Topic “WWI”
ANZAC Day
April 25, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 4:55am | 34 Comments
What am I doing up before five on a Saturday? Going to the ANZAC Day service at the Korean War Memorial to honor America's most loyal ally. (They even fought in Vietnam, for goodness sake.)
I suspect most of you slept in today, though, so you can rent this movie instead. I'll warn you, though: the last minute is enough to rip your heart out. Most difficult ending in movie history? Quite possibly.
I suspect most of you slept in today, though, so you can rent this movie instead. I'll warn you, though: the last minute is enough to rip your heart out. Most difficult ending in movie history? Quite possibly.
Gavrilo Princip is Abu Muqawama's Homeboy
April 14, 2008 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 3:55pm | 9 Comments
Setting the Desert on Fire
February 21, 2008 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 3:39am | 3 Comments
Seen from today's perspective, then, Lawrence's story looks less like a chivalric romance than like a case of imperial arrogance run amok. Only by taking advantage of the incredible carelessness and cynicism of the men who ran the British Empire was a junior officer able to remake the Middle East according to his own whims. It is enough to make one glad that there is no more British Empire, even if it means that there will never be another Lawrence of Arabia.
Do any of you ever read the New York Sun? Of course not. Set up in 2002 as a conservative, broadsheet alternative to the New York Times -- uh, isn't there already a newspaper called the Wall Street Journal out there? -- the Sun has a circulation of maybe 150,000 and a devoutly neoconservative editorial slant that, well, isn't as popular in 2008 as it presumably was in 2002.
That said, Abu Muqawama often reads the reporting of Eli Lake on national security issues, and he really enjoys the Sun's consistently excellent arts coverage. The book reviews and arts reviews that run in the Sun are, more often than not, quite good. What was it that Tony Judt said about the New Republic? That the first half was worthless and the second half (the arts and literature section) was genius?* That comment probably applies to the Sun as well. Book reviewer Adam Kirsch is especially good, and today he has a very nice review of a new T.E. Lawrence history.
Lawrence's desert war was "such a play," such "fun," because it was, to a really amazing extent, like a boy's idea of war, all exploits and highjinks. "There aren't any returns, or orders, or superiors, or inferiors," he exulted. All that was back in Cairo, where the British had their headquarters, and where Lawrence worked on the intelligence staff until 1916. He had never been happy there, or popular: One of his superiors described him as "a bumptious young ass who spoils his undoubted knowledge of Syrian Arabs etc by making himself out to be the only authority on war, engineering, running HM's ships and everything else. He put every single person's back up I've met." In fact, the 28-year-old captain was so sure of himself that he had already developed his own strategy for winning the war in the Middle East: "I want to pull [the Arabs] all together, & to roll up Syria by way of the Hijaz in the name of the Sharif."
*The exact quote was, "The front of The New Republic is a catastrophe; it’s run by smart young men out of Yale who know nothing about the world and think they know everything and are completely blocked on the Israel question. The back of the magazine is culturally fantastic, one of the best things going, and I think Leon [Wieseltier] does a great job there." Not that Judt himself, whose work Abu Muqawama generally admires (especially his book on Aron, Camus, and Blum), isn't able to write some pretty naive stuff himself. And save your fingers from writing any angry comments below -- we are not not not endorsing the views Judt articulates on the Israel-Palestine question. Relax.
Do any of you ever read the New York Sun? Of course not. Set up in 2002 as a conservative, broadsheet alternative to the New York Times -- uh, isn't there already a newspaper called the Wall Street Journal out there? -- the Sun has a circulation of maybe 150,000 and a devoutly neoconservative editorial slant that, well, isn't as popular in 2008 as it presumably was in 2002.
That said, Abu Muqawama often reads the reporting of Eli Lake on national security issues, and he really enjoys the Sun's consistently excellent arts coverage. The book reviews and arts reviews that run in the Sun are, more often than not, quite good. What was it that Tony Judt said about the New Republic? That the first half was worthless and the second half (the arts and literature section) was genius?* That comment probably applies to the Sun as well. Book reviewer Adam Kirsch is especially good, and today he has a very nice review of a new T.E. Lawrence history.
Lawrence's desert war was "such a play," such "fun," because it was, to a really amazing extent, like a boy's idea of war, all exploits and highjinks. "There aren't any returns, or orders, or superiors, or inferiors," he exulted. All that was back in Cairo, where the British had their headquarters, and where Lawrence worked on the intelligence staff until 1916. He had never been happy there, or popular: One of his superiors described him as "a bumptious young ass who spoils his undoubted knowledge of Syrian Arabs etc by making himself out to be the only authority on war, engineering, running HM's ships and everything else. He put every single person's back up I've met." In fact, the 28-year-old captain was so sure of himself that he had already developed his own strategy for winning the war in the Middle East: "I want to pull [the Arabs] all together, & to roll up Syria by way of the Hijaz in the name of the Sharif."
*The exact quote was, "The front of The New Republic is a catastrophe; it’s run by smart young men out of Yale who know nothing about the world and think they know everything and are completely blocked on the Israel question. The back of the magazine is culturally fantastic, one of the best things going, and I think Leon [Wieseltier] does a great job there." Not that Judt himself, whose work Abu Muqawama generally admires (especially his book on Aron, Camus, and Blum), isn't able to write some pretty naive stuff himself. And save your fingers from writing any angry comments below -- we are not not not endorsing the views Judt articulates on the Israel-Palestine question. Relax.
National WWI Museum
November 14, 2007 | Posted by Charlie - 9:33am | 0 Comments
Charlie was reminded over Veterans' Day weekend of the relatively new National WWI Museum in downtown Kansas City. Now, it's unlikely this blog has many KC based readers, but there may be more than a few posted at Forts Leavenworth and Riley (you have my deepest sympathy).
Compared to World War Two, the Great War is nearly completely ignored in the States. And given our relatively small and short participation, perhaps this is not surprising. But Charlie has always found the First World War to be the more interesting of the two: it is a never ending intellectual puzzle as to why it started, why it lasted so long, why it ended when it did, and why it was so miserably bloody. WWII has fairly clear answers on this front. Charlie still isn't sure exactly why it wasn't just the Third Balkans War or the specifics of German surrender without any foreign troops on their soil (and not from a lack of reading).
The WWI Museum doesn't answer all these questions, but the historiography is dealt with in a way that military history buffs and neophytes can both enjoy. Those who have been to the Imperial War Museum in London will find the panoramas and hardware displays v. familiar. And they don't just focus on US involvement: there is an extended section on each of the main players on the Western Front. And active duty military gets in free!
So if you have a chance, get lunch at Pierpont's, shop, go to the museum, make a day of it! (And you can stop by this place on the way home.)
Compared to World War Two, the Great War is nearly completely ignored in the States. And given our relatively small and short participation, perhaps this is not surprising. But Charlie has always found the First World War to be the more interesting of the two: it is a never ending intellectual puzzle as to why it started, why it lasted so long, why it ended when it did, and why it was so miserably bloody. WWII has fairly clear answers on this front. Charlie still isn't sure exactly why it wasn't just the Third Balkans War or the specifics of German surrender without any foreign troops on their soil (and not from a lack of reading).
The WWI Museum doesn't answer all these questions, but the historiography is dealt with in a way that military history buffs and neophytes can both enjoy. Those who have been to the Imperial War Museum in London will find the panoramas and hardware displays v. familiar. And they don't just focus on US involvement: there is an extended section on each of the main players on the Western Front. And active duty military gets in free!
So if you have a chance, get lunch at Pierpont's, shop, go to the museum, make a day of it! (And you can stop by this place on the way home.)
