I have done several things worth mentioning over break thus far: first and foremost, I've caught up on my sleep. Second of all, I finished my final college applications. Fourteen schools, twenty-something essays, and quite a few hours of my life, and it's done! Now the waiting game begins. And I've spent some of those waiting hours at the movie theater, which is out-of-character for me. Movie theaters make me nervous for some reason. That aside, I've seen two films over the break: the third installment in Peter Jackson's Tolkien-inspired The Hobbit trilogy, and a Mark Wahlberg flick called The Gambler. And, though this goes without saying, spoiler alert.
First of all, I need to discuss The Hobbit. Those of you who have read my blog in the past know that I'm a huge Tolkien fan. And if you think the Harry Potter series is better than Tolkien's work, then this is my reply: you're entitled to your own (completely and totally wrong) opinion. Virtually every character and plot device in Harry Potter is a cheap Tolkien ripoff in one way or another, from the main protagonists to the various monsters to the strong female lead to the concept of Horcruxes...but I'm getting sidetracked. And don't rush to assumptions from my harsh words. I love Harry Potter - it was an enormous part of my childhood. But comparing it to The Lord of the Rings is like comparing LBJ to Lincoln. That aside, Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings is, without a doubt, among the best film adaptations of a work of literature the world has ever seen. And as such, it's impossible to watch The Hobbit without comparing it to Jackson's previous trilogy. For the film adaptation of a book, it does an excellent job. But it pales in comparison to The Lord of the Rings. Part of that is hardly Jackson's fault - the studio initially signed him for a trilogy that started with The Hobbit (Tolkien wrote The Hobbit decades before he wrote The Lord of the Rings), but things changed and only LOTR was produced. When Jackson went back to produce The Hobbit, he had no choice but to do so as a prequel trilogy. You really can't blame him for deviating much more from the book in The Hobbit. And his interpretation of the events that happened while the book of The Hobbit takes place is spot-on. Gandalf's imprisonment and the confrontation with Sauron in Dol Guldur are heavily implied to have taken place by the grey wizard's lengthy tales in the early chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring. Anyhow, let's talk about the film itself...it was okay. It definitely deviates from the book, but it was all right. The performances weren't forced in the least. Sir Ian McKellen was excellent, of course, as Gandalf. Martin Freeman wasn't too shabby himself, in the big hairy shoes of Bilbo Baggins. And Richard Armitage captured the madness and redemption of Thorin Oakenshield - again, things that were implied in Tolkien's universe - perfectly. I expected the film to be one continuous battle sequence, but it wasn't. The Battle of the Five Armies didn't actually start for the first hour and a half of the film. Jackson spent a great deal of time developing the characters and underlining the sources of tension between the different factions. It was, all in all, a decent flick. I'd recommend it to all my fellow Tolkien fans.
Now for The Gambler. I wasn't expecting much out of this film. Mark Wahlberg hasn't been the best actor in the past. Heck, he hasn't even been a good actor in some films. But I was pleasantly surprised here. The film follows a literature professor (Wahlberg) who owes several hundred thousand dollars to a crime lord, thanks to his gambling addiction. The story is a very human one that perfectly captures the essence of addiction. Wahlberg's character gets a sort of a high off his gambling victories and pushes his limits accordingly, which lands him in debt. When he bets everything he has on a roulette game at the climax of the film, in the hopes that he'll win and come away with enough money to pay back the crime bosses he's in debt to, the strain and panic within the character is tangible. And even though (spoiler alert) he wins the bet, I was expecting him to lose. That's my favorite thing about the film. It shows the entropy of this man's life - how random everything is in his line of "work." And I say "this man" because as the film goes on, you start to forget that it's Mark Wahlberg up on the screen. This is, without a doubt, the best acting I've ever seen Wahlberg do. The side characters are excellent as well. John Goodman is excellent as one of the crime lords Wahlberg's character is indebted to. He's anything but typecast in this film - the jolly, somewhat nervous character he usually plays is gone, replaced by a cold, calculating, often cruel man. There weren't very many big names in the film, aside from Wahlberg and Goodman. And personally, I feel that this choice really helped the film. The characters were genuine and very human. Even the worst of the characters had redeeming qualities or moments, and that made the film what it was. It was a good movie - nothing exceptional, but certainly not a bad film.
There are still a few films left on my wish list. I definitely want to catch Unbroken before the conclusion of break. I have the book, but I've never had the time to read it. And beyond that, I'm waiting for American Sniper to be released across the nation come January. I've heard nothing but positive reviews for the film, which is what I've come to expect from Clint Eastwood. We'll just have to wait and see for ourselves.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
The US This Week: The Interview (and North Korea)
You can't go on the internet these days without seeing a picture of James Franco and/or Seth Rogen. Ever since the North Koreans hacked into Sony and threatened retaliation if theaters showed The Interview, the film has sparked controversy across the nation. It's worth pointing out that North Korea denies any role in the hacking, but then again, why would we believe anything they say? North Korea took issue with The Interview several months ago, when details of the film were released to the public. In the film, two bumbling journalists (Rogen and Franco) are tasked with assassinating North Korea's portly basketball-loving Supreme Leader, Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Un doesn't seem to appreciate Franco and Rogen's sense of humor. To some extent, many of us can relate to that. On the other hand, most of us wouldn't threaten to kill people who find the pair amusing. North Korea (or, in the highly unlikely event that some other group hacked Sony, that group) has no such qualms. Sony's decision to pull the film from theaters was criticized across the board. President Obama lambasted the decision as a huge mistake. For once, Congress was on the same page. Some congressmen even called for the movie to be screened on Capitol Hill. Sony has loosened its stance in the recent days: the film is set to be released tomorrow for a limited run, and there's even been some talk of the film going on YouTube. But this is hardly relevant. What is relevant is our not-quite-good relationship with the tiny Communist dictatorship occupying the northern half of the Korean peninsula.
In the speech where he criticized Sony's response to the threats, President Obama vowed to retaliate appropriately to North Korea's actions. Soon afterwards, the internet in the small nation was cut off. It's possible that this is a mere coincidence, but given the temporal proximity to Obama's statement, the chance of that is low at best. With the exception of the one Texan who recently fled behind the dictatorship's closed borders, most Americans probably want this to be the case. It would certainly give President Obama a helping hand, after one of the roughest years of his presidency. Screwing with North Korea's infrastructure and technology is something we can get behind as a nation. The Tea Party and the far, far left will undoubtedly take issue with whatever Obama does, but that applies to everything Obama does. If the FBI or the CIA is involved in the collapse of North Korea's internet, the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents will be happy. Kim Jong Un could use a taste of his own medicine for once. Even if he didn't launch or order the Sony hack, we can all agree he deserves it.
North Korea, we can all agree, is hardly a humanitarian nation. The notorious line of Kims - stretching from Jong Un through Jong Il to Il Sung - has quite a bit of blood on its hands. George Bush's "Axis of Evil" comment actually applies to the Democratic People's Republic. The Kims spend huge sums of money on luxurious foreign food while their people starve. If it wasn't for the international aid it occasionally receives, North Korea's population would be miniscule. That's the harsh reality of the situation - one third of North Koreans are critically malnourished. You can be jailed for posessing a bible or having the wrong haircut or owning a car. Two hundred thousand civilians live behind the walls of prison camps. If you break a law, your grandparents, parents and children will be severely punished as well. Secret police and informants, reminiscent of the Soviet Union's early days, are everywhere in the nation. And yet marijuana is legal. It's no wonder the rivalry between North and South Korea is so intense. It's worth remembering that South Korea only exists because "UN" forces (I use quotation marks because we all know which member of the UN the bulk of the fighting) chased them out. It's also worth mentioning that North Korea only exists because the bulk of the Chinese Army chased the Americans and South Koreans back towards the current border.
When will the conflict end? When North Korea goes too far. When China decides it wants no more to do with Kim Jong Un, and the rest of the world decides it's had enough of North Korea's garbage. That day will inevitably come. But it won't come because of a James Franco movie. We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
In the speech where he criticized Sony's response to the threats, President Obama vowed to retaliate appropriately to North Korea's actions. Soon afterwards, the internet in the small nation was cut off. It's possible that this is a mere coincidence, but given the temporal proximity to Obama's statement, the chance of that is low at best. With the exception of the one Texan who recently fled behind the dictatorship's closed borders, most Americans probably want this to be the case. It would certainly give President Obama a helping hand, after one of the roughest years of his presidency. Screwing with North Korea's infrastructure and technology is something we can get behind as a nation. The Tea Party and the far, far left will undoubtedly take issue with whatever Obama does, but that applies to everything Obama does. If the FBI or the CIA is involved in the collapse of North Korea's internet, the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents will be happy. Kim Jong Un could use a taste of his own medicine for once. Even if he didn't launch or order the Sony hack, we can all agree he deserves it.
North Korea, we can all agree, is hardly a humanitarian nation. The notorious line of Kims - stretching from Jong Un through Jong Il to Il Sung - has quite a bit of blood on its hands. George Bush's "Axis of Evil" comment actually applies to the Democratic People's Republic. The Kims spend huge sums of money on luxurious foreign food while their people starve. If it wasn't for the international aid it occasionally receives, North Korea's population would be miniscule. That's the harsh reality of the situation - one third of North Koreans are critically malnourished. You can be jailed for posessing a bible or having the wrong haircut or owning a car. Two hundred thousand civilians live behind the walls of prison camps. If you break a law, your grandparents, parents and children will be severely punished as well. Secret police and informants, reminiscent of the Soviet Union's early days, are everywhere in the nation. And yet marijuana is legal. It's no wonder the rivalry between North and South Korea is so intense. It's worth remembering that South Korea only exists because "UN" forces (I use quotation marks because we all know which member of the UN the bulk of the fighting) chased them out. It's also worth mentioning that North Korea only exists because the bulk of the Chinese Army chased the Americans and South Koreans back towards the current border.
When will the conflict end? When North Korea goes too far. When China decides it wants no more to do with Kim Jong Un, and the rest of the world decides it's had enough of North Korea's garbage. That day will inevitably come. But it won't come because of a James Franco movie. We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
The US This Week: Torture
Torture. Enhanced interrogation techniques. Human rights abuse. Necessary security measures. Unconstitutional brutality. Unpleasant logic. Call it what you like and think what you will, but there's no denying that the declassified, five-hundred-twenty-five page report on CIA torture during the Bush Administration is going to make heads roll.
In the event that you have an incredible amount of time to kill and are interested, here's the full text of the Senate's report on the subject:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/
Since the vast majority of you have neither the time nor the patience to peruse five hundred pages of report, I'll sum it up - the CIA's use of torture, it seems, has been a lot broader and a lot more varied than we previously believed. In addition to the classic method of water boarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning (I would provide a link to a video, but I can't access YouTube from the Herricks WiFi), the CIA has been engaging in rectal feeding and hydration, to say nothing of death threats and other fun things. Already, this has sparked considerable debate in the political world. Former Vice President Dick Cheney lambasted the attacks and defended the CIA, saying that "[he] would do it again in a minute." Naturally, the majority of Republicans are backing the CIA in this case. They claim that the report is heavily partisan and a political move on the part of the Democrats to discredit the Bush administration. Other Republicans - and indeed, several Democrats - hold that this move will only weaken America on the whole. The Democrat-led committee's motive for releasing the report is unclear at best, which gives the right a bit of credibility here. To me, it doesn't add up. Maybe releasing the report for all the world to see is the right thing to do, but it certainly isn't the smart thing to do. In fact, I'd call it an extremely stupid thing to do.
At the end of the day, I have to side with the Republicans on this one. 9/11 is one of my earliest memories, and it's made me a bit hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. My parents lost some of their best friends, and half my mom's family was in the city, involved in the rescue efforts. Security policy is one of my favorite subjects, and one doesn't need a bachelor's degree to see that releasing the report is counterintuitive to our nation's standing. Our efforts to come away from the attack looking strong didn't work very well, given the lengthy conflicts we entangled ourselves in in the Middle East. So why weaken our position any further? Our reputation took a heavy blow in the last decade, and our actions are the butt of jokes across the world. What's the purpose of giving Vlad Putin more ammunition to use against the United States? Sure, we're being honest by releasing the report, but the rest of the world couldn't care less about that. ISIS will view this as proof that they're right about America, kill a few innocents, and ramp up their recruiting campaign. Perhaps the recent terror attack in Sydney's close chronological proximity to the report's release wasn't a coincidence. Iran will decry the actions, and North Korea will start spouting their usual anti-American, anti-western, anti-democratic hash. And at the end of the day, the report really overplays the role of torture - let's be honest and call it what it is - in the CIA's interrogation tactics. The five hundred twenty-five pages of the report represent only a handful of the thousands of instances of CIA interrogation over the past thirteen years. Torture tactics, cruel as they are, have proved themselves to be effective, for obvious reasons. The CIA's "Enhanced Interrogation Tactics" supplied them with information that lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden, mere months before terrorist attacks he'd planned against the US and its leaders were set to take place.
The point I'm driving at is that this isn't a black and white issue. There's gray, and a lot of it. Torture is undeniably cruel, and infringes upon human rights. And there are those instances when the individuals tortured were innocent, or had no answers to the questions they were asked. But at the same time, there are those instances when torture provided the CIA with game-changing knowledge and vital information, and they used that information to defend the United States and the American people. All of this was done in an effort to make sure we - the civilian body of the US - could, and can, lead safe and secure lives, free from worry of foreign attacks on our soil. This is one of those instances when Dick Cheney is right. Because if I were running the country and had the option to use torture on a few individuals to potentially save the lives of thousands of people, I'd do it in a minute.
In the event that you have an incredible amount of time to kill and are interested, here's the full text of the Senate's report on the subject:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/
Since the vast majority of you have neither the time nor the patience to peruse five hundred pages of report, I'll sum it up - the CIA's use of torture, it seems, has been a lot broader and a lot more varied than we previously believed. In addition to the classic method of water boarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning (I would provide a link to a video, but I can't access YouTube from the Herricks WiFi), the CIA has been engaging in rectal feeding and hydration, to say nothing of death threats and other fun things. Already, this has sparked considerable debate in the political world. Former Vice President Dick Cheney lambasted the attacks and defended the CIA, saying that "[he] would do it again in a minute." Naturally, the majority of Republicans are backing the CIA in this case. They claim that the report is heavily partisan and a political move on the part of the Democrats to discredit the Bush administration. Other Republicans - and indeed, several Democrats - hold that this move will only weaken America on the whole. The Democrat-led committee's motive for releasing the report is unclear at best, which gives the right a bit of credibility here. To me, it doesn't add up. Maybe releasing the report for all the world to see is the right thing to do, but it certainly isn't the smart thing to do. In fact, I'd call it an extremely stupid thing to do.
At the end of the day, I have to side with the Republicans on this one. 9/11 is one of my earliest memories, and it's made me a bit hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. My parents lost some of their best friends, and half my mom's family was in the city, involved in the rescue efforts. Security policy is one of my favorite subjects, and one doesn't need a bachelor's degree to see that releasing the report is counterintuitive to our nation's standing. Our efforts to come away from the attack looking strong didn't work very well, given the lengthy conflicts we entangled ourselves in in the Middle East. So why weaken our position any further? Our reputation took a heavy blow in the last decade, and our actions are the butt of jokes across the world. What's the purpose of giving Vlad Putin more ammunition to use against the United States? Sure, we're being honest by releasing the report, but the rest of the world couldn't care less about that. ISIS will view this as proof that they're right about America, kill a few innocents, and ramp up their recruiting campaign. Perhaps the recent terror attack in Sydney's close chronological proximity to the report's release wasn't a coincidence. Iran will decry the actions, and North Korea will start spouting their usual anti-American, anti-western, anti-democratic hash. And at the end of the day, the report really overplays the role of torture - let's be honest and call it what it is - in the CIA's interrogation tactics. The five hundred twenty-five pages of the report represent only a handful of the thousands of instances of CIA interrogation over the past thirteen years. Torture tactics, cruel as they are, have proved themselves to be effective, for obvious reasons. The CIA's "Enhanced Interrogation Tactics" supplied them with information that lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden, mere months before terrorist attacks he'd planned against the US and its leaders were set to take place.
The point I'm driving at is that this isn't a black and white issue. There's gray, and a lot of it. Torture is undeniably cruel, and infringes upon human rights. And there are those instances when the individuals tortured were innocent, or had no answers to the questions they were asked. But at the same time, there are those instances when torture provided the CIA with game-changing knowledge and vital information, and they used that information to defend the United States and the American people. All of this was done in an effort to make sure we - the civilian body of the US - could, and can, lead safe and secure lives, free from worry of foreign attacks on our soil. This is one of those instances when Dick Cheney is right. Because if I were running the country and had the option to use torture on a few individuals to potentially save the lives of thousands of people, I'd do it in a minute.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Beginning
Life is a whole series of procrastinations and overcoming procrastinations. You start by putting off your middle school essays for later, because you can always do them later. Then you put off studying for the SAT, because you can always do it later, and you can always retake the test. And then you put off writing some of your supplemental essays for college applications, because they aren't due for another month. And then you put off writing the PiG paper, and then you put off writing your thesis paper, and then you put off studying for your medical school tests, and you're a brain surgeon with no idea how to operate on the human brain and everything is a mess thanks to procrastination! So here's the trick: how do you break out of the cycle of procrastination?
I'm definitely guilty of procrastinating. I started this post yesterday (Friday, December 12th), but decided to wait for a time when I was actually procrastinating to write the rest of this post and interrupt the flow. That time came...well, I suppose ti came about an hour and a half ago. I went up to the attic/my room to finish my last two supplemental essays, and found Google Maps open on my computer. Naturally, I screwed around on Google Maps for a few minutes, using the Street View feature to explore Cape Town. After that, I checked Facebook with a John Oliver bit in the background. I read the photography article for STAC and then pulled up YouTube, put on a documentary, and started playing a round of my favorite board game, Risk-solitaire. And even now, I'm tempted to put off my focus on this post to explain what Risk-solitaire is. The fact is, there are always things that we'd all rather be doing than what we are doing. I'd rather be watching Last Week Tonight than doing my supplementals. I'm sure you'd all much rather be on the beach or at a museum somewhere instead of cooped up in front of your computer. And with the Internet, it's easy to distract ourselves with any number of things. And these procrastinations and distractions are what keep me from starting things like supplemental essays or blog posts or PiG paper drafts or any number of things.
So, how do I deal with this? The first thing I do is I eliminate all distractions. I'll close out of any internet pages I have up, get any books I may be reading up on the shelves, and hide all non-work related objects from my line of sight. After that, I force myself to work. That sounds a bit more extreme than it actually is - I tell myself, "Okay, Brian, this has to get done. Get it done." And I do. I've found that that mindset helps me overcome a variety of things, particularly procrastination. Even when I'm working, I'm often tempted to distract myself by opening up Facebook or checking my email. "After I'm done," is always my mindset while I'm working. I can open up Google Maps later on, and conquer Russia in Risk-solitaire after my essays are all done. Every time I start working, I tell myself that I have to get this done. I don't give myself the option. Because given the option, there are very few people who wouldn't choose to distract themselves. After I'm finished with this post, I'll tell myself that I have to finish my supplemental essays. After that, I'll tell myself that I have to edit my PiG paper. After that, I'll tell myself to finish the English essay I have due later in the week, and then to continue editing my film, and then to study for Calculus and Physics, and so on and so forth. And at the end of the day (or perhaps the end of the weekend), I'll get it done.
So, how do I deal with this? The first thing I do is I eliminate all distractions. I'll close out of any internet pages I have up, get any books I may be reading up on the shelves, and hide all non-work related objects from my line of sight. After that, I force myself to work. That sounds a bit more extreme than it actually is - I tell myself, "Okay, Brian, this has to get done. Get it done." And I do. I've found that that mindset helps me overcome a variety of things, particularly procrastination. Even when I'm working, I'm often tempted to distract myself by opening up Facebook or checking my email. "After I'm done," is always my mindset while I'm working. I can open up Google Maps later on, and conquer Russia in Risk-solitaire after my essays are all done. Every time I start working, I tell myself that I have to get this done. I don't give myself the option. Because given the option, there are very few people who wouldn't choose to distract themselves. After I'm finished with this post, I'll tell myself that I have to finish my supplemental essays. After that, I'll tell myself that I have to edit my PiG paper. After that, I'll tell myself to finish the English essay I have due later in the week, and then to continue editing my film, and then to study for Calculus and Physics, and so on and so forth. And at the end of the day (or perhaps the end of the weekend), I'll get it done.
Monday, December 8, 2014
Alternate History (Take Two)
As you've probably gathered, I didn't find my first splurge into alternate history to be a waste of my time or a pointless gesture. I think I'm going to like this segment - there are so many possibilities for potential posts, so many different directions things can go in, and so on and so forth. Keeping with the spirit of World War II, I'm going to focus on the make-or-break decisions that eventually broke Nazi Germany: Hitler's interference in the invasion of the Soviet Union.
Here's some actual history: it's December in the bitter Russian winter, not far from the buildings and facades of Moscow. The Wehrmacht has arrived in all its terrible glory, having cut through eastern Poland and Belorussia (Belarus, then a part of the Soviet Union) to strike at the heart of great Soviet Empire. But they don't attack in force. After being repulsed before Moscow by the Russian defenders, the Wehrmacht holds back.
But what if they hadn't?
The Wehrmacht didn't strike the Soviet capital with all the force it could muster. In fact, after a few months of skirmishing before Moscow, it pulled back altogether. Why? Because Hitler wanted to focus on an industrial town hundreds of miles to the south, nestled along the banks of the Volga River: Stalingrad. Hitler's rationale for this move, as presented to German leaders, was that if the Wehrmacht took Stalingrad, it could march to the Caucasus Mountains virtually unopposed, and take advantage of the region's bountiful oilfields. The generals accepted Hitler's opinion for two reasons: they knew that the German Army's oil reserves were running low, and they also rather liked being alive. But this wasn't Hitler's motive for taking Stalingrad. By taking and destroying the city named for his arch-rival, he hoped to destroy Stalin's confidence and his psychological health. Hitler played Stalin like a fiddle for a bit, but he underestimated just how right he was about the Soviet Premier's instability. Stalin could not physically accept the possibility that the Nazis might take the city named for him. As such, he poured hundreds of thousands of Russians at the city, and the rest is history.
What if history had gone differently, though? What if, instead of letting his ego get the better of him and attempting to deal a psychological blow to his nemesis, Hitler did the logical thing and dealt a psychological blow to the Russian people by annihilating their ancient capital? Because it was entirely feasible for the Wehrmacht to take Moscow in the final months of 1941. If Hitler and his generals had sent the bulk of their forces at the Soviet Union's largest and most important city, it stands to reason that they would have taken it. They had the manpower, the firepower, and the machine power to finish the job at Moscow and destroy the city. This may not have fazed Stalin, but it certainly would have had an impact on the average Red Army soldier. It's important to remember that Russian borders stretched much farther before the German invasion of 1941 than they do today - the Soviets had annexed the eastern third of Poland, to say nothing of the lands we now know as the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Belarus. Ukraine - a large nation itself - was a Soviet puppet state. As such, Moscow was a great deal farther from the Russian border with the west than it is today. The Wehrmacht struck deep into Russia in the first few months of Barbarossa, and they struck hard. If Hitler hadn't reined in the armed forces and sent them packing for Stalingrad, it stands to reason that the Germans would have taken the Soviet capital. This would have crushed the morale of the average Soviet civilian. Stalin was crazy enough that he probably would have had a less extreme reaction to the notion of losing Moscow than to the notion of losing Stalingrad. The German center could have blasted away at Moscow while the southern army, which Hitler sent to Stalingrad first, kept Soviet counter-attacks at bay.
What would have happened to the world if the Russians lost Moscow? Well, the war in the east would hardly grind to a halt. Stalin would certainly keep up the fight. And there would be a great many Russians who would side with him. The fight would continue in Siberia, and it seems likely that the Russians would eventually halt the Wehrmacht's advance. But whether or not they would be able to strike back in time to keep the Germans from fine-tuning the game-changing technologies they were developing in 1945 - jet fighters, ballistic missiles, and even nuclear weapons - is unclear. Personally, I don't think that would happen. Since it was the Red Army that ultimately defeated the Germans, we can't say for certain whether the Americans and British would have been able to take on the Wehrmacht alone. Perhaps a campaign in the far-reaches of Siberia would spread the German army thin, and make it easier for the Western Allies to strike. Churchill might have been able to put his plan to march through Germany into the Soviet heartland into action in this scenario. Or perhaps the downfall of the Soviet Union would work against the western Allies, given that the Nazis would have had more time to develop technologies that were years ahead of anything the US and Britain had. We can't say for certain what would happen in this scenario. It would depend on other factors - what sort of a resistance would the Russian people mount? How long would the Red Army hold out? Would the Germans overextend their forces in the march through Siberia, leaving them vulnerable to destruction? We don't know what would have happened, because none of these things did happen. It's frustrating, to some extent. But on the other hand, not knowing is half of the fun.
Here's some actual history: it's December in the bitter Russian winter, not far from the buildings and facades of Moscow. The Wehrmacht has arrived in all its terrible glory, having cut through eastern Poland and Belorussia (Belarus, then a part of the Soviet Union) to strike at the heart of great Soviet Empire. But they don't attack in force. After being repulsed before Moscow by the Russian defenders, the Wehrmacht holds back.
But what if they hadn't?
The Wehrmacht didn't strike the Soviet capital with all the force it could muster. In fact, after a few months of skirmishing before Moscow, it pulled back altogether. Why? Because Hitler wanted to focus on an industrial town hundreds of miles to the south, nestled along the banks of the Volga River: Stalingrad. Hitler's rationale for this move, as presented to German leaders, was that if the Wehrmacht took Stalingrad, it could march to the Caucasus Mountains virtually unopposed, and take advantage of the region's bountiful oilfields. The generals accepted Hitler's opinion for two reasons: they knew that the German Army's oil reserves were running low, and they also rather liked being alive. But this wasn't Hitler's motive for taking Stalingrad. By taking and destroying the city named for his arch-rival, he hoped to destroy Stalin's confidence and his psychological health. Hitler played Stalin like a fiddle for a bit, but he underestimated just how right he was about the Soviet Premier's instability. Stalin could not physically accept the possibility that the Nazis might take the city named for him. As such, he poured hundreds of thousands of Russians at the city, and the rest is history.
What if history had gone differently, though? What if, instead of letting his ego get the better of him and attempting to deal a psychological blow to his nemesis, Hitler did the logical thing and dealt a psychological blow to the Russian people by annihilating their ancient capital? Because it was entirely feasible for the Wehrmacht to take Moscow in the final months of 1941. If Hitler and his generals had sent the bulk of their forces at the Soviet Union's largest and most important city, it stands to reason that they would have taken it. They had the manpower, the firepower, and the machine power to finish the job at Moscow and destroy the city. This may not have fazed Stalin, but it certainly would have had an impact on the average Red Army soldier. It's important to remember that Russian borders stretched much farther before the German invasion of 1941 than they do today - the Soviets had annexed the eastern third of Poland, to say nothing of the lands we now know as the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Belarus. Ukraine - a large nation itself - was a Soviet puppet state. As such, Moscow was a great deal farther from the Russian border with the west than it is today. The Wehrmacht struck deep into Russia in the first few months of Barbarossa, and they struck hard. If Hitler hadn't reined in the armed forces and sent them packing for Stalingrad, it stands to reason that the Germans would have taken the Soviet capital. This would have crushed the morale of the average Soviet civilian. Stalin was crazy enough that he probably would have had a less extreme reaction to the notion of losing Moscow than to the notion of losing Stalingrad. The German center could have blasted away at Moscow while the southern army, which Hitler sent to Stalingrad first, kept Soviet counter-attacks at bay.
What would have happened to the world if the Russians lost Moscow? Well, the war in the east would hardly grind to a halt. Stalin would certainly keep up the fight. And there would be a great many Russians who would side with him. The fight would continue in Siberia, and it seems likely that the Russians would eventually halt the Wehrmacht's advance. But whether or not they would be able to strike back in time to keep the Germans from fine-tuning the game-changing technologies they were developing in 1945 - jet fighters, ballistic missiles, and even nuclear weapons - is unclear. Personally, I don't think that would happen. Since it was the Red Army that ultimately defeated the Germans, we can't say for certain whether the Americans and British would have been able to take on the Wehrmacht alone. Perhaps a campaign in the far-reaches of Siberia would spread the German army thin, and make it easier for the Western Allies to strike. Churchill might have been able to put his plan to march through Germany into the Soviet heartland into action in this scenario. Or perhaps the downfall of the Soviet Union would work against the western Allies, given that the Nazis would have had more time to develop technologies that were years ahead of anything the US and Britain had. We can't say for certain what would happen in this scenario. It would depend on other factors - what sort of a resistance would the Russian people mount? How long would the Red Army hold out? Would the Germans overextend their forces in the march through Siberia, leaving them vulnerable to destruction? We don't know what would have happened, because none of these things did happen. It's frustrating, to some extent. But on the other hand, not knowing is half of the fun.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Alternate History (Take One)
In honor of the seventy-third anniversary of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, I'm going to discuss how the world would be different today in the event that history had gone a bit differently. This may become a recurring segment on my blog, depending how this post goes. If it's productive and makes me think, I'll keep it. If it's pointless and has no real worth, I'll drop it. So let's see how this goes! Here's the question of the day: How would the world be different if the Axis won World War Two?
That's a very broad statement - there are a lot of ways the Axis could have won the war. The odds weren't so much in our favor in the early years in the war. A few rational decisions on one highly irrational dictator's part would have altered the face of human history. For instance, let's say Hitler went through with his original plan to take Great Britain before the assault on the Soviet Union. We'd like to think this wouldn't have happened, but it very nearly did. Germany had the manpower and the industrial capability to finish the job - Hitler just didn't have the patience. If he did, the Luftwaffe would have worn down the RAF through sheer force of numbers before turning its attention to the Royal Navy. Once again, through sheer force of numbers, the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) would wear down on the British forces in the Channel. Then the Panzers would cross over, and the rest would have been history.
I suppose this is the statement I'm focusing on: what if the Nazis conquered Britain in the early years of the war? This is what we do know - Churchill, the Royal Family, the Parliament, and all the civilians who could would flee to another part of the Empire. Canada seems the most likely choice for the new seat of government - it's the farthest-removed from the ambitious, empire-building Japanese nation, and quite close to the United States. The America factor also comes into play - we were technically neutral up until Pearl Harbor, but we heavily favored the British. Churchill's grand plan for victory early in the war was to, and I quote, "...drag the United States in" to the conflict. Relocating to Canada would have put the British government in very close proximity to the United States. Within fifty miles, in fact, assuming the Canadian capital of Ottawa was chosen as the new center of British government. I don't think the American people would have taken kindly to a foreign army tromping around fifty miles from their soil with an intent to conquer.
How would the war progress from there? That would depend on quite a few things. In this situation, do the Japanese still attack Pearl Harbor? Do the Americans declare war on Germany before Pearl Harbor? And, perhaps most importantly, how do the Germans fare against the Russians? This last one warrants a post of its own, so perhaps I'll discuss it in the not-too-distant future. Because the Russian victory over the Germans was hardly guaranteed. Once again, if Hitler had made a few rational decisions, it wasn't only feasible - it was likely. But more on that later. If the Germans managed to beat the Russians, the British would be in trouble. Especially if the Japanese had declared war upon the United States, and the two powers had to split their navies and militaries to fight a two-front war. This is exactly what happened to Germany in World War Two, and it eventually destroyed them.
Here's the burning question that comes out of all of this: would the Axis have conquered North America? The answer is, in all likelihood, no. The American people were armed to the teeth - remember, this is long before the days of assault rifles. The average midwestern farmer was just as well-armed as the average German soldier. The full might of the American Army and whatever remained of the British Army and Canadian Army would be waiting for the aggressors. And the majority of those troops would be fighting on their home turf. And, assuming the Americans still won the Battle of Midway (or Japan stayed out of the conflict altogether), neither army would have to worry about the Pacific. The Old World would fall to the Axis or the Soviet Union, depending on who won, but Oceania and the Western Hemisphere would remain safe. Because an invasion of the British Isles would have cost a great deal of German lives. Churchill would have undoubtedly seen the British people make good on his words if the Nazis landed. An invasion of the US and Canada - nearly as large as, far more densely populated than, and far-better armed than the Soviet Union, to say nothing of their geographic isolation from the European continent - would be almost impossible. We could churn out tanks faster than the Germans could destroy them, and every man from eight to eighty would be in the field with a rifle. The Nazis couldn't feasibly win.
Unless, of course, they developed the atomic bomb...but that's another matter altogether.
That's a very broad statement - there are a lot of ways the Axis could have won the war. The odds weren't so much in our favor in the early years in the war. A few rational decisions on one highly irrational dictator's part would have altered the face of human history. For instance, let's say Hitler went through with his original plan to take Great Britain before the assault on the Soviet Union. We'd like to think this wouldn't have happened, but it very nearly did. Germany had the manpower and the industrial capability to finish the job - Hitler just didn't have the patience. If he did, the Luftwaffe would have worn down the RAF through sheer force of numbers before turning its attention to the Royal Navy. Once again, through sheer force of numbers, the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) would wear down on the British forces in the Channel. Then the Panzers would cross over, and the rest would have been history.
I suppose this is the statement I'm focusing on: what if the Nazis conquered Britain in the early years of the war? This is what we do know - Churchill, the Royal Family, the Parliament, and all the civilians who could would flee to another part of the Empire. Canada seems the most likely choice for the new seat of government - it's the farthest-removed from the ambitious, empire-building Japanese nation, and quite close to the United States. The America factor also comes into play - we were technically neutral up until Pearl Harbor, but we heavily favored the British. Churchill's grand plan for victory early in the war was to, and I quote, "...drag the United States in" to the conflict. Relocating to Canada would have put the British government in very close proximity to the United States. Within fifty miles, in fact, assuming the Canadian capital of Ottawa was chosen as the new center of British government. I don't think the American people would have taken kindly to a foreign army tromping around fifty miles from their soil with an intent to conquer.
How would the war progress from there? That would depend on quite a few things. In this situation, do the Japanese still attack Pearl Harbor? Do the Americans declare war on Germany before Pearl Harbor? And, perhaps most importantly, how do the Germans fare against the Russians? This last one warrants a post of its own, so perhaps I'll discuss it in the not-too-distant future. Because the Russian victory over the Germans was hardly guaranteed. Once again, if Hitler had made a few rational decisions, it wasn't only feasible - it was likely. But more on that later. If the Germans managed to beat the Russians, the British would be in trouble. Especially if the Japanese had declared war upon the United States, and the two powers had to split their navies and militaries to fight a two-front war. This is exactly what happened to Germany in World War Two, and it eventually destroyed them.
Here's the burning question that comes out of all of this: would the Axis have conquered North America? The answer is, in all likelihood, no. The American people were armed to the teeth - remember, this is long before the days of assault rifles. The average midwestern farmer was just as well-armed as the average German soldier. The full might of the American Army and whatever remained of the British Army and Canadian Army would be waiting for the aggressors. And the majority of those troops would be fighting on their home turf. And, assuming the Americans still won the Battle of Midway (or Japan stayed out of the conflict altogether), neither army would have to worry about the Pacific. The Old World would fall to the Axis or the Soviet Union, depending on who won, but Oceania and the Western Hemisphere would remain safe. Because an invasion of the British Isles would have cost a great deal of German lives. Churchill would have undoubtedly seen the British people make good on his words if the Nazis landed. An invasion of the US and Canada - nearly as large as, far more densely populated than, and far-better armed than the Soviet Union, to say nothing of their geographic isolation from the European continent - would be almost impossible. We could churn out tanks faster than the Germans could destroy them, and every man from eight to eighty would be in the field with a rifle. The Nazis couldn't feasibly win.
Unless, of course, they developed the atomic bomb...but that's another matter altogether.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Fear and Art (or Art and Fear?)
Fear is, of course, an unavoidable obstacle in any process. As someone who's enduring the college application process, the dreaded Participation in Government paper, and four Advanced Placement courses, I've run into a lot of the stuff in school in general. Naturally, our old friend fear is devoted to hindering the artistic process as well. I would say it's most evident when I'm doing monologues. When you're acting alone, it's easy to get distracted by a variety of things. In my case, since I don't really act or rehearse in close proximity to some form of media, it's usually something in my surroundings. Without someone to keep you going, it's easy to become distracted by a number of things. Fear and self-doubt are always major players here: what if I'm doing things wrong? Am I getting entrenched in something that could be better? Should I change up what I'm doing? It's similar when I paint. A lot of the time, I worry about how the image of the work I have in my head differs from the picture forming on the canvas. It's one of those things that shouldn't bother me, but does. A lot. At any rate, fear is an especially big obstacle in the painting process. It doesn't always figure into my writing, though, as I've got a few strategies to deal with writer's block. And I've started to apply these strategies to my daily routine - and, of course, to my artistic process.
As I mentioned before, I run into fear in my everyday life, thanks to schoolwork in general. Fear can be a motivator, and often is in these cases: fear of failure prompts studying and hard work, and studying and hard work tend to prevent failure. That's part of the reason why I'm getting this blog post done on Monday night when it isn't due for almost a week: between the essays, the tests, and the homework assignments I have later in the week, I don't want to have the post hanging over my head. It's the same thing in art: fear is a sort of omnipresent specter, lurking just on the fringes of view. Fear of not performing to the optimum level, or painting at a poor caliber, or writing The thing is, it can be used to your advantage. The fear of failure can drive you to put more work into your art, whether it's writing, acting, painting, or any other form. If you give into fear, though, fear will work against you. You'll procrastinate, distract yourself, and keep yourself from getting things done satisfactorily. Procrastination is the enemy of success, unfortunately. Naturally, it's much easier to procrastinate and preoccupy oneself with some distracting factor than it is to get decent work done.
Some distractions, however, can prove to be the opposite of distractions. For instance, when I'm writing, I often play some classical music in the background. It can break up monotonous sections without really interfering with the process as a whole. As I mentioned earlier, it's harder to procrastinate when you're acting with another individual, but easier when you're doing monologues or reading lines alone. My own strategy to deal with this problem is a new one for me: I take a two-minute water break and then attack the monologue from a different angle. This helps keep the lines fresher and newer, and alleviates my worries that I'll get stuck in a rut and keep doing something the wrong way. Changing things up a bit works almost universally for me. If I don't think a painting I'm working on is going well, I'll alter my brush strokes and change up how I'm layering things. The results aren't necessarily what I pictured going into the process, but they don't disappoint. Because if they do, I've learned to change things up and make them work. So what if it's nothing like what I pictured? Nobody cares. Getting into the process is the hard part, because of all the self-doubt I feel when I'm painting. Once I'm in, everything starts to flow, and the fear abates. That's a common theme here. Getting into the flow of things is where fear has the most power. Once you begin, though, fear starts to lose its hold.
As I mentioned before, I run into fear in my everyday life, thanks to schoolwork in general. Fear can be a motivator, and often is in these cases: fear of failure prompts studying and hard work, and studying and hard work tend to prevent failure. That's part of the reason why I'm getting this blog post done on Monday night when it isn't due for almost a week: between the essays, the tests, and the homework assignments I have later in the week, I don't want to have the post hanging over my head. It's the same thing in art: fear is a sort of omnipresent specter, lurking just on the fringes of view. Fear of not performing to the optimum level, or painting at a poor caliber, or writing The thing is, it can be used to your advantage. The fear of failure can drive you to put more work into your art, whether it's writing, acting, painting, or any other form. If you give into fear, though, fear will work against you. You'll procrastinate, distract yourself, and keep yourself from getting things done satisfactorily. Procrastination is the enemy of success, unfortunately. Naturally, it's much easier to procrastinate and preoccupy oneself with some distracting factor than it is to get decent work done.
Some distractions, however, can prove to be the opposite of distractions. For instance, when I'm writing, I often play some classical music in the background. It can break up monotonous sections without really interfering with the process as a whole. As I mentioned earlier, it's harder to procrastinate when you're acting with another individual, but easier when you're doing monologues or reading lines alone. My own strategy to deal with this problem is a new one for me: I take a two-minute water break and then attack the monologue from a different angle. This helps keep the lines fresher and newer, and alleviates my worries that I'll get stuck in a rut and keep doing something the wrong way. Changing things up a bit works almost universally for me. If I don't think a painting I'm working on is going well, I'll alter my brush strokes and change up how I'm layering things. The results aren't necessarily what I pictured going into the process, but they don't disappoint. Because if they do, I've learned to change things up and make them work. So what if it's nothing like what I pictured? Nobody cares. Getting into the process is the hard part, because of all the self-doubt I feel when I'm painting. Once I'm in, everything starts to flow, and the fear abates. That's a common theme here. Getting into the flow of things is where fear has the most power. Once you begin, though, fear starts to lose its hold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)