The Bulge plus 80

By Michael F. Duggan

By December 1944, it looked as if the Germans were on back on their heels, although the Battles of Aachen and the Hürtgen Forest earlier that fall suggested otherwise.

On December 16, 1944-, eighty years ago this coming Monday, 30 German divisions with around 410,000 men, 1,400 armored vehicles, and 2,600 artillery pieces, broke through the Allied lines in the Ardennes Forest in Belgium, northern France, and Luxembourg, in an effort to make a beeline to take the port of Antwerp. The area had been a quiet sector (who would think of attacking through the thick forests of the Ardennes, as the Germans had done in 1940?), and the US First Army under General Courtney Hodges, was caught off guard. The Germans advance quickly and established a 60-mile deep salient, or “bulge,” in the Allied lines.

The 101st Airborne “Screaming Eagles” Division was surrounded in the crossroads town of Bastogne (and were know afterward as the “Battered Bastards of Bastogne”). When asked to surrender by the German general, the American acting division commander, Anthony McAuliffe, replied with a singe word: “Nuts!” The siege of Bastogne was relieved by Patton’s Third Army the day after Christmas, 1944. The paratroopers of the 101st said that they had not needed to be rescued, that they were surrounded and therefore had the Germans just where they wanted them.

Initially, bad weather prevent the Allies from capitalizing on their considerable air superiority and prevented air resupply drops. US soldiers were poorly equipped for winter combat, and it wasn’t until January 25, 1945 that the Battle of the Bulge finally ended.

With roughly 81,000 casualties, including 19,000 dead, The Bulge was the bloodiest battle the US would fight in Europe in WWII (keep in mind that the USSR lost an average of between 14,000 and 17,500 solders every day between 1941 and 1945, so the entire Ardennes Campaign would have been a bad Saturday on the Eastern Front).

In retrospect, the German Ardennes Offensive was a desperate, last ditch effort by the Wehrmacht in the west (and, also in retrospect, it would have been in Germany’s interest to let the Americans and British in before the Soviets). To the US soldiers in Bastogne and Malmedy, it was a frozen hell.

Jack Johnson’s Ghost

By Michael F. Duggan

I have a love/hate relationship with boxing. On the one hand, it is one of the most subtle of sports. On the other hand, it is assault and is bad for its participants (this is to say nothing about the corruption it has frequently attracted). There is also a kind of grace and beauty to traditional boxing that is so conspicuously missing in extreme fighting and mixed martial arts. To me these bouts look more like something along the lines of a bar fight: throw a lot of leather while exhibiting minimal defensive skills, affect a takedown and then choke or beat into submission. Ah, art.

Having not seen a heavyweight match in a while, I went to a local sports bar to watch the Mike Tyson-Jake Paul “Fight of the [yawn] Century.” I got to the place early to get a good seat. I then sat through three preliminary cards (along with a fair amount of hype that rounded out the four hours leading up to the main event). All of the initial fights were decent. The Taylor-Serrano fight was especially furious, but I didn’t like Katie Taylor’s head-butting. Serrano showed real heart and kept coming back.

But the Tyson-Paul bout? Well, now, that was a lackluster fight–quite possibly the most widely-watched waste of time in streaming history. On the one hand, it was impressive to see a 58 year-old man go toe-to-toe with someone 31 years younger. On the other hand, Tyson in his prime would have destroyed this guy in under a minute.

I’ll admit it, I wanted to see the old Tyson. I reasoned that if anybody in the foothills of 60 could make a comeback, it was Tyson (or Foreman): power is the last thing a fighter loses. Speed is the first. Like so many people, I was quietly hoping that he would not get hurt. But back in the late ’80s, the man was a juggernaut

I think that Ali, in his prime would have frustrated Tyson. Liston, Foreman, and Shavers might have thrown individual punches as hard or harder than Iron Mike, but nobody ever threw combinations of hard punches like him. He’d walk up to his opponent, leading with both hands, get inside and throw a flurry of 5 or 6 punches–uppercuts and hooks, any one of which could knock out most fighters, even if landed as a body blows–and in most cases, it was “good night sweet prince.”

The guys who did the best against Tyson, were big, powerful men with a long reach, who could keep him on the outside and frustrate him (Buster Douglas, Lennox Lewis). Of course, during the early years, Tyson defeated most of his opponents before they even stepped in the ring.

So what about this fight? At first Tyson seemed to be punching with some of his old power. But the speed wasn’t there. Soon he was sucking wind and punching air. Without speed, he couldn’t get inside (Tyson was the ultimate inside fighter and was not much good when kept out with his 71-inch reach relative to Paul’s 76). He only landed 18 out of 97 punches, as Paul sniped from the outside. And so one of the greats of yesterday suffered the indignity of losing on points to an Internet “influencer” for an impressive payday.

I offer Mr. Paul my congratulations on his victory over Mike Tyson and the suggestion that, for his next “Fight of the Century” spectacle, he take on the ghost of Jack Johnson.

Holiday Gimmick Days: “A Fool and His Money Wednesday”

By Michael F. Duggan

Have you noticed the proliferation of horribly contrived commerce-related sales and spending days after Thanksgiving in recent years?

Years ago people noticed the panicked rush of millions of Americans to stores the day after Thanksgiving.  This phenomenon was the result of day-after-Thanksgiving Day sales—i.e. marketing—that fact that many people are off from work on the day after the holiday, and the unsettling reality that Christmas is only four weeks away.  It may have also may have been the unintended result and unforeseen side effect of the massive amounts of tryptophan ingested the day before. A kind of temporary insanity triggered by a turkey hangover. 

On “Back Friday,” Americans were entertained with news stories showing crazed citizens storming into stores when they opened in the early morning darkness, trampling the weak or slow before them. We were treated to the rare spectacle of women punching or tackling each other in order to obtain the last mass-produced item of a particularly trendy kind in the store. Ah, manipulation and conformity.

With the rise of the Internet and online shopping, the Monday after Thanksgiving became “Cyber Monday.”  Whether this was a complete gimmick or “a real thing”—a naturalistic trend—is unclear, but the term was supposedly devised by the National Retail Federation in 2005.

Following in suit, we saw the creation of Small Business Saturday in 2010, the brainchild of Jessica Ling, a corporate type at American Express. Although I like and support small and medium-sized businesses and companies—and believe that an economy based on them would be far superior to one of monster banks and mega corporations—the completely contrived nature of this “day,” and the blind obedience of people to embrace it, rubs me the wrong way.

Given all of this Holiday manipulation and spending going on, it is only natural that charities would want to get in on the action. In 2012, the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan and the United Nations Foundation, declared the arrival of “GivingTuesday” (the day after “Cyber Monday,” although not limited to one day). If all this hype is going to happen anyway, I am not cynical about charities wanting to cash in on the hysteria.

All the same, please be sure to take off hump day this week in celebration of “A Fool and His Money Wednesday,” in anticipation of the day in January when your credit card bill arrives.

Oreshnik: Nuclear “Lite”?

My knowledge of the latest military hardware is second hand. I am a historian, not an insider, and my observations here are based on the accounts of former military and intelligence officers that are publicly available.

The world has apparently entered a new era of aerial warfare, of military history. The idea of hypersonic ballistic missiles has been around since the 1930s, but the first use of hypersonic, intermediate-range, ballistic missiles in combat was last Thursday (November 21, 2024) against a Ukrainian weapons facility in Dnipropetrovsk.1 This was in response to the use of ATACMS missiles against targets in the Bryansk Oblast in western Russia two days before (November 19, 2024). The new Russian weapon, the Oreshnik Intermediate-Range Ballistic missile, flies at mach 11, and there is no effective countermeasure in Western arsenals.

According to one source, these missiles fly so fast and their conventional payloads hits so hard, that they can approximate the advantages of a small tactical nuclear weapon without the drawbacks (i.e. radioactive contamination and fallout). Complicating things further, each missile can carry up to 6 multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), each carrying 6 smaller warheads. The Oreshnik can also carry nuclear payloads.

On August 6, 1914, barely a week into the First World War, Liege became the first target of aerial bombs in wartime. Exactly thirty-one years later, Hiroshima was the first of two targets of an atomic bombing. Dnipro now shares the distinction of being the target of the latest kind of attack from above.

Russia has said that it is putting the missile into mass production.

Note
1. Russia used the hypersonic 3M22 Zircon cruise missile against Kiev on February 7, 2024.

The Schrödinger Elections

By Michael F. Duggan

On the evening of November 8, 2016, I started watching the election returns. It was early and all of the pundits on the cable propaganda stations for both sides were charged and upbeat. After a half hour, I decided to watch a movie, so I put a DVD in the player. It was the 1995 Robert Downey, Jr. historical comedy-drama, Restoration. I would stop the film and check on the election coverage every half hour to 45 minutes.

After 10:00 (I don’t remember the exact time), some of the experts observed that things were not going the Democrats’ way in a couple of key states. I read a lot of Marcus Aurelius, and know that most things are out of my hands, and so I went to bed. The night was darker and quieter than usual, and during the few times I woke up overnight, I sensed what had happened.

Then I had this crazy idea: perhaps if I did not listen to the news, perhaps the election would remain in a state of superposition, like Schrodinger’s cat–both dead and alive–in quantum mechanics, and that if I turned on the radio in the morning, it would decohere into a fixed outcome (it was kind of like an infant who believes that the world disappears when he closes his eyes in a game of peekaboo). When I got up, I did not turn on the radio. I left the house to go to work, and drove to the train station in silence, but I knew. That was eight years ago.

Last night I tried to watch a movie again (an old American Experience documentary about Alexander Hamilton), but grew edgy and went upstairs early to read (some Marcus Aurelius, but also a biography of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and a little from the new biography of Jimmy Breslin). Around 10:30 I went downstairs and saw that the PBS coverage was calling North Carolina for the GOP. I had seen this movie before. I went back upstairs and read for a couple more hours and went to bed.

Again, the night was unusually dark and quiet. Again I had this crazy idea that if I didn’t check the news, that events would be suspended indefinitely in superposition, an election neither won nor lost. I got up and did not turn on the radio. I checked my Facebook account and the second thing I saw was a friend who posted, “I guess this is who we really are.” Once again events had de-cohered. In a conversation a week or more ago not specifically on politics, a friend of mine who knows more than I do about Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, told me that the only real dignity in life is to accept the parts of the world that we cannot change as they are without complaint.

And for the record, I know that elections aren’t like particle physics.

Serendipity and the Dead

By Michael F. Duggan

Do you talk to the dead when you visit the grave of a friend or relative alone? I do. 

And yet I am an agnostic (really an open-minded atheist) who believes that this life is all that there is.  What else are you supposed to do? As with a belief in an afterlife, many of us are quick to ascribe special meanings to coincidences. We notice them because they are so striking, so much against the odds. I am also an agnostic (bordering on an atheist) when it comes to the supposed higher meanings of serendipity: at every moment something must happen. Why not a coincidence?   

But I am nostalgic, some might say sentimental, and every few years on a Sunday, I buy flowers and put them out on the graves of lost friends.  It had been a long time since I had visited these particular friends.

There was Richard, a friend of mine from third and fourth grade and the first person I knew my age (11 days older) to die.  He was a mischievous kid who loved sports, the only autumn child of older parents. He died when he was 10. 

The second was Maureen, a girl I liked in elementary and junior high school, who died in a car accident when she was in college.  

The third was Dan, a free-spirited rogue from high school who loved The Beatles and Stones. Gone at 39. I had heard the song “Paint it Black” earlier in the week, and decided to look him up.

The fourth was the mother of my best friend from high school.  She lived for 93 years, raised two boys who became remarkable men, and was one of the finest people I have known. An aristocrat in the best sense of the word.  

The day was beautiful—56 degrees and sunny—the continuation of an open-ended, high pressure system that has given us 25 days without rain in the Mid-Atlantic states.  I turned into the cemetery and saw several groups of people.  There were two or three families with chairs and blankets and appeared to be having small picnics (it was the Sunday before All Souls Day).  

This struck me as normal and in no way morbid.  My mom’s family (German Catholics), would make a day out of going to the cemetery to visit the graves of lost relatives.  Although the tradition was waning when I was a young child, I remember going to the cemetery in an attitude that was a joyous as it was solemn. I have loved cemeteries ever since.  As a historian, I especially relish old boneyards as cultural time capsules that change remarkably little, where the yews and other decorative flora planted in grief may live to ripe old ages. 

I got out of my car and in the cool breeze and strong autumn sunshine. The place seemed like a Platonic plane, complete with does with fawns, almost yearlings, some mellow Canada geese, and a handful of crows large enough to be ravens.  

The first problem with my visit is that, although I had the specific numbers for all four graves, I only had section numbers for three of them.  The second problem was that, although the sections are well-marked, the numbers are not given on the stones or the section markers. 

Maureen is in Section 9.  This is a large section, but I was able to find her grave in about 20-25 minutes, walking softly amongst the geese, and left some pink carnations there.  I did not have a section number for Dan, so trying to find his marker was a nonstarter.  I knew Richard was in Section 1, which I estimated to be 20 or more acres.  I started at the far end and systematically worked my way back to where my car was parked.  

After about 20 minutes, I came across a marker with the distinctive name of a friend of mine who is still quite alive.  I never knew that he was a “Jr.,” and that his father was buried there.  After about an hour of looking (and feeling a little like the Eli Wallach character, Tuco, searching a specific grave among the multitudes at the end of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly), I gave up looking for Richard, and was walking back to my car, defeated.  When I was 40 or 50 yards away, I came upon his marker quite by accident.  Apparently I had started my search at the wrong end of Section 1.

For some reason, Section 1 abuts Section 8, where my friend’s mother rests.  My car was parked between the two sections.  I walked over to the edge of Section 8 and looked out across its rows upon rows before me.  Clearly I had another hour or two of walking ahead of me.  I looked down at my feet at the first marker.  It was my friend’s father who had died two years before I met the son.  Next to it was the marker I was looking for. I halved the remaining bunch of flowers and put them on the two graves. There is nothing more emblematic of the limits of human agency than the placing of flowers before a headstone, and there is nothing more striking than a coincidence of this sort.  

There is a notion of speaking the names of the beloved dead.  I don’t know if this was something that was coined recently to call out official violence, or if it is a traditional custom in some communities. The idea, I think, is that as long as people are remembered, we acknowledge their humanity, and they live on in a certain sense, and perhaps literally. I do not believe in an afterlife, but the idea of keeping the dead alive in memory for as long as we live, appeals to me.  And so Richard, Maureen, Dan, and Mrs. ______, I say your names, and am grateful for the fortuitous coincidences in life.  

Turning off the Lights

By Michael F. Duggan

“Democracy dies in darkness.”
-Slogan of The Washington Post

Last week The Washington Post announced that it would break from its tradition and would not endorse a candidate for president in 2024. The decision was reportedly made by Jeff Bezos. History is watching, Mr. Bezos, and it is difficult to see this as anything other than cowardice.

Missing the Point: Artificial Stupidity

By Michael F. Duggan, Ph.D.

I readily concede the promise and potential peril of AI, but as of now, it appears to be a real dumbass. I searched my 2023 article, “The Progress of a Plague Species, a Theory of History,” just to see what artificial intelligence would make of it, and got this summary:

“”The Progress of a Plague Species, a Theory of History” is a concept that suggests major historical events and societal shifts can be significantly influenced by the spread and evolution of infectious diseases, particularly plagues, which act as a kind of “plague species” that can drastically alter population dynamics and social structures over time, often leading to major historical turning points.”

Talk about missing the point (which is that humans are a plague species, and that history should be interpreted in light of this). If an undergrad had written this synopsis, he/she would have gotten an F along with the comment: “Did you even read the article?”

It is unsettling how human-like this new technology is.

War and Transition

By Michael F. Duggan, Ph.D.

All periods of history are transitional, intermediary. This has been especially true in modern military history in regard to the development of weapons technology in great powers wars (and sometimes of high-intensity civil wars in powerful nations). This demonstrates the reality of scientific and technological progress (but not necessarily social progress).

The American Civil War and German Wars of Unification saw the shift from muzzleloader to repeaters (one can see the full transition from the Crimean War to the end of the Franco-Prussian War, with the added developments of smokeless powder and modern machine-guns following in the 1880s). Tactics were slow to catch up to the new technologies. World War I began as a 19th century war of mobility at the First Battle of the Marne, quickly transitioned into “trenchlock” and attrition as the modern Defensive Revolution arrived at tis apex, and arguably ended with something like a nascent combined arms campaign during the last 100 Days.

The Second World War saw the first jet combat aircraft (compare the fastest plane in the world in 1938 with the fastest planes in the world in 1948), the first cruise missiles (the V-1), the first long range ballistic missiles (the V-2), and assault rifles (the FG-42, MP-43 and MP-44).1

A new defensive revolution has been introduced in the Russo-Ukrainian War–a digital and drone revolution–that has rendered the sweeping “big arrow” offensive operations of WWII and Cold War planners all but obsolete (or at least problematic between powerful state-of-the-art armies), and has apparently reintroduced attritional impalement offensives vis-a-vis entrenched defense in depth. It has also seen the use of small unit tactics and raids, and the grinding “bite and hold” advances reminiscent of the First World War.

Note
1. The Russian Federov Model 1916, or “Automat,” is possibly first assault rifle (i.e. a selective-fire military rifle), but it was not produced in quantity. It was further developed by the Soviets as the Simov Model 1936, which proved to be unsuccessful. The German FG-42, MP-43, and MP-44 by contrast, are configured like modern assault rifles, and the MP-43-44 was produced in numbers. See W.H.B Smith and Joseph E. Smith, Small Arms of the World, 10th edition., New York, NY: Galahad Books, 1960, 1975. 420-427, 583.

Liberals: Remember when…

By Michael F. Duggan

Remember when progressives were pro-organized labor? Believed in a vigorous domestic manufacturing economy? Believed in protecting vulnerable domestic markets and their workers? Acted on behalf of ordinary Americans in “flyover country”? Believed in actually talking to potential adversaries and people we didn’t like (e.g. Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Mao) in order to prevent great powers conflicts? Embraced a foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than on undeclared wars? Were critical of Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex? Were antiwar?

Why the hell did the Dems let someone like Trump co-opt these things, and in doing so, make them disreputable to modern liberals?