexia and perhaps ADD, his immediate forebears, his unusual upbringing, and his early socialization developed the young Patton into what D’Este called “a genius for war.”

Evidence of Patton’s Conditions

The fact that Patton had dyslexia is supported by his family and documented by both Blumenson and D’Este. That Patton also had ADD will probably remain a matter of conjecture and speculation, although in his public life he exhibited many of the disorder’s behavioral symptoms: his flexibility and willingness to shift strategy, such as the quick deal he cut in Casablanca permitting the formerly Vichy forces to continue governing Morocco under Allied auspices in November 1942; his tirelessness when in pursuit of a tangible goal, as when he took command of the moribund II Corps in Tunisia in February 1943 and rapidly transformed it into a formidable fighting force; his boredom with mundane tasks, expressed in a 1916 letter during the garrisoning of the Mexican town of Dublan when he wrote his father, “We are all rapidly going crazy from lack of occupation and there is no help in sight”; and his startling ability to visualize and make ideas concrete.

Other ADD symptoms include poor impulse control, extreme mood swings in response to events, and short excessive tempers, all of which Patton displayed as a commanding officer, sometimes notoriously, as with his infamous slapping incidents during World War II in which he was accused of abusing enlisted men. The frustrations experienced by a person dealing with either dyslexia or ADD can be overwhelming and can often lead to serious self-doubt, feelings of inadequacy, bouts of uncontrollable anger, and emotional hypersensitivity.

Dyslexia, which is often characterized by difficulty reading and by the transposition of letters or numbers, is considered to be a learning disorder. Having dyslexia, however, does not mean that a person lacks intelligence. Quite the contrary, many dyslexics are extremely intelligent and struggle mightily with the symptoms of the disorder. The dyslexic often has a different or unique mind-set, is often gifted and productive, but learns and perceives in a way different from others.

Both dyslexia and ADD have a genetic component. They are hereditary and run in families. In this light, perhaps George Patton’s genealogy is more important that even he imagined.

Growing up in Lake Vineyard

Patton was born on November 11, 1885, in San Gabriel, California, near Los Angeles, to doting parents from a financially comfortable background. His father spent several terms as district attorney of Los Angeles and ran unsuccessful campaigns for other public offices, including one as a Democratic candidate for Congress. In 1885, the year of George’s birth, he gave up the practice of law to take over the affairs of his deceased father-in-law’s business empire in an attempt to save it from the mismanagement of another relative. By 1899, the business was in foreclosure and new owner retianed the elder Patton as manager for many years. Despite all difficulties, no effort was spared by Patton’s father in providing a “proper” and, indeed, aristocratic upbringing for his children.

During George’s youth, the Patton family lived both in Los Angeles and at Lake Vineyard, the estate of his late grandfather, Benjamin “Don Benito” Wilson, an early American pioneer in California before the territory became part of the United States.

Blumenson credits Don Benito with some of the genetic makeup of the future general, including looks, driv, and tenacity. D’Este’s work reveals Don Benito as an extremely eccentric and physically rugged individualist. His exploits included lassoing and killing grizzly bears, surviving the poison-tipped arrow of an American Indian, and delivering the heads of rebellious Indians in a wicker basket to California’s governor. Patton would replicate that feat when he presented General Pershing with the bodies of three of Pancho Villa’s men during the Punitive Expedition of 1916. Like his ancestor, George Patton enjoyed and displayed a zest for combat, which contrasted sharply with his more low-key superior in World War II, General Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Don Benito was a man of frightful temper who did not suffer fools and finally gave up carrying a gun lest he do something rash. There is more than just a suggestion that George S. Patton, Jr., owed a great deal genetically to Don Benito.

His environment shaped the young Patton as much as his heredity. The atmosphere of his childhood included the continual repetition of family lore that glorified participation in lost causes such as the Confederacy and the struggle for Scottish independence among his more distant forebears and emphasized the Pattons’ ties to the Southern planter aristocracy. There was also an ongoing exposure to the great military leaders of history and literature, of whom George learned while being read to by his family from Walter Scott, Rudyard Kipling, Homer, and other authors. In addition, a parade of famous martial figures visited his home as guests of his parents.

The building blocks of the general’s personality were laid out in Lake Vineyard, a place of open spaces, horses, and outdoor action.An expert horseman at an early age, George established himself as an accident-prone risk taker in his riding and childhood war games. He remained a magnet for accidents through his military career, from a tent fire that singed his face during the 1916 Mexican Expedition to auto accidents in the waning months of World War II. Patton’s military proclivity became evident at an early age. His father carved him a wooden sword, and the boy played continually with his sister and an abundance of cousins and friends who visited the Vineyard estate. Patton once said, “I must be the happiest boy in the world.”

Aunt Nannie

One of the more eccentric fixtures in the Patton household was George’s Aunt Nannie. When Ruth Wilson married the boy’s father, George Patton II, her sister, Annie, was devastated. Annie had fallen deeply in love with George II. Her sanity not quite intact and her love unrequited, Aunt Nannie, as she was known, nevertheless attached herself to the newly married couple and never left them. D’Este tells us that she shared everything in their marriage except the bed.

While his parents doted on George, Aunt Nannie was obsessed with him. She became a surrogate mother who shamelessly spoiled him. Nannie was the uncontested, often tyrannical ruler of the Patton household, often trying the Pattons’ patience with her refusal to allow George to be punished.

While George’s father amused him by reading the Iliad and the Odyssey, Aunt Nannie, having decided that George was “delicate,” began reading aloud to him classics such as Plutarch’s Lives and The March of Xenophon and stories about Alexander the Great and Napoleon. D’Este asserts that it was Nannie who deeply influenced his early education. George was a willing participant who listened attentively and absorbed deeply. The most influential work Nannie presented to George was the Bible, which she read him three or four hours a day. Jesus emerged from her exegesis as the quintessential example of human courage.

Nannie was never certain if her efforts were having any effect on her nephew and even came sadly to the conclusion that he was dim-witted. Until he started school at the age of 11, he was unable to read or write. Surprisingly, he could quote from memory not only lengthy Bible passages, but also entire volumes of poetry and long passages of history. Nannie’s unrelenting Bible readings caused the book to become the foundation on which George’s life was built. God dominated Patton’s speeches and his writings throughout his life and especially during the peaks and valleys of his career.

The Pattons’ Civil War Prestige

Where Aunt Nannie left off, Papa took over with vivid, lavish, and probably exaggerated tales of Confederate heroes of the Civil War. The dead colonels, George and Waller “Taz” Tazewell Patton, came back to life as Papa told and retold the stories of their heroic lives given willingly, tragically, in the cause of the South. The Pattons might now live in California, but emotionally they never left the Virginia plantations. It was Papa who taught George of his family heritage through the lives of Patton military men from the Revolution through the Civil War.

As assiduously as Aunt Nannie thumped the Bible and force-fed the classics, so with military history and family lore did Papa stoke George’s all-consuming fires. Papa was vicariously living his own truncated military career through his son. Sometimes he produced actual heroes for his son to emulate. Colonel John Singleton Mosby, the Confederate guerrilla who by the 1890s was a lawyer for the Southern Pacific Railroad, was a frequent visitor to the Patton home. He regaled the young boy with tales of the Civil War and the bravery of the Confederate Pattons.

Also among the living touchstones was George’s own beloved step-grandfather, Colonel George Hugh Smith, whose quiet counsel and tales of the Civil War instilled a profound sense of destiny in the boy. Blumenson and D’Este have noted that Smith may have been the greatest influence on Patton’s decision to become a soldier and continue the family’s martial legacy.

Papa was also willing to get down and play soldier with George. On occasion, the boy would wield his wooden sword against Papa, who would match his own father’s sword against his son’s. Papa also made sure that George learned to ride a horse sitting in the saddle from which Colonel George S. Patton had fallen fatally wounded during the Civil War. All told, the relationship between father and son was such that minor transgressions were willingly admitted and just as readily forgiven by the indulgent parent.

Learning with Dyslexia

George’s childhood prepared him to become a secure adult who knew what he owed the world and what he wanted from it. His place was securely at the top of respectable society, and although flawed and tormented, he never doubted his status. Blumenson writes that Patton’s position brought him a sense of superiority, a tinge of snobbery and racism. Patton was determined to realize his exalted, noble heritage. All his life, he honed his mannerisms—the profanity, arrogance, aristocratic bearing, the scowl, and the ruthlessness. And Blumenson says, “… the process killed his sensitivity and warmth and turned a sweet-tempered child into a seemingly hard-eyed and choleric adult.”

George’s early education was not unusual in his time, when children of privilege often were tutored at home until a relatively advanced age. Early on, however, his parents discovered their child had a learning disability that hampered his ability to read. Today that disability is recognized as dyslexia, a malady first identified in 1896, one year before the 11-year-old George entered the Classical School for Boys in Pasadena, unable to read or write. Dyslexia did not become widely recognized in the United States until the 1920s, well into Patton’s career as a military officer.

Dyslexia is not simply a matter of reversing letters or numbers but is a complicated disorder whose symptoms include hyperactivity, obsessiveness, mood swings, difficulty in concentrating, impulsiveness, and compulsiveness. Because of their effort to overcome difficulty in reading and writing, dyslexics can be driven by a compulsion to succeed. Yet, they often harbor feelings of inferiority. Virtually every common symptom of dyslexia can be found in the adult Patton. “I am either very lazy or very stupid or both for it is beastly hard for me to learn,” he told his future wife, Beatrice Banning Ayer, while still a cadet at West Point. This was despite his prodigious intellectual powers and ability to recall enormous bodies of text and information.

The Classical School for Boys, where Patton spent six years getting his first formal education, catered to children of the Southern California gentry. Patton was a diligent student who nevertheless struggled and faltered with algebra, geometry, and arithmetic because of his dyslexia. Drawing from his family-tutored knowledge, his marks in ancient and modern history were consistently high.

Patton at the Virginia Military Institute

His family was hardly surprised when George announced in 1902 that he would become an Army officer. Given so many years of indoctrination in the family heritage, his father surely would have been shocked if George had chosen any other profession. The family encouraged George to seek admission to West Point rather than Virginia Military Institute, the alma mater for three generations of Pattons. VMI remained an alternative, however, as entry into West Point was hardly guaranteed. Given the Patton presence at VMI since its founding, admission there was a certainty despite George’s mediocre school record.

Although his father attempted to pull every political string within reach, George was unable to secure a spot at West Point, and in September 1903 he started classes at VMI. This would give Papa another year to line up the political assistance he would need to crack the West Point barrier.

The trip to VMI was by train, and the strange and obsessed Aunt Nannie was part of the entourage, along with his parents. She set up housekeeping near VMI for the entire school year. The ritual of Aunt Nannie following her “son” from place to place was to become one of the more bizarre aspects of Patton’s family life.

VMI and George Patton suited each other well, partly because his father had prepared him impeccably, but also because George applied himself with a vengeance. His military work rose above that of his classmates, and his academic marks were good, even if he was struggling. Knowing that his dream of West Point could slip away, he redoubled his efforts, and his grades steadily improved. He was aided by the dyslexic’s need to strive hard to overcome all impediments.

Meanwhile, Papa worked tirelessly to win George’s appointment to West Point, and on March 4, 1904, he received a telegram informing him of success. Upon tendering his resignation from VMI, Patton learned that he would have been appointed first corporal at VMI had he returned. This signal honor was conferred on the outstanding plebe. By the time he entered West Point, Patton had taken a passable performance at the Classical School and forged it into an impressive one at VMI. The first real and significant challenge of Patton’s life had been conquered by dint of hard work and perseverance.

Pompous Patton

As at VMI, Aunt Nannie remained for the duration in close proximity to West Point and her beloved George. George believed that most of his fellow cadets at the academy were socially inferior to his classmates at VMI. He never lost his aversion to those of alleged inferior social status, a snobbish trait his grandson Robert ascribes to Patton’s father, who “considered himself to be of better stock, therefore of better character than most other men.” Patton himself wrote to his father that most “were nice fellows but very few indeed are born gentlemen…. The only ones of that type are Southerners.”

Patton’s caste consciousness was exceeded only by his bouts of mood swings, self-doubt, and self-aggrandizement. In numerous letters and conversations with his father, George alternately berated and then praised himself for one deed or another. All the while, Papa gave patient, judicious, and loving counsel to his son and provided support, advice, and reassurance whenever asked. Never judgmental, always analytical, he was the lens that allowed George to see his problems clearly. The only other people who could fulfill this need were Beatrice Ayer, the future Mrs. Patton, and the doting Aunt Nannie, whose odd presence George did not seem to mind at all. She provided a more immediate springboard for his emotions, doubts, and rages than the letters of Papa or Bea.

D’Este concluded that Patton was torn between an ability to see future greatness for himself and the possible effects of his dyslexia, which served unceasingly to implant the notion that he was both ordinary and stupid.

Patton’s classmates perceived him as pompous and overambitious. His penchant for self-promotion, honed razor sharp at West Point, lasted intact for a lifetime. His goal was glory, and any means to that end was fair. He aspired to become the first general from his class, an admirable goal but a tactless gaff when announced. His first command at West Point, as first corporal, was short lived. He was busted back to sixth corporal when he made himself foolish by putting more men on report than any other corporal. He could not understand why his over-the-top military style would be punished and vowed that he would never allow any slack under his command. Yet, in doing so he moderated his behavior so that the same fate would not befall him again. Throughout his career, he cultivated friendships and unabashedly called in markers, using his social status and whatever tools he could muster to promote himself.

Thriving with his Dyslexia

There were setbacks. Failing math, a typical hurdle for dyslexics, Patton was forced to repeat his plebe year, something he desperately wanted to avoid. This served two purposes: first to reinforce his feelings of inadequacy, and second to drive him to new heights of perseverance. It was at about this time that Patton began keeping a diary. He and his family had a habit of saving virtually every scrap of paper, every souvenir, and every trophy he ever acquired. The diary carried this a step further. When combined with volumes of his letters, pamphlets, poetry, and other communications, it has left historians with detailed indicators of the man. Even this was not without design on Patton’s part. The first diary carried a note from Patton that it would be important to a biographer some day. Prescience or arrogance? Perhaps both.

In his final year, Patton was named to West Point’s second highest rank, corporal adjutant. He was now in his element. In the class of 1909, Patton would graduate 46th out of 103 cadets. Upon graduation, he would marry Beatrice, the daughter of a Boston Brahmin and textile magnate, thereby validating his own aristocratic upbringing and instantly making him the wealthiest officer in the U.S. Army. Patton had survived into adulthood and, if he had not overcome his dyslexia, he had at least learned to thrive in his dyslexic world.

George Patton’s unique upbringing was the correct formula for bringing out the best in a dyslexic person. It provided the only way for him to become a historic figure of his stature. It would have been far more likely, given the extent of his disability, that Patton would become anonymous and marginal. Each person in George’s life played a vital role in his development, and the absence of any one of them could have left him unfavorably equipped for any meaningful career in a society that misunderstood his condition. Each of them, no matter how eccentric, outrageous, perfect, or flawed, provided a learning environment tailored for the combination of brilliance and disability that was George Patton.

This article by Glen Jeansonne, Frank C. Haney, and David Luhrssen first appeared in the Warfare History Network several years ago.

Image: Army Lt. George C. Patton jumping an obstacle during the equestrian segment of the Modern Pentathlon at the 1912 Olympic Games in Stockholm, Sweden. Joint Base San Antonio.

John Perry

History, Americas

Prisoner Number One.

During the early hours of December 7, 1941, five midget submarinesof the Imperial Japanese Navy waited to enter Pearl Harbor, the anchorage of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Their mission was to complement the attack of naval aircraft in dealing a crippling blow to the American naval presence in the Pacific. This ambitious plan failed. Only one craft survived, HA-19, along with one member of its two-man crew, Ensign Kazuo Sakamaki, who became “Prisoner No. 1” of the United States in World War II.

The Midget Submarines

Sakamaki grew up in a tradition-bound Japanese culture that showed deep reverence for family, teachers, and Emperor Hirohito. He later explained, “We were taught, and we came to believe, that the most important thing for us was to die manfully on the battlefield—as the petals of the cherry blossoms fall to the ground—and that in war there is only victory and no retreat.” So, he applied for admission to the Japanese Naval Academy at Etajima and became one of 300 chosen from 6,000 applicants. After graduation, he spent a year at sea, then was promoted to ensign and ordered in April 1941 to report to the Chiyoda, a converted seaplane tender, at the Kure naval shipyard.

Sakamaki had been chosen to take part in the development of a secret weapon, the midget submarine, and would join an elite group called the Special Attack Naval Unit. Cadets received training on the island of Ohurazaki, along with a theoretical education at the Torpedo Experimental Division of the Kure Navy Yard. Classes were also held on the tug Kure Maru and seaplane tenders Chiyoda and Nisshin. This intense training program, which was observed and monitored, caused some cadets to drop out and others to commit suicide. Only the finest survived.

Sakamaki and his fellow crewman, Warrant Officer Kiyoshi Inagaki, learned the ins and outs of their special craft. Each sub held two crewmen because of cramped space. The only entrance was through a 16-inch hatch in the conning tower. The Imperial Japanese Navy called these minisubs Ko-Hyoteki, but those attached to units used the mother sub’s name, such as I-24’s midget. Paul J. Kemp says in Midget Submarines that these were “perhaps the most advanced midget submarines in service with any navy during the Second World War.”

Built in 1938, these cigar-shaped minisubs stretched nearly 80 feet with batteries arranged along each side. They could travel at a speed of 23 knots surfaced and 19 knots submerged, but battery charges lasted only 55 minutes. None of the craft carried generators, so they required recharging by a tender or mother submarine.  The torpedo room housed two 18-inch torpedoes, each with around 1,000 pounds of explosives in the warhead. The Japan Optical Manufacturing Company perfected a specialized 10-foot-long miniaturized periscope in secrecy.

In fact, great secrecy shrouded the entire project. The Japanese eventually produced over 400 vessels of four types in a special factory near Kure. Of these, around 60 Type A submarines, the type commanded by Sakamaki, were built. Only key commanders knew details. Dispatches called the craft Special Submarine Boats Koryu (dragon with scales) and other creative names to avoid revealing the true nature of the machines.

When the subs first arrived, one seaman recalled, “After we secured, a barge came alongside each submarine. The barges were carrying strange objects heavily screened by black cloth and guarded by armed sailors and police. The objects were hoisted onto the casing and secured in the cradles—still wreathed in their coverings. We, the ship’s company, were not informed what the objects were. It was only when we proceeded to sea for trials in the Sea of Aki that we learned what we were carrying.  The morale on the submarine was incredible.”

Piggy-Backing to Pearl Harbor

In mid-October 1941, maneuvers around islands in the Inland Sea shifted from mid-ocean strategies to invading narrow inlets at night. “When Captain Harada told us to pay particular attention to Pearl Harbor and Singapore,” Sakamaki recalled, “we thought that one group would probably be used against Pearl Harbor and another group against Singapore.” After crewmen graduated and received a 10-day leave, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, commander of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Combined Fleet, spoke to them aboard the battleship Nagato and emphasized the importance of their secret mission against Pearl Harbor.

Five submarines, I-16, I-18, I-20, I-22, and I-24, were to carry midget submarines behind their coming towers. Each minisub would travel piggybacked to the large submarine’s pressure hull with steel belts and was to be released while the mother ship was submerged, enabling it to avoid exposure to the enemy. Some officers opposed the daring plan to use midget submarines to attack American ships in the narrow confines of Pearl Harbor. Captain Hanku Sasaki, commander of the First Submarine Division, wondered if the big submarines could handle so much weight. “There was too much hurry, hurry, hurry,” he criticized after the war.

Commander Mitsuo Fuchida, who led the air attack against Pearl Harbor, scoffed at the entire plan. Others thought the midget submarines rolled and pitched too much. Their conning towers were exposed, and they depended on mother ships for equipment and maintenance. Besides, the element of surprise, which was essential to the success of the air attack, might be compromised if the midget submarines were discovered.

Sakamaki’s minisub was strapped to submarine I-24, which was a long-range reconnaissance type, 348 feet long with a 30-foot beam.  Nine thousand horsepower enabled them to reach a surface speed of 22 knots. A telephone line from HA-19’s conning tower connected the two craft, and an attached cylinder between the boats allowed crewmen to stock supplies and make periodic equipment checks en route. On November 18, 1941, Sakamaki wrote home, “I am now leaving. I owe you, my parents, a debt I shall never be able to repay. Whatever may happen to me, it is in the service of our country that I go. Words cannot express my gratitude for the privilege of fighting for the cause of peace and justice.”

The five I-class mother ships and their Special Attack Force minisubs left Kure and headed across the North Pacific to Pearl Harbor on a moonless night. They traveled slowly because of cargo and rough weather, running submerged during the day to avoid detection and surfaced during the evening, maintaining a distance of about 20 miles from each other. Commander Mochitsura Hashimoto, skipper of I-24, remembered many troubles during the ocean trip to Hawaii, including clogged pumps, defective valves, and gear malfunctions.

Once I-24 nearly sank because of a stuck blow-valve, which was freed at the last moment. After surfacing, the crew found a crushed torpedo on Sakamaki’s midget sub and worked all night to replace it with a spare.  Hashimoto later said, “This operation may sound easy enough, but in fact, it was far from simple. The lack of space on the narrow upper deck made transporting something weighing over a ton to the after-end of the boat no mean task, say nothing of having to dispose of the damaged torpedo quietly over the side.”

“We were Members of a Suicide Squadron”

The five midget submarines were to be launched off the coast of Oahu where they were to quietly enter Pearl Harbor, navigate around Ford Island counterclockwise, and strike the U.S. battleships moored in the shallow water of the harbor. The minisubs were initially expected to attack between the first and second waves of the air attack. When the American battleships attempted to get underway and escape to the open sea, they might be crippled and clog the mouth of the harbor. “I was astonished and felt as if suddenly petrified,” Sakamaki remembered of the moment the details of the plan were revealed to him. “The effect was like a sudden magic blow.”

Although the plan called for the midget submariners to rendezvous with their mother subs to be recovered on December 8, 1941, about eight miles west of the island of Lanai, Sakamaki realized that the mission was suicidal. The midget submarines lacked battery power to travel such a distance after the assault.

Sakamaki said, “We were members of a suicide squadron. We did not know how we could ever come back.” Rear Admiral Hisashi Mito, who commanded a division of submarine tenders, also remarked after the war that all minisub crewmen “were prepared for death and not expected to return alive.” The name “Special Naval Attack Unit” was a euphemism for suicide attack in the Japanese language. These submariners predated later kamikaze attack units.

By the night of December 6, the mother ships neared Hawaii, and the flickering lights along Oahu’s Waikiki Beach were visible. Landing lights at Hickam Field on Ford Island blazed. Jazz music floated from radios and bars.  Everything appeared calm. The large subs fanned out within 10 nautical miles of Pearl Harbor’s mouth and waited for the moment to launch their midget submarines.

“On to Pearl Harbor!”

Shortly before the launch, Sakamaki wrote a farewell note to his father, made a will, and cut the traditional fingernail clippings and lock of hair for the family altar. Then, he put on his uniform, a cotton fundishi (breech-cloth), leather jacket, and a white hachimaki headband. He and Inagaki also sprayed themselves with perfume of cherry blossoms, and both were now ready to die honorably according to the Bushido code of conduct for Japanese warriors.

After loading their midget sub with everything from charts to tools and chocolate, Sakamaki scrawled in his log that the two sailors would go naked instead of wearing uniforms.  He also wrote, “Today, I will shoulder one important mission, and diving into Pearl Harbor, will sink the enemy’s warships. I was born a man in our country and the present daring enterprise is really the peak of joy. Disregarding the hardships and bitter dangers of the past year, I have trained and the time has come when I will test my ability here. These tubes [submarines] are the pick of our navy. Moreover, they are the result of the wisdom and skill of several tens of thousands of Japanese. In the present operation, the strength of the crew is even more prepared than the torpedoes and certainly we are all completely affected by a feeling of self-sacrifice.”

A final test before launching, however, uncovered a gyro failure on the minisub. Inagaki made a frantic attempt to repair it—without success. So Sakamaki decided to steer by memory, use a magnetic compass, and rely on periscope checks for location, all foolish but heroic choices. When asked if he wanted to back out, he replied, “On to Pearl Harbor!”

Around 3 am on December 6, Sakamaki and Inagaki squeezed into their black-hulled craft through the attached cylinder. Theirs was the last sub launched. Telephone lines were cut.  Heavy steel clamps released. The sailors moved toward Pearl under their own battery power, but trouble shadowed their midget sub from the start.

During the launch, HA-19 took a nose dive and nearly stood on its head. Sakamaki reversed the engines to slow down the descent, while Inagaki shifted ballast around and filled tanks with water to correct the trim. HA-19’s thin pressure hull would crack below 100 feet.  It took hours to fix things, which set the nerves of both men on edge. Afterward, they ate rice balls and drank grape wine before raising the ship to check its location through the periscope.  They had gone 90 degrees off course and were heading back out to sea.

“My hands were wet with cold sweat,” Sakamaki recalled. “I changed the direction three or four times, hoping against hope that somehow the ship would get going where I wanted to go.” But the tube would not head toward the harbor all night.

December 7th

The sun rose on Sunday, December 7, and HA-19 still remained outside the harbor’s entrance. Looking through the periscope, Sakamaki saw several U.S. destroyers moving back and forth across the entrance to Pearl. He decided to run the gauntlet, but the sonar aboard the destroyer USS Ward, which had sunk one of the midget subs earlier in the morning, picked up Sakamaki’s HA-19 and dropped depth charges that shook it violently. Sakamaki lost his balance, hit the side of the conning tower, and lost consciousness.

“I came to myself in a short while and saw white smoke in my submarine,” he later wrote in his memoir I Attacked Pearl Harbor. “I changed the speed to half gear and turned the ship around. I wanted to see if any damage had been done to the ship. My aide was all right.  The two torpedoes were all right. So I got ready to try again to break through the destroyers.”  HA-19 shot ahead. More depth charges came from the Ward. Sakamaki ordered another dive.

When Sakamaki later brought the minisub up to periscope depth, he saw columns of black smoke rising from inside the harbor. Ships were burning. The air attack had succeeded. This prompted him to head straight for the harbor, but the sub went aground on a coral reef, its bow lifting out of the water, propellers spinning in reverse. Most accounts say that the destroyer USS Helm fired shots at HA-19, which missed but knocked the sub loose, damaging one of its torpedoes. Sakamaki, however, said he was told later that a destroyer fired on the minisub, but he “didn’t hear any loud explosions at all at the time.”

The situation worsened. Gas leaks from the batteries made both Sakamaki and Inagaki sick and dizzy. They had to move 11-pound ballast pigs from front to rear on the slippery flooded floor, suffering electric shocks and becoming exhausted from the hot and foul atmosphere.  Temperatures reached around 135 degrees inside. They finally freed the minisub but found its torpedo-firing mechanism defective, which now left them weaponless.

Sakamaki wept at the thought of failure and decided to ram a battleship, turning HA-19 into a manned torpedo. “I had set out for Pearl Harbor with the purpose of sinking a battleship,” he later explained to a U.S. Navy intelligence officer. “Although we were able to reach the mouth of the harbor by creeping underneath your bombs falling like rain, our accident was fatal to the submarine. So we determined to proceed without hesitation on the surface of the water, dash into the harbor and climb the (USS Pennsylvania’s) gangway ladder. We hoped to leap onto the deck and die simultaneously with blowing up the enemy warship.”

But this fanciful plan also backfired. Depth charges had disabled the tube’s steering ability, and it spun around erratically. Interior air pressure rose to above 40 pounds. The sailors choked and gasped. Their eyes burned. Lurching made them dazed and weakened. Both seamen finally collapsed, and the craft drifted out to sea.

When Sakamaki finally awoke, he opened the hatch to get fresh air from the cool breeze and saw land. Initially, he thought he had reached the rendezvous point off Lanai. Instead, he was near Bellows Field on the eastern shoreline of Oahu. He tried to start the sub, but its batteries sputtered and went dead. HA-19 then ran aground. The two Japanese sailors decided to set off an explosive charge in the after battery room and swim for it. Sakamaki lit the detonator fuse, and both jumped overboard.

“The water was cold,” Sakamaki later wrote. “The waves were big. I could not move freely and I swallowed salt water. One minute. Two minutes. No explosion. I began to worry about the ship. The midget submarine had to be destroyed. I wanted to go back, but there was no strength left in me. Neither my aide nor I could shout to each other. Strength gradually went out of me. Then I saw my aide no more.  He was swallowed up by the giant waves. I lost consciousness.” U.S. soldiers later found Inagaki’s body.

Prisoner No. 1 of the Pacific War

Before dawn on December 8, Lieutenant P.C. Plybon and Corporal D.M. Akui, serving beach duty near Bellows Field about 15 miles east of Pearl Harbor, saw someone swimming toward shore.

“At first we thought it was a big turtle, and then we could see his arms moving as he swam,” said the lieutenant. Corporal Akui fired a rifle shot over the figure’s head. Then Plybon waded into the water and seized Sakamaki, who was wearing only an undershirt and a g-string with 15 cents in Japanese currency sewn into a prayer belt. He dragged the dazed, 127-pound Japanese sailor to shore with the help of Corporal Akui. The Americans shackled his hands and feet, rolled him in an army blanket, and tied him up. Taken to a detention station and interrogated, Sakamaki became “Prisoner No. 1” of the Pacific War.

The humiliated Sakamaki asked only to commit suicide. “My honor as a soldier has fallen to the ground,” he told American intelligence officers. “Due entirely to my inexpert navigation and strategy, I betrayed the expectations of our 100 million people and became a sad prisoner of war disloyal to my country.”

Around 8:45 am, lookouts spotted Sakamaki’s submarine from an observation tower.  It was beached on a reef about a mile from shore. A reconnaissance plane with two officers from the 86th Observation Squadron aboard flew out and made a sketch of the midget sub, which they gave to the squadron commander. Several Navy planes then dropped bombs around HA-19 in an attempt to dislodge it from the coral reef. The commanding officer at Bellows Field contacted the Navy submarine depot, requesting that salvage specialists investigate the situation.

Examining the Midget Sub

On the rainy morning of December 10, a crew from Pearl Harbor arrived to salvage the disabled minisub, eventually towing it to shore by attaching a cable to its conning tower. A young radioman named Charles L. Jackson was told by his chief to strip down, swim out the few yards, and take a look: “I didn’t argue,” he commented. “I quickly backed away, then swam to the side of the sub and pulled myself up near the conning tower. I looked back at the chief and he motioned to me to enter the boat. I opened the hatch and nearly fell off the side. The stench was so great, I took a few deep breaths, then climbed on top of the tower to let myself into the small opening of the hatch … As I looked around the darkened interior, I saw the communication gear on the starboard side, a navigation chart and instruments were on the port side.”

Several others joined Jackson on the midget sub. “As I worked on dismantling the radio, the officer crawled forward to examine the torpedoes while the chief went aft into the battery compartment to examine the batteries and propulsion gear,” he said.

During the search, Jackson found an official U.S. Navy chart of Pearl Harbor penciled in with positions of warships. This chart led a board of inquiry to believe that Sakamaki’s midget submarine had actually entered the harbor and traveled around Ford Island before the attack. The theory was later discarded because ideographs gave no sense of the time element, notations seemed too neat and organized, and such a route presented execution problems.

Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at the time of the attack, also reasoned, “It didn’t make sense. They could see from the hills, so why risk a submarine going in there?… I would strongly discount anything except the most positive evidence that the Japanese were stupid enough to send a submarine in there merely for the purposes of observing.”

Although experts first hoped to examine HA-19 on land at Bellows Field, they decided to dismantle the vessel into three sections and examine it at Pearl Harbor. A year later, on November 30, 1942, a bronze plaque on a stone base was placed in front of the post headquarters at Bellows Field to honor those men who helped capture Sakamaki and the Japanese minisub.

“Remember Pearl Harbor”

The curious tale of midget sub HA-19 continued. Although it had suffered damage to the rudders, torpedoes, propellers, and bow net cutter, the vessel still remained in good condition and was outfitted as a traveling exhibit without periscope, motor, and most of its original equipment. Damaged parts were repaired with parts from a midget sub rammed in Pearl Harbor by the destroyer USS Monaghan. Electrical fixtures were installed, dummy batteries and motor added, and 22 small windows cut in the hull.

During the war, HA-19 toured 41 states on a trailer, draped in red, white, and blue bunting, promoting the slogan “Remember Pearl Harbor.” Millions bought war bonds and stamps to get a glimpse of the vessel and look inside.  Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt inspected it at Mare Island. The traveling HA-19 raised enough money to repair all the ships damaged at Pearl Harbor during the brutal attack.

After the war, HA-19 sat rusting at the Navy Pier in Chicago. It was later sent to a museum in Key West, Florida, and is now on display at the National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg, Texas.

The Japanese high command spread propaganda that one of the midget subs had sunk the battleship USS Arizona, which had actually been destroyed from the air. One book praised, “Dashing courageously into Pearl Harbor, they completed their task and then calmly awaited death. It came, and they faced it with smiles on their faces. When our thoughts dwell on their gallant deed and we recall their great act of sacrifice, how can we help but become overcome with the deepest feeling of emotion?”

Paintings and postcards romanticized the midget submarine sailors who lost their lives at Pearl Harbor, but Sakamaki is excluded from any mention. His image is not present in memorial artwork. The Japanese were aware that HA-19 and Sakamaki had both been captured. Having failed in his mission and lived, Sakamaki had become an outcast.

40 More Minisubs

Throughout the war in the Pacific, Japanese midget subs made meager contributions. The Pearl Harbor plan had apparently failed.  Around 40 more minisubs failed to achieve any notable success at Guadalcanal, the Aleutians, the Philippines, Saipan, Okinawa, or Sydney, Australia. One, however, nearly made history when its torpedo narrowly missed the cruiser USS Boise in the strait between Negros and Siquijor Islands. Aboard the ship at the time was General Douglas MacArthur, commander of Allied forces in the South Pacific.

After the war, Kazuo Sakamaki married, wrote his memoirs, and eventually rose to become Production Chief of Toyota’s Export Division in Nagoya. He later became president of Toyota in Brazil. He died on November 29, 1999, still remembered as “Prisoner No. 1” of the Pacific War.

This article by John Perry first appeared at the Warfare History Network.

Image: Midget Japanese submarine beached at Bellows Field, Hawaii, after the attack on  Pearl Harbor of Dec. 7, 1941. U.S. Navy.

Andrew Dix

Politics, Americas

He should watch these movies.

Strange to say, but Donald Trump might have been a filmmaker rather than real estate magnate. As he informs us in The Art of the Deal, his book of autobiographical recollection and business advice, he “flirted briefly with the idea of attending film school at the University of Southern California”.

Hotels, apartment blocks and casinos, rather than movie lots, ultimately became the favoured spaces for demonstration of Trumpian creativity. But he has remained a keen fan of cinema, and in 2012 identified his five favourite films for Movieline: Citizen Kane (1941), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), Gone with the Wind (1939), GoodFellas (1990) and The Godfather (1972).

What do these films tell us about the Trump worldview? Each offers a spectacle of male potency, often in peril but persisting in the face of opposition, whether this is exerted by women or by forces of law and order. These movies can be understood as offering Trump support, in celluloid form, for a philosophy Oliver Jones calls social Darwinist: “He views the world as an irrational jungle where the most successful people are tough, masculine and neurotic.”

But what would a canon of anti-Trump cinema look like? Where might we find films that challenge his expressed values or the policies ? Here, countering his Movieline choices, are five movies that Trump might learn something from.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

While Trump’s campaign pitch presents the businessman in America as heroic visionary, Paul Thomas Anderson’s film unveils him instead as a sociopath. The pursuit of oil in California by Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) crushes bodies and destroys family bonds; at the end, guilty of murder, he hunches alone and defeated in his version of Trump Tower.

(This first appeared in 2016.)

The film offers subversive insights, also, into how an entrepreneur fashions a winning persona: the ruthless Plainview addresses those whose land he would possess in folksy and god-fearing rhetoric, practising public relations techniques that will be perfected in our advanced media age. Were Trump to appreciate satire (not his favourite genre, one suspects), he might learn something here.

4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days (2007)

In this harrowing Romanian film directed by Cristian Mungiu, a student, assisted by a female friend, desperately seeks an illegal abortion. Trump’s thinking on abortion has proved adjustable for different constituencies, shifting latterly from pro-choice to pro-life. But Mungiu graphically shows the effects of curtailing women’s rights in the exploited bodies and damaged psychologies of his two protagonists.

Here too, in the film’s emphasis on social constraints, is an antidote to Trumpian optimism. The power of positive thinking, imbibed by Trump as a young New Yorker from clergyman and self-help author Norman Vincent Peale, can achieve nothing in the world of this film.

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005)

In his 2015 book Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again, Trump reiterates his sense of the nation as citadel: “Nobody can build a wall like me. I will build a great wall on our southern border.” Tommy Lee Jones’s blackly comic neo-Western finds holes and crossings in the US/Mexico frontier, rather than sealing off each nation from the other. Illegal migration here is also southward rather than exclusively northbound, as an American border guard who begins in a state of Trumpian paranoia heads into Mexico looking for redemption.

The Age of Stupid (2009)

Included in this film’s montage of ecological casualties are the casinos of Las Vegas, now buried in sand. Not Trump’s own Vegas skyscraper, admittedly, but still worryingly close to home. (Or perhaps, to Trump, not so worryingly, given this political campaigner’s scepticism towards climate change – the short chapter on the subject in Crippled America is subtitled “A Lot of Hot Air”.) Mixing apocalyptic sci-fi imagery with testimonies by globally dispersed witnesses, Franny Armstrong’s film aims instead to produce environmentally activist viewers.

Bob Roberts (1992)

Bob Roberts is running here not for president, but for a senator’s seat in Pennsylvania. The similarities with Trump are nevertheless uncanny: each has been educated in military academy and business school, each is a highly successful entrepreneur, and each galvanises audiences by summoning up visions of US decline. While more scatter-gun than focused in its political satire, the film’s account of Roberts’s unlikely success displays a sense of panic familiar to American progressives in our present moment. Tellingly, its last word, after the credits, is “VOTE”.

There is, however, no guarantee that a Trumpian reading even of these five films would be progressive. Trump revealed a capacity for inventive movie interpretation – deflecting rather than absorbing challenges to his worldview – in remarks he made about Citizen Kane for the US film director Errol Morris in 2002. He chooses not to see the film as a disturbing portrait of the authoritarian personality or of the businessman as dangerous populist (the favoured view of critics). Instead, asked by Morris what advice he would give Charles Foster Kane, Trump dwells only on Kane’s two troubled marriages and replies: “Get yourself a different woman.”

Once again, then, the subject of Trump’s ideal cinema is revealed as the aspirational American male, ever mindful of threats to his potency.

[ Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter. ] Screen reader support enabled.

o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">

















alt="The Conversation" style='width:.6pt;height:.6pt;visibility:visible;
mso-wrap-style:square'>
o:title="The Conversation"/>

style='mso-element:field-begin;mso-field-lock:yes'> SHAPE style='mso-spacerun:yes'> \* MERGEFORMAT

id="Rectangle_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_s1026" style='width:11.4pt;height:11.4pt;
visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;mso-left-percent:-10001;
mso-top-percent:-10001;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-horizontal-relative:char;mso-position-vertical:absolute;
mso-position-vertical-relative:line;mso-left-percent:-10001;mso-top-percent:-10001;
v-text-anchor:top' o:gfxdata="UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQC75UiUBQEAAB4CAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbKSRvU7DMBSF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" filled="f" stroked="f">

id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:11.4pt;height:11.4pt'>

​

Andrew Dix, Lecturer in American Studies, Loughborough University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Reuters.

Chris White

Politics, Americas

Is that possible?

Sen. Bernie Sanders’s struggle to defend some of his lofty proposals at Tuesday’s debate raises questions about some of his other ideas, namely those stemming from his version of the Green New Deal.

Sanders revealed his own GND in August 2019, promising everything from “virtually free” electricity and a “hunger-free” transition to green energy from fossil fuels. The democratic socialist’s nearly 14,000-page memo also lays out how he will deal with a variety of social justice issues.

“Generating revenue from the wholesale of energy produced by the regional Power Marketing Authorities. Revenues will be collected from 2023-2035, and after 2035 electricity will be virtually free,” according to the memo on the Sanders campaign website.

It contained one significant caveat.

The cost of electricity under Sanders’s plan is dependent on operation and maintenance costs, the memo notes, which could be substantial if past reports are any indication. Critics say Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would force American taxpayers to shell out trillions of dollars over the next decade to pay for the transition.

Republicans in the Senate torpedoed the Ocasio-Cortez’s legislation in March 2019 as Democrats called the vote a dog-and-pony show. The GOP defeated the proposal 57-0; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bill a socialistic ploy designed to kill the economy.

The resolution called for “10-year national mobilizations” toward addressing climate change. A fact sheet published alongside the proposal said the plan would “mobilize every aspect of American society on a scale not seen since World War 2.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s GND would reportedly phase out fossil fuel usage within 12 years, but could cost tens of trillions of dollars, some reports show. Americans could be forced to pay up to $93 trillion to implement the proposal over a decade, the conservative-leaning American Action Forum (AAF) noted in a study in February 2019.

Sanders, for his part, is pegging his campaign to an ambitious plan — to nationalize U.S. electricity generation. He laid out a $16 trillion plan transitioning such forms of generation away from oil and other fossil fuels and toward green energy projects like wind and solar power.

Moderate Democrats have ripped Sanders’s plans.

“What the Sanders proposal would do is create an 800-pound federally owned power gorilla that would make it very hard for the existing generators to compete,” Josh Freed, head of energy and climate policy at Third Way, said in a Feb. 2 Politico report. Third Way opposes Sanders.

Freed added: “I think a plan like this could turn off voters in large parts of the country. It would have challenges in Pennsylvania, Michigan — a lot of the states that are competitive for the election.”

Sanders’s Democratic opponents ambushed the Vermont senator during Tuesday’s debate.

Sanders defended himself after former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg characterized his policies as radical and communistic.

“Is Medicare for all, universal health care, some kind of communist radical agenda?” Sanders asked in response at one pint in the debate. He also took great pains to explain how he would pay for his Medicare-for-all proposal.

Sanders’s campaign has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

This article by Chris White first appeared at the Daily Caller.

Image: Reuters.

David Uren

Economics, World

Just as the course of the virus is uncertain, so too is its likely economic impact.

The US and Australian share markets were touching record highs until 21 February, when they woke up to the possibility that the novel coronavirus—which had by that stage infected 78,000 people and killed nearly 2,400—would have a global economic impact.

The immediate trigger for the market taking fright was the report of outbreaks in South Korea, Japan, Italy and Iran, which led to concern that the virus wasn’t confined to China’s central province of Hubei but was becoming a global pandemic.

But just as the course of the virus is uncertain, so too is its likely economic impact; predictions vary wildly and it’s difficult to trace the effects of previous epidemics.

In its interim economic assessment released on 2 March, the OECD forecast that global economic growth will be just 2.4% this year, down from 2.9% in 2019. This represents lost output of around US$425 billion.

The OECD says the projected drop reflects the impact of the virus on confidence, financial markets, the travel industry and business supply chains.

Modelling by Australian National University economists Warwick McKibbin and Roshen Fernando comes up with much larger numbers, showing a pandemic would lead to a loss of global production of anywhere from US$2 trillion to US$9 trillion, depending on how many are infected and killed by the virus. Their modelling assumes a pandemic results in the death of at least 15,000 people and possibly as many as 68,000.

However, it’s been hard to identify the economic effects of past global health crises. A study conducted at the height of the AIDS epidemic in the mid-1990s found it was impossible to detect a statistically significant effect on per capita income in the African economies where it hit hardest.

Moreover, the study by one of the world’s leading experts in the economics of demography, Harvard’s David Bloom, along with Melbourne University’s health economist, Ajay Mahal, found that neither the bubonic plague in the 14th century nor the Spanish flu of 1918–1920 was associated with any measurable fall in incomes or output.

In the case of AIDS, they suggest that the African countries most affected already had high unemployment, so labour shortages didn’t emerge, despite the high impact on working-age men.   Higher income and more productive workers were more likely to take preventive measures and avoid the disease, with the burden falling most heavily upon the poor. The greatest responsibility for healthcare was taken on by community-based organisations and family networks, which provided services more efficiently than the formal health system.

About 75 million people are estimated to have been infected with HIV since the start of the epidemic in the early 1980s, and 32 million have died.

In the case of the bubonic plague, which spread in several waves through Western Europe between 1348 and 1374 killing around a quarter of the population, the researchers were able to track the wages of unskilled British labourers working on the estates of the bishops of Winchester between 1310 and 1449, using a measure of inflation calculated with reference to the historical price of wheat. They could see the effect of the plague on population measurements, but there was no statistically significant effect on real wages.

The Spanish flu epidemic had its greatest impact in India, claiming an estimated 20 million lives or 6.2% of the country’s population. The study compared the acreage sown to crops in the provinces that were worst hit with those with lower mortality rates and found there was no measurable difference in output per person.

A more recent study done for the World Health Organization by two leading health economists,  Victoria Fan and Dean Jamison, along with former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers, says looking at potential loss in per capita income is the wrong way to measure the impact of an epidemic, because it puts no value at all on the lives that are lost.

‘If, in assessments of investments in pandemic preparedness and mitigation, we neglect this dimension of loss, we will underestimate the value of such investments, relative to alternative uses of public finances’, they say.

Their study used methods borrowed from the life insurance industry to estimate the expected loss from an influenza pandemic that resulted in 720,000 deaths, and came up with an economic impact of US$500 billion.

They noted that their study did not take account of the cost of non-fatal illness or the fear of pandemics, adding that intense media coverage may lead populations to overreact to mild pandemics.

Fear can have a big effect. A later report by Bloom for the International Monetary Fund notes that Liberia’s GDP growth collapsed by 8 percentage points in the wake of the Ebola outbreak in 2013–14, even though the country’s overall death rate fell in that period.

For the moment, it is the mixture of fear of the pandemic and official efforts to slow the spread of coronavirus that are having the biggest impact. Quarantines are making it difficult for workers in China to get to their workplaces, while travel restrictions are throttling the universities. A mix of travel restrictions and public fear has led to plunging tourism turnover.

Yesterday, the US Federal Reserve announced an unscheduled cut in interest rates by 0.5 of a percentage point. The Reserve Bank of Australia also lowered interest rates yesterday, by 0.25 basis points, and there are calls for the government to provide the sort of economic stimulus that helped Australia avoid the worst of the 2008 global financial crisis. However, the reality is that such policy measures have no effect on the supply bottlenecks that are squeezing businesses.

Then there’s the possibility of second-round effects. Economists have been warning for years about excessive Chinese corporate indebtedness, so there are concerns that the drop in turnover might result in a debt crisis. Just last week, news emerged that the Chinese aviation and property development conglomerate HNA Group is in crisis and seeking a government bailout over its US$75 billion debt while electric car maker Nio is trying to secure a US$1.4 billion bailout from a municipal government.

There are similar vulnerabilities in the US leveraged loan and junk bond markets, where debts can keep being rolled over only as long as underlying demand in the economy remains strong.

David Uren is an honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

This article first appeared at the Australian Strategy Policy Institute.

Image: Reuters.

Michael E. Haskew

History, Europe

The least fearsome army of World War II...

After assuming dictatorial powers in Italy, Benito Mussolini remained a popular figure with the Italian people – for a time. The Fascist dictator enacted large public works programs, expanded the military, and created jobs. A popular expression noted that he “made the trains run on time.”

Always, however, Mussolini was pursuing a foreign policy that he believed would restore Italy to the glory days of the Roman Empire. In the process, Il Duce, or the leader, would be lionized as a modern day Caesar. Blinded by ambition and to divert attention from the economic hardship of the Great Depression, Mussolini embarked upon a series of military actions for which Italy’s armed forces were hardly well prepared.

Supporting Francisco Franco

The Italian Army invaded Ethiopia in 1935. During a brutal war, the Italians used aircraft, tanks, machine guns, and poison gas to subdue the Ethiopians, and Il Duce proclaimed the beginning of the 20th century Roman Empire. However, the victory in Ethiopia was more show than substance, and Mussolini’s future military adventures foundered.

In 1936, Mussolini threw military support to the Nationalists of Francisco Franco, who were fighting a civil war with the Republican government of Spain. Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany also supported Franco, and Italy received little tangible benefit for its military commitment. Although he had been wary of Hitler at first, Mussolini became enamored with the Nazi leader and obligated his country to the Rome-Berlin Axis in 1936, the Tripartite Pact the following year, and the Pact of Steel in 1939. During a five-day campaign in April of that year, his army overran the tiny country of Albania across the Adriatic Sea. That military victory, such as it was, signaled the last Italian battlefield success of any consequence.

In June 1940, Mussolini declared war on Great Britain and France, affirming his devotion to Hitler and ultimately sealing his own fate. In October, Il Duce sent his army across the Albanian frontier into Greece. The Greeks, however, proved to be no pushover, and the German Army eventually intervened to subdue the Greece and its fighting allies of the British Commonwealth.

A Predictable Outcome

When Mussolini’s armies in North Africa took on the British, the result was predictable. By early 1941, the Italian Army had been humiliated in the desert. More than 140,000 Italian soldiers were taken prisoner in just two months from December 1940 to February 1941, during the British offensive codenamed Operation Compass. Once again, Hitler came to Mussolini’s rescue, sending General Erwin Rommel and the soon-to-be legendary Afrika Korps to stabilize the situation.

Events then spiraled completely out of Mussolini’s control. He had obviously become the junior partner in the Axis coalition, and while Hitler’s forces had marched from victory to victory his own ill-equipped and poorly led army was regularly drubbed. Rapidly, Il Duce’s popularity wavered and then collapsed. The Italian people grew tired of the news of endless defeats, lengthy casualty lists, and the hardship of rationing.

His dream of empire shattered, Mussolini effectively lost his war in 1942. By the summer of 1943, he was ousted from office and imprisoned. Only the good graces of Adolf Hitler, whose elite special forces troops rescued him from a mountaintop prison, staved off inevitable retribution. Shot dead by a Communist partisan in April 1945, Benito Mussolini died in shame, his body strung up by its heels in front of a garage in the city of Milan so that his once adoring public might jeer and batter his corpse.

This article by Michael Haskew first appeared at the Warfare History Network several years ago.

Image: Mussolini in Mailand, Germany. May 1930. Bundesarchiv.

Warfare History Network

History, Europe

Better than an airship?

Key point: In the WWI era, these bombers represented a significant improvement. However, they weren't enough to win the war for Berlin.

On May 25, 1917, a fleet of 21 bombers lumbered in a line at 12,000 feet over the English coast. The biplanes, each carrying 13 bombs, had wingspans exceeding 70 feet, immense for World War I aircraft. German military leaders called the planes Gothas, hoping the name would add an element of terror to English citizens in their homes below.

Earlier that day the Gothas, a top-secret weapon carefully concealed at Belgian airfields, had taken off and headed toward England, about 175 miles away. The super-bombers were led by Ernst Brandenburg, personally selected to head Kagohl 3, the elite of Kaiser Wilhelm’s bombing squadrons organized for raids on England. The target was London. Because the British weren’t expecting these newly designed warplanes, they were not prepared to spot their arrival or to stop them.

Ironically, in the spring of 1917, British residents believed the battle for the skies over their country was already won. They had been able to sleep soundly in their beds for about eight consecutive months with no German Zeppelins daring the North Sea with their deadly bombs. The Gothas now heading toward London had a much greater potential for causing damage than the Zeppelins, which could muster only small bomb loads.

The German Gotha

Although no other bomber, German or Allied, cradled more than two 112-pound bombs, the Gotha was capable of carrying more than 10 times that amount and dropping them with remarkable accuracy by using a high-tech Goerz bombsight.

Twin engines gave these bombers a top speed of 88 miles per hour and a ceiling of 16,000 feet, well above the reach of most defensive fighters then based in England. Because the Gothas flew so high, tanks of liquid oxygen were available if needed by crewmembers. The aircraft’s many unique features convinced German leaders that the Gotha was a plane capable of winning the war.

The 34-year-old Brandenburg took off with 23 bombers from grass fields near Ghent and headed for the Nieuwunster Airfield 40 miles away to refuel. (A reserve fuel tank was later installed under the upper wing to avoid this delay on future raids.)

One Gotha experienced engine problems halfway to the coast and landed near Thielt. Another suffered fuel line problems over the North Sea and began falling behind. Unfortunately, Brandenburg had no radio (because of its prohibitive weight) to find out what was wrong with this Gotha, which was painted with undulating serpents from nose to tail. Finally, the pilot of the troubled plane fired several red flares to indicate he was turning back and dumped his bombs into the sea. Meanwhile, an observer on board scribbled a message about the bomber’s problems to be carried back to a German coastal station by one of two pigeons aboard.

“The Whole Street Seemed to Explode, With Smoke and Flames Everywhere”

Brandenburg had marched off to war in 1914 as an infantry officer, but after being severely wounded ended up an air observer flying over the front. From observer he had moved up to command the important Englandflieger, or England Squadrons, which he was now leading up the Thames Valley without opposition. Thick, towering clouds greeted the planes over the capital instead of the clear weather forecast in Belgium. Accurate bombing would be impossible, so the pilots reluctantly turned southeast and headed off to find another target.

They dropped a scattering of bombs along the way over Kent. These were aimed at Lympne Airfield and destroyed a few British airplanes about to take off. The Gothas then went in search of Folkestone, a major supply port for British armies in France.

The sky was clear at this seaside resort filled with unsuspecting crowds in a holiday mood for a Whitsun celebration. The Gothas droned high overhead. Although the raid lasted only 10 minutes, 60 bombs found their way to unsuspecting throngs in the Tortine Street shopping district. “The whole street seemed to explode, with smoke and flames everywhere,” one eyewitness reported. “Worst of all were the screams of the wounded.” The death toll was 95 along with 260 wounded, far higher than from any German Zeppelin airship raid.

The Gothas droned out over the North Sea again for the return flight to Belgium, ending their raid. The Germans had just introduced a new degree of aerial warfare, changing how wars from the sky would be fought during World War I and in future wars.

German efforts to create strategic bombing from the air with specially designed monster planes sprang from the hope of escaping the war’s hideous and interminable slaughter of ground troops. The bombers appealed to the German emperor and his High Command because they believed civilians had been softened by the Industrial Age and saw a chance to strike at the working class, considered Britain’s soft underbelly.

The Kaiser’s Secret Weapon

Brandenburg was personally selected to head Kagohl 3, the elite of the Kaiser’s bombing squadrons for the raids on England, by General Ernst von Hoeppner. Kagohl 3 was attached to the German Fourth Army in Flanders, but operated independently of fighting on that front. Its orders came directly from the German Army High Command (OHL).

A striking commander with dark, intelligent eyes, Brandenburg emphasized training his crews to handle the unwieldy bombers and to fly together like geese. In the middle of May when the Gothas were ready for their first raid on London, the revered Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg was driven to a Flanders airfield in a large open car to give Kagohl 3 airmen a fitting sendoff. The lined-up planes were snow-white except for bold black crosses on their tails and fuselages and customized body painting to suit a crew’s own taste.

The Germans began air attacks in late 1914 by using their unique Zeppelins. While drawing considerable publicity, these airships caused only minor damage. When the OHL lost faith in the Zeppelins, it ordered increased Gotha bomber production. These planes were produced by the Gothaer Waggonfabrik AG Company, a prewar maker of railway carriages. The German High Command wanted 30 Gothas ready by late May.

Dubbed “the Kaiser’s secret weapon,” Gothas were a big improvement over early aerial combat efforts in small, rickety planes. Early emphasis had been on “dogfights” between opposing pilots, then some airmen began tossing small bombs from their open cockpits. Soon French pilots were dropping pencil-sized steel darts called flechettes on unsuspecting ground troops 1,500 feet below. Some were said to have fatally wounded a German general riding on horseback.

Bombing efforts gradually became more sophisticated until larger bombers like the Gothas were specially designed to pack a bigger wallop. Gothas were only 41 feet long, far shorter than their extensive wingspans. Two early Gotha models had 72-foot wingspans, with wings on more widely used G.IV models extending 77 feet. The bombers ranged from the G.I model with two 160-horsepower Benz motors, to the improved G.IVs equipped with more powerful 260-horsepower Mercedes motors. The fuselage and wings were made of plywood and fabric.

Brandenburg Pounces on London

In the front sat the navigator/bombardier, who was also the front gunner. Behind were the pilots. The tail had two guns reachable by a tunnel running through the rear fuselage. One was called the “sting in the tail” because it shot downward to cover the tail’s blind spot. The other rear gun was able to shoot above the plane if an attacker approached from that direction.

The machine guns were fitted with electrical dynamo-driven heating so they could be fired in the cold air of high altitudes. Because of chilling temperatures, the airmen dressed as warmly as possible. In addition, oxygen was taken along, but it wasn’t always used. “We rather preferred to restore our body warmth and energy with an occasional gulp of cognac,” claimed one pilot.

Brandenburg had to wait weeks for another try on London, but when good weather was predicted, he pounced. Brandenburg and 14 Gothas took off from Ghent at 10 am on June 13, hoping to return before forecast thunderstorms at 3 pm.

By midday the Gothas were droning up the Thames. The distant rumble was heard first by English suburb dwellers, who stepped outside to watch the planes—their wonder greater than their fear. They stared in awe at the distinctive formation three miles up. Because of their great height, a British volley from ground guns proved fruitless.

At 11:35 am, the Gothas dropped some bombs on London’s East End, with a cluster falling between the Royal Albert Docks and the borough of East Ham. Eight men were killed at the docks and bombs damaged some sheds, offices, and railway cars. Brandenburg, in the lead plane, fired a white flare signaling the Gothas to unleash their main bomb loads, Liverpool Street Station being the prime target. With terrible explosions, 72 bombs landed within a mile of the terminal—only three hit the station itself. Some victims were trapped in a wrecked dining car and two coaches were set afire.

Anxiety Sweeps the British Capital

Six Gothas then flew across the Thames near Tower Bridge to bomb the Southwark district railway station. Warehouses along the river suffered other blasts. Nearby, a Tottenham Court Road factory was burned out, and 34 casualties resulted when a bomb blasted a Royal Mint mechanic shop. Over the East End borough of Poplar, a bomber dropped a 110-pound bomb on the Upper North Street School; of the nearly 600 students, some 20 were killed and more than 30 injured.

The circling Gothas quickly closed up into formation and fled the capital. They faced only a few attacking planes over the suburbs, killing one British observer-gunner, but losing none of their own aircraft. The whole mission took about five hours. That night the Germans at the airbase threw a big party, with Captain Brandenburg proclaimed a hero. In all, his attack killed 132 people and injured 432—more than in any previous airplane or airship raid.

While the British admitted this first London raid was spectacular, they insisted it was far from crippling. Nevertheless, it caused a depressive anxiety to grip the capital. Because many workers feared the bombers could return, they stayed away from East End factory jobs. Meanwhile, citizens harangued local politicians over the safety of their homes and families. Prime Minister David Lloyd George and his War Cabinet felt something had to be done to soothe the aroused public and decided to call back two fighter squadrons from the war front, home-based planes not being up to the task.

Brandenburg was seriously injured in a plane crash while returning to his airfield from a report to OHL. The Germans named Captain Rudolf Kleine his successor and urged more raids. The new 30-year-old squadron leader with deep, brooding eyes never gained the affection of the crews that Brandenburg had enjoyed, though he commanded their respect.

London residents were surprised again on July 7 when 21 Gothas raided a second time. Most bombs fell on private homes, plus a few offices and warehouses in northern and eastern London. The Gothas also sank a Thames barge and damaged a pier. Although only 57 people were killed and 193 injured—less than half the first London raid’s toll—Kleine terrified much of the populace by bombing their rundown houses instead of military targets.

The Brits Struggle to Counterattack

The British sent 95 planes aloft on July 7, but most were old and no match for the Gothas. The defense also lacked overall direction and coordination. Prime Minister George felt a new voice was needed to solve this problem and picked Jan Smuts, the well-known South African statesman, to form a committee to study the situation. This eventually led to the creation of an effective air defense system, plus the formation of the Royal Air Force (RAF).

Soon improved countermeasures were coordinated by a high command of operations newly located in the Horse Guards Parade building. The British began to learn the preferred routes of the Gothas. To better counter nighttime raiders, English spotters designed a system of warning Londoners by changing the natural gas pressure. When the lights went up and down twice, Londoners had to draw all their window curtains, thus depriving Gotha crews of visual navigation and bombing aids. In addition, Gothas had to contend with more skillfully aimed antiaircraft barrages and fighter planes that knew their routes. At night, powerful searchlights probed the sky. Also helping was the ingenious British invention of barrage balloons. They trailed steel cables designed to cut through the wings of attacking planes if unsuspecting German pilots flew too low. Indeed, here was a “Battle of Britain” and “Blitz” 22 years before the Hitler’s air campaign of 1940.

The British eventually learned how to shoot down Gothas, but many more of the German behemoths were lost in landing accidents. The mammoth biplane was notoriously nose-heavy, especially when bomb loads were expended and fuel was low. When these Gothas returned in storms, the landings were described “controlled crashes,” with many of these crack-ups bringing heavy crew casualties.

Four-Engine Biplane Giants

Nevertheless, Gothas had a powerful effect, especially during a week near the end of September 1917. These were the “Harvest Moon Raids,” the pilots sighting by the light of the moon. Residents became so unnerved by the continual bombings that 300,000 or more people a night flocked to the London Underground. It got so bad that entire families started taking to the streets at night with pillows, blankets, and food baskets along with dogs, cats, and caged birds to head for the Underground before an air raid alarm even sounded. With many Londoners’ nerves shaken, Prime Minister George summoned newspaper editors and warned them to tone down their bombing accounts.

More was to come. The Germans unleashed on England even bigger bombers, four-engine biplanes nicknamed “Giants,” which had been developed on the Eastern Front. The Riesen or R-type had 150-horsepower Benz engines and a wingspan of nearly 92 feet. OHL ordered Squadron 501 from the Eastern Front to the West and to fly the largest R-39 Giants then being built by the Zeppelin-Werke at Staken, Germany. These were the largest German aircraft produced in any quantity during World War I. They had a 138-foot wing span, just three feet shorter than that of the World War II U.S. B-29 Superfortress.

A Giant’s basic crew included an aircraft commander, two pilots, a wireless operator, two flight mechanics, and a fuel attendant. Two gunners could be added as needed. Although essentially a monstrous biplane, the R-39’s fuselage was surprisingly modern. The forward section was built of plywood and completely enclosed. Two pilots sat up front with the throttle controls between them. A Bosch generator produced current for the lighting system and the crew’s electrically heated flying suits. Ground radio stations monitored each Giant’s flight path, making it possible, for the first time, for a bomber to fly blind in stormy weather. Moreover, Giants surpassed Gothas in bomb load capacity. They could carry nearly two tons of explosives, with projectiles sighted and released electrically from the bomber’s nose. Unfortunately for the crew, the planes were even more difficult to land than Gothas, and as it turned out, few Giants were available for raids over England.

Brandenburg’s Last Raid

Englandflieger members got a big surprise in January 1918 when Brandenburg, wearing an artificial leg, appeared on the Ghent airfield. After Kleine’s death, Brandenburg won his old command back, begging not to have to sit out the war as a decorated cripple, but he found a squadron demoralized and thinned from losses. Nevertheless, he would put on a show. OHL wanted a display of air strength as a prelude to the great Spring Offensive of 1918. Instead of going after military targets, the Germans candidly admitted trying to compel the British to maintain a large military zone in England that would hold back resources from the Continent.

The nights of the Giants began in late January, when Squadron 501 raided London for the first time without Gotha bombers. One Giant dropped the biggest bomb of the war: A monster by WW I standards, it was 13 feet long and weighed a metric ton. On February 16, 1918, the Giants’ commander, Captain Richard Von Bentivegni, aimed this bomb at Victoria Station. It was way off target and tumbled down more than a half mile away into the Royal Hospital grounds at Chelsea. Blown sky high was a hospital staff officer’s residence in the North Pavilion, killing five family members.

Meanwhile, Brandenburg was planning the largest raid of the war for May. He assembled 38 Gothas and two single-engine planes to fly in advance as weather observers and to drop a few bombs on Dover. Although still crushed by his recent plane losses, Bentivegni planned to lead his three remaining Giants. That meant a total of 43 airplanes, 16 more than had ever been sent before against England. They launched the raid on the evening of May 19, Whit-Sunday, a holiday. Bombers flew in the dead of night and dropped 11 tons of explosives. Over a thousand homes and businesses were destroyed or damaged. Forty-nine British were killed and 226 wounded. Casualties reportedly would have been much higher if not for pleasant weather and the holiday, leaving London partially deserted.

But the Englandflieger’s biggest raid attempt also was its worst defeat. Ten Gothas were forced back before even reaching the English coast. Seven were shot down and only 16 reached London. One crashed near its airfield on the way home.

Brandenburg wanted to launch other London attacks, but his squadron was committed to supporting the German Army. He couldn’t get approval for any more raids on England.

On their side of the Channel, the British had learned some lessons. They had fashioned the basics of a defensive system that would hold them in good stead during the renewed German effort of 1940. With radar, it proved unbeatable.

This article originally appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Wikipedia.