The metaphors are almost too heavy to stomach and can undermine the actual details of the message (images of a boxer hitting the mat are used to prevent any doubt in a viewer’s mind as to who is winning), but still a fun example of technical information delivery through poetry.
Category Archives: History
UK Surveillance of WWII German POWs Reveals Private Beliefs
There is a fascinating new twist for historians interested in German culture during the Second World War.
When German historian Sönke Neitzel ran across a bundle of documents in Britain’s National Archives in 2001, he could hardly believe his eyes: He had found transcripts of conversations between German soldiers secretly recorded while they were being held as prisoners of war during World War II. These were private conversations between soldiers who didn’t know that a third party was listening to and transcribing their every word.
Their British and American captors had hoped these conversations would provide them with militarily useful information. But they learned little about weapons depots or secret weapons. Most of what the transcripts reveal is what everyday life is like for the foot soldiers in a war, as they fight, kill, and die.
“I’ve developed the need to throw bombs,” reads one passage. “It sends tingles up your spine, it’s an awesome feeling. It’s just as good as shooting someone.”
I am curious if any poetry was found in these transcripts. So far I have not found any mention of it.
The real twist in this story comes when the historian and a psychoanalyst try to portray all war as equally criminal due to the requirement to kill.
According to Neitel and Welzer, there were without a doubt some committed Nazis among German soldiers during World War II, whose convictions told them that killing Jews was the right thing to do. But these, they say, were in the minority.
They also argue that the acts of violence committed under the Nazi regime were no more violent than those committed anywhere else. They believe that an ideology, such as Nazism is not the biggest factor that leads to atrocities. Instead, they say, it is a military values system that turns men into murderers.
It sounds like an anti-war argument. Regardless of motive, it fails a simple philosophy sniff test.
First of all, they use the term “minority” to call out “committed Nazis” so they obviously use some sort of criteria to distinguish their values from other soldiers. This alone proves that not all soldiers are equal-minded in war. From there it is just a matter of finding the right test pattern to identify exceptions to the rule.
Second, they say an ideology is separate and distinct from a military values system. They equate the latter to a job. While it is tempting to accept this analogy, and think of soldiers simply as professional killers, that would be an overly simplistic view of management ethics.
Take butchers, for example. Kosher butchers, Halal butchers…they too are professional killers but their ideology and their value system are not so easily separated. They use concepts and definitions of humane killing. Remove the religious foundation and replace it with health codes or even family traditions and you still will find ideology mixed with values and regulated by management.
Third, military values systems are not all historically equal. Historic comparisons often bring up stark differences in treatment of prisoners, to name one obvious example. The British definitely did not have the most humane military value system in their conflicts but the fact that we can differentiate them at all proves the point.
So Neitel and Welzer can claim that all killing in war is equally criminal, but that seems to me to be a hypothesis built upon their own views and personal definition(s) of atrocity. Others may approach the topic with the philosophy of finding the differences in self-defense versus aggression, for example.
And I suspect that German soldiers serving in Afghanistan today probably resent being linked to the military values system under Nazi rule. Military values across different eras have some things in common but that does not make them equal.
USAID sends Elmo to Pakistan
You might have noticed my post the other day about USAID.
The agency is “waiving” iPads through security requirements straight into field use by government officials.
I wondered what they possibly could be doing with the iPads, besides trying to annoy Secretary of State Clinton. Now I get it. They have drafted Elmo into service.
U.S. officials are taking a different approach, hoping that “Sesame Street” can instill education values in very young Pakistani children, arming them with the learning tools to fend off extremism later in life.
[…]
The format will be largely the same as the U.S. version, with each episode highlighting one letter and number for children to learn. Like the U.S. version, the program will also have strong female characters, with the subtle aim of promoting tolerance and gender equality. But it’s not slated to touch on any political themes outright.
Slated to touch? If that’s not a giant hint, I don’t know what is. Elmo needs a distribution channel. I mean how will Elmo reach all those impressionable children across rural Pakistan?
Obviously iPads (slates with touch) will be dropped from the sky. Elmo will be playing on them as they fall, saying “I come without any political themes outright”.
This sounds a lot like the modern equivalent of Para leer al Pato Donald (How to Read Donald Duck) published in Chile in 1972
…the world shown in the comics [sent to Latin America from the US], according to the thesis, is based on ideological concepts, resulting in a set of natural rules that lead to the acceptance of particular ideas about capital, the developed countries’ relationship with the third world, gender roles, etc.
Phase two, after the youth Elmo-isation is complete, US soldiers will deploy in Elmo suits to blend in and win local support.
Look Mr. Chief! Look Everybody! Elmo is your friend!
Hill Fort Theories Challenged
Archeologists working on a Hill Fort excavation in England have started to argue that ancient stone structures were meant for security during warfare in the Iron Age. This counters the more predominant theory, formed over the past 30 years, that stone walls served an ornamental function — represent prosperity and prestige rather than a military purpose.
The prestige theory apparently was based on an absence of evidence of threat, rather than evidence of the absence of threat (as Carl Sagan might have put it).
The dig site at a spot called Fin Cop is said to give new evidence of threats. It provides unique insight because the remains have been better preserved by limestone, which is harder and more acidic than other dig sites. Bones found in a mass grave, for example, are known to be women and children. Dr Clive Waddington of Archaeological Research Services suggests that they must have been victims who suffered a violent end after their fort was defeated.
“For the people buried at Fin Cop, the hurriedly constructed fort was evidently intended as a defensive work in response to a very real threat.”
The skeletons are of women, babies, a toddler and a single teenage male. The archaeological team believe they were probably massacred after the fort was attacked and captured.
All were found in a 10m long section of ditch, the only part to be excavated so far. The ditch was 5m wide with 2m deep vertical edges and would have guarded a 4m high perimeter wall.
Animal bones, also found in the ditch, suggest the fort’s inhabitants kept cattle, sheep and pigs. There were also remains from horses which indicate some of the fort’s inhabitants were of high status.
Ok, I’ll bite. What was the very real threat? It must have been something so powerful to eliminate or enslave all the men in the fort without leaving any trace of them. There is a curious disparity between bones found in the ditch. Was the ditch a pre-existing spot where animal waste was hauled outside the fort and then it was converted into a mass grave by attackers?
I wish they had given more evidence on how they formed the new hypothesis. The BBC fails to mention whether the skeletons have marks from iron or stone weapons, for example.
Given all that they’ve revealed to the BBC, maybe there are other angles to explore.
The men and women may have migrated away from another area to start a new fort and ran into harsh weather. The men went off to hunt or get help as the women hastily built the structure. The food soon ran out and the women died of natural causes.
Maybe the group was ostracized because of disease or other differences.
The men either died during the hunt or came back and found everyone expired. The bodies would have been dumped in the ditch, which already had the animal remains, and covered with the rocks of the failed settlement to make it into a grave.
The Guardian picks up some of these alternate theories.
There could be gentler explanations for the deaths: none of the nine skeletons show signs of violence, suggesting death would have been from flesh wounds or suffocation – or possibly disease.
Explanations could include a disastrous plague or the punishment of a household by the rest of the community.
We really don’t know whether the threat to the women and children was inside or outside the fort walls.
A clearer picture and more compelling analysis can be found on Diggings.
The fact that the bones were found together rather than scattered by weather or the depredations of wild animals indicated that she had been buried rather than simply discarded in the ditch – but all that buried her were the tumbled stones of the wall! In other words, whoever tossed her body into the ditch had then deliberately demolished the defences of the fort and covered her with the stones of the dismantled wall.
Jim Brightman, one of the project managers, said: “Quite a lot of very important finds cannot look like much on site, but when you get back to the lab and throw the scientific techniques and analysis at them, that’s when you start to get the story out. The bones are a great example of that, we found out so much more by analysing them.”
On the other hand, if you pull forensic data too far from the target you might lose the context necessary to make sense of it despite your best scientific techniques and analysis.