Monthly Archives: September 2022

Nuclear Games

Posted on by

Fission and fusion. Warheads and delivery vehicles. First strikes and second strikes. Counterforce and countervalue. Shots across the blow and mutually assured destruction. For decades on end these and any number of similarly mysterious terms have been circling the planet, reflecting the efforts of statesmen, politicians, defense officials, soldiers, academics and journalists to understand what nuclear weapons are all about, by whom and how they might be used, and what the consequences of their use might be. Some of the discussions are public, a great many others classified. Some are committed to paper, but a great many others take the form of wargames in which teams of highly qualified analysts, supported by as much computing power as it takes, try to answer these and similar question for their superiors’ benefit—superiors who, judging by the little that has been published on their reactions, may not even be aware that the wargames are taking place, let alone taken an interest in them.

Still at bottom the issues are very simple. Seven months after their failure to subdue Ukraine by means of a short and decisive coup de main, Putin and his staff seem to be running out of options. They can try and occupy the enemy’s most important cities, i.e Kiev, Kharkov, and perhaps Odessa. However, judging by what happened in the Donbas such an attempt will almost certainly involve them in prolonged, brutal and very bloody urban warfare for which their troops seem to be unprepared and in which victory is by no means assured. They can subject these and other cities to an even more intensive bombardment than has been the case so far, but such a move is unlikely to bring about a quick surrender on the enemy’s part. They can take the offensive in other parts of Ukraine, but given that country’s size and the sparsity of its population many if not most of those efforts are likely to hit little but empty air. Finally, following a strategic switch that has been under way since May, they can renounce the offense in favor of the defense and, by so doing, give up any thought of victory at all.

Even assuming Russia can successfully overcome its current shortage of military manpower, none of the options appear very attractive.  This is a fact of which Putin must be aware and which, at some point, may drive him to despair. Enter nuclear weapons. Here the all-important, indeed decisive, factor is that Ukraine does not have them. Perhaps the more the pity; judging by everything that has happened and not happened since 1945, in that case there is an excellent possibility that the war would never have broken out in the first place.

Next, suppose Putin wants to use his nuclear weapons. However, in that case it is not at all clear what he would do with them. The Ukrainian armed forces, made wise by the invasion, are fighting in too dispersed and mobile a manner to present attractive targets. For the Russians to ignore that fact will only lead to the Ukrainians switching to guerrilla and terrorism, a process that is already well under way. Destroying Ukraine’s vital infrastructure—dams, power plants, airports, and the like—will only make the burden of one day occupying and administering the country all the greater; besides, as evens in the Donbas show, such destruction can be achieved almost equally well by conventional means. Admittedly bombing cities out of existence, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, is an option. However, exercising it will end up by creating similar and even greater problems for the Russians to deal with. The more so because of the radioactivity that will surely result. So I consider Putin’s words on the topic idle threats. They are relevant only in case Zelensky and NATO mount a large-scale military offensive, complete with intensive air bombardment, into Russian territory—something that is unlikely to happen.

On the other hand, now that the US and NATO seems to be winning the war, they have no interest in nuclear weapons either. The noises they are making, some overt, others covert, are meant primarily if not exclusively to remind Putin of the terrible consequences that will follow if he goes too far. What “too far” might mean, and what the response might be, is deliberately being left obscure. Precisely how NATOs warnings link up with the factors mentioned in the previous paragraph is also not clear.

The conclusion from this is that no one wants, or should want, to see nuclear weapons used in action. That does not, repeat not, mean that the world is safe and that the weapons in question, complete with their PALs (positive action links, mechanisms explicitly designed to prevent any but authorized personnel, normally heads of state), will always remain in the places they are stored. The situation in Ukraine is unstable and constantly changing. Most of us cannot even imagine the stress to which the most important actors are subject. Under such circumstances words, especially words deliberately used to conceal the exact circumstances under which the weapons may be used, are easily misunderstood. War being a tit-for-tat business, the greatest danger is that of escalation. Meaning the likelihood that, once a single weapon is set off, all will be.

As Clausewtiz says, most barriers only exist in men’s minds. That is why, once they are breached, rebuilding them may be difficult if not impossible.

Guest Article: Playing with Nuclear War

Posted on by

by

Bill Lind

As of this writing (September 12), Ukraine’s counter offensives appear to be succeeding.  The widely telegraphed offensive in the south is making some progress.  But it looks as if its primary role was deception, where it has already succeeded because Russia responded by drawing down its forces in eastern Ukraine, opening the door for the main Ukrainian counteroffensive.  That is moving forward at Blitzkrieg pace, to the point where Russian units are disintegrating.  All this is, of course, wonderful news for Ukraine and for anyone who wants to see David beat Goliath.

But interests must be matters of cold calculation, not warm emotions.  Foreign policy is more than consulting Sant’s list of who is naughty or nice.  Yes, the Russians have been beasts and their invasion of Ukraine has been criminal.  But Ukraine’s victories are not good news for America’s most vital interest.

What is that most vital interest?  Avoiding nuclear war.

Throughout the Cold War, everyone in Washington understood this.  Party did not matter, liberal or conservative was of no consequence.  The whole foreign and defense policy establishment knew we and the Soviets were walking on eggs.  The slightest mis-step could mean nuclear catastrophe.  We came close on occasion; the closest was probably during the Cuban missile crisis, when the skipper of a Soviet submarine was about to fire a nuclear torpedo at an American destroyer.  His politruk stopped him.  As the representative of the Party, he knew Moscow did not want nuclear war any more than Washington did.

But it seems all the adults in the room died and a bunch of drunk teenagers now have their fingers on the button.  Russia has hinted from the outset of its invasion of Ukraine that the nuclear option is available.  If the Russian army is beginning to disintegrate, I suspect that option is or soon will be on the table.

What would it mean?  My guess is one or more nuclear strikes in western Ukraine, aimed at the supply lines bringing in American and European weapons.  Initially, I don’t think they would attack NATO territory.  But the winds blow east to west in Europe, and the fallout could be considered a weapon on its own.

This is, of course, madness in Moscow.  President Putin regrets the break-up of the Soviet Union; some old Party hands should remind him that no Soviet leader would ever have started a nuclear war.  Had one moved to do so, he would immediately have been recognized as a Trotskyite and toppled.

Unfortunately, the situation in Washington is as bad or worse.  Some circles there are planning to respond with American nuclear strikes if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine.  But what could our targets be?  If we target Russian-held regions of Ukraine such as Donbas, we create the bizarre situation where Moscow and Washington are both nuking Ukraine.  The latter will find out what it was like to be Germany during the Thirty Years War, the place where everyone from Swedes to Spaniards fought it out.  Some German towns still have not recovered.

It does not stop there.  These same circles (hint: there’s a “neo” in their name) know this, plan to hit targets on Russian territory and are calmly discussing the fact that we might lose some east coast cities.  The U.S. military has reportedly been directed to develop contingency plans for such a situation.

Playing with nuclear war goes beyond folly.  It is insanity, plain and simple, straight out of Dr. Strangelove.

If there are any adults left in Moscow or Washington, they need to kick the teenagers out of the room, consider their interests rationally and sit down and talk.  Let us imagine the man we need, old Bismark, returns as the Ghost of Crises past (I think Turkish President Erdogan might serve as his avatar).  Here’s a draft agreement:

Russia has a legitimate interest in Ukraine, namely that it does not constitute a threat to Russia.  That means Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO, although it may join the EU.  If Ukraine succeeds in retaking Donbas, it returns to Ukraine, but as a special autonomous region with some degree of self-government and a general amnesty.  If Russia can hold it, it stays Russian.

Russia keeps Crimea, because it has historically been Russian.  Like the Donbas, the Russian corridor connecting Russia proper to Crimea stays with whoever holds it when the fighting stops.

In return for Russia getting Crimea, Ukraine gets East Prussia (now called the “Kaliningrad Oblast”) and a new, broad-gauge, heavy-haul railway connecting Konigsberg to Ukraine, giving Ukraine two seas through which it can export its agricultural products.

Finally, Russia joins an international consortium to rebuild Ukraine, with Russia allowed to concentrate its efforts in towns and cities where the population is heavily Russian.

In all this, there is one point Washington must keep in mind above all others: the United States has no vital interests at stake in Ukraine.  That is why it is insanity for us to be contemplating nuclear war.  For what?  How do we benefit?

The thought that, having avoided nuclear war with the Soviet Union for all those years, we are now planning for a nuclear war with a non-Communist Russia is beyond rational comprehension.

 

The Curious Life of Violette Morris

Posted on by

Like most people these days, I sometimes feel the urge to spend an idle hour roaming the Net. Either because I have nothing better to do or out of curiosity. Doing so the other day, I came across a post I considered so curious that I decided to share it with you. Text taken from Wikipedia with a few very minor changes meant to make things shorter and clearer. Comments, welcome.

Violette Morris (18 April 1893 – 26 April 1944) was a French athlete and Nazi collaborator who won two gold and one silver medal at the Women’s World Games in 1921–1922. She was later banned from competing for violating “moral standards”. She was invited to the 1936 Summer Olympics by Adolf Hitler and was an honored guest. During World War II, she collaborated with Nazis and the Vichy France regime. She became known as “the Hyena of the Gestapo” and was killed by the French Resistance.

Early Life.

Violette Morris was born to Baron Pierre Jacques Morris, a retired French Army cavalry captain, and Élisabeth Marie Antoinette Sakakini, of Palestinian Arab origin. Morris spent her adolescence in a convent, L’Assomption de Huy. She married Cyprien Edouard Joseph Gouraud on 22 August 1914 in the 8th arrondissement of Paris. They divorced in May 1923. Morris learned how to drive during World War I and during the war she drove ambulances and worked as a courier including at the Battle of the Somme and the Battle of Verdun.

Athletic Career.

Morris played for Fémina Sports from 1917 until 1919, and for Olympique de Paris from 1920 to 1926. She also played on the France women’s national team. She won gold medals at the 1921 and 1922 Women’s Olympiads.

In addition to her football career, she was an active participant in many other sports. She was selected for the French national water polo team even though there was no women’s team at the time. She was an avid boxer, often fighting against, and defeating, men. Among the other sports she participated in were road bicycle racing, motorcycle racing, car racing, airplane racing, horseback riding, tennis, archery, diving, swimming, weightlifting, and Greco-Roman wrestling. Her most brilliant athletic years were considered to be from 1921 to 1924, when her slogan was “Ce qu’un homme fait, Violette peut le faire!” (English: “Anything a man can do, Violette can do!”). In 1924 she participated at the 1924 Women’s Olympiad again taking the gold medal in discus and shot put.

Motor Racing.

Morris had her breasts removed by a mastectomy, which she claimed was in order to fit into racing cars more easily. She mainly competed in cyclecar endurance races and utilized a Benjamin cyclecar. She competed in the Tour de France Automobile in 1923; Bol d’Or 1922, 1923, 1926-8; Paris~Pyrenees 1922, 1923; Paris~Nice 1923, 1927; GP San Sebastian 1926; Dolomites 1934.[10] She won the 1927 Bol d’Or 24 hour car race at the wheel of a B.N.C.

Lifestyle.

Morris’ lifestyle in the 1920s was quite different from the traditional role of women. In addition to her wide-ranging athletic activities, Morris deviated from traditional behaviors of the time in several other ways. She was homosexual, dressed in men’s attire, was a heavy smoker and swore often.

In 1928, the Fédération Féminine Sportive de France (FFSF) (French Women’s Sports Federation) refused to renew her license amid complaints about her lifestyle and she was therefore barred from participating in the 1928 Summer Olympics. The agency cited her lack of morals, in particular, Morris’ penchant for wearing men’s clothing. She had also punched a football referee and had been accused of giving amphetamines to other players. After 1928, her auto racing license was revoked on similar moral grounds and Morris started a car-parts store in Paris, and, along with her employees, built racing cars. The business went bankrupt.

In 1930, Morris unsuccessfully sued the FFSF, claiming damages, as she could no longer earn wages competing as an athlete. During the trial, an obscure ordinance from 1800 forbidding women to wear trousers was used against her. Historian Marie-Jo Bonnet claimed that if Morris’ homosexuality was not directly targeted in the trial, it was made an issue throughout. Ironically, one of the lawyers acting for the FFSF was the noted campaigner for French women’s rights, Yvonne Netter. A quote was attributed to Morris after the trial, but was censored:

We live in a country made rotten by money and scandals, ruled by speechifiers, schemers and cowards. This country of little people is not worthy of its elders, not worthy of survival. Someday its decay will bring it to the level of a slave, but if I’m still here, I won’t be one of the slaves. Believe me, it’s not in my temperament.

 

During her athletic career in the 1920s, Morris became friends and associates with many of France’s artists and intellectuals. She had longstanding friendships with American-born entertainer Josephine Baker, actor Jean Marais, and poet, author, and filmmaker Jean Cocteau. In 1939, Morris, along with her partner, actress Yvonne de Bray, invited Cocteau to stay with them at their houseboat docked at Pont de Neuilly where he wrote the three-act play Les Monstres Sacrés.

Arrest and Acquittal for Homicide.

In January 1933 Morris moved into a houseboat, La Mouette, with her partner, Yvonne de Bray, which was moored on the Seine at Pont de Neuilly in northwest Paris near the Bois de Boulogne. Living off inheritance annuities, she took up lyrical singing and was successful enough in the hobby to be broadcast performing on the wireless.

On Christmas Eve 1937, while having dinner with friends and neighbors Robert and Simone de Trobriand at a restaurant in Neuilly, the trio encountered a drunk and aggressive young man named Joseph Le Cam. The unemployed ex-Legionnaire became embroiled in a heated argument with Simone de Trobriand. Morris was able to calm the man after some time. The following evening, after more drinking in Montmartre, Le Cam arrived at Morris’ houseboat and another argument took place, this time between Morris and Le Cam. Le Cam left the houseboat, but soon returned after seeing Simone de Trobriand, with whom he had been arguing the night before, boarding La Mouette. Le Cam then rushed back to the houseboat, brandishing a knife and threatened both Morris and de Trobriand. Morris pushed Le Cam several times before he lunged at her and she produced a 7.65mm revolver. Morris fired four shots, the first two into the air, the following two at Le Cam. He would later die in hospital. Morris was arrested and charged with homicide and incarcerated for four days at the La Petite Roquette prison in the 11th arrondissement of Paris. She was tried in the cour d’assises in March 1938, but was acquitted when the court accepted her plea of self-defense.

Nazi Collaboration and Assassination.

Morris was invited to attend the 1936 Summer Olympics by Adolf Hitler and historian Anne Sebba stated that Morris was an honored guest.

During World War II and the German occupation of France, Morris served as a collaborationist for the Nazis and Vichy France. The nature of her accused collaboration varies, with some, such as writer Raymond Ruffin, claiming one of her main responsibilities during the war was to foil the operation of the Special Operations Executive, a British-run organization that helped the Resistance. He also suggested that, as well as being a spy for the Nazis, she would have been involved in the torture of suspects, and for all of these activities, she was sentenced to death in absentia. Although Morris sourced black-market petrol for the Nazis, ran a garage for the Luftwaffe, and drove for the Nazi and Vichy hierarchy, others state that this appears to be the limit of her collaboration – and was in any case what she did before the fall of France – and that no evidence exists to support Ruffin’s claim that she was involved either in spying or torturing, but perhaps that she was a suitable scapegoat, especially considering her comments before the war. Whether or not it is accurate, her reputation for involvement in torture and enjoying it led her to become known popularly as the “hyena of the Gestapo.”

On 26 April 1944, while driving in her Citroën Traction Avant on a country road from Lieurey to Épaignes in Normandy with the Bailleul family, who were favorably positioned with the Nazi regime in France, Morris’ car sputtered and came to a halt. Earlier in the day, the engine had been tampered with by maquisards of the French Resistance Maquis Surcouf group. Resistance members then emerged from a hiding spot and opened fire on the car. The three adults and two children in the car were killed. Ruffin claimed that Morris was the target, but Bonnet states this is not clear, given the influence of the Bailleul family with the Nazis. Her body, riddled with bullets, was taken to a morgue, where it remained for months, unclaimed. She was buried in an unmarked communal grave.

That Nasty Five Year Old

Posted on by

Looking up Israel’s most important news site some time ago, the first thing I saw was a story about a five-year old (not the one shown in the picture of course, who appears to be flying, on his own, from X to Y). Apparently he had brought a “sharp kitchen knife” to kindergarten and threatened to “kill all the girls” by “some kind of magic.” Not a word about the most important question, i.e why; perhaps it is simply too early. Since it is doubtful whether a five year old is able to explain himself in a coherent way about such a matter, let alone escape what adults tell him or her about him or herself, we are unlikely to know in the future either.

The original, Hebrew-language, story may be found at https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/Hkwujg5Uu. Let teachers, social workers, child psychologists, child psychiatrists, education officials, police officers, lawyers, and other good people whose job includes keeping the young in line worry about the case. For many of them it has the advantage that it will keep their hands busy and the cash flowing for some time to come. Until they come up with their learned conclusions, though, I want to say a few words about some other things that are surely going to happen if feminists pursue their “war against boys,” as one well-known female American writer has called it.

  • Much to the joy of the AF clinics and the adoption agencies, more women are going to postpone having their first child until they are over 35 years old.
  • Fewer and fewer children, both male and female, are going to have full-time mothers to look after them; the age at which they are entrusted to “professionals” (most of whom are female, and thus by definition unable to serve a role models for boys beyond a certain age) is going to go down and down.
  • Divorce, that plague of modern social life, has long been initiated mainly by women. Now it looks as if it is going to increase even further. As a result, fewer and fewer children will grow up with both their natural parents living together in a more or less harmonious way.
  • Society is going to define more and more forms of contact between the sexes, as “harassment,” “abuse,” and “rape,” thus causing the number of such cases to explode. As they do so more and more men are going to fall into the clutches either of the police or of the medical establishment. Either way their lives will be ruined, sometimes before they even got under way.
  • Hatred between the sexes, rather than diminishing as women catch up with men and become more like them, will grow and reach levels hitherto unknown.
  • More women, both old and young, are going to be killed or injured by their male fellow students, boyfriends, fiancés, husbands, etc. In the process, the age of both perpetrators and victims is going to decline.
  • As more and more women pursue careers similar to those of men, the gap in life-expectancy between them and men is going to shrink. In time, it may even disappear altogether.
  • As society continues its obsession with “toxic masculinity” and the like, Western values are going to be eroded even more than they already have been. Including equality in front of the law, the right to a fair and open trial, the presumption of innocence, and the requirement that accusers face their attackers and submit to cross examination.
  • As resentment among men increases, democracy will grow more precarious and tend to be replaced by some form of authoritarianism. For what it may look like, see Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (not the TV series, which is totally dumb, but the original book).
  • Geopolitically speaking Western countries, the only ones where feminism is taken more or less seriously, are going to decline in comparison with the rest.

Finally, these propositions are testable. Keep the list for five or ten years, and we’ll see.

So Many Questions, So Few Answers

Posted on by

F. Wynne, I Was Vermeer: The Rise and Fall of the Twentieth Century’s Greatest Forger, London, Bloomsbury, 2006.

The name Han (short for Johan) van Meegeren, artist, businessman, and fraudster is not one with whom many present-generation people are familiar. However, starting in the late 1920s his name preceded him, so to speak. So much so that, at the time the Dutch Ministry of Justice put him on trial (for forgery as well as doing business with the German occupation authorities) the media were full of his exploits and thousands of people demonstrated for or against him. Nor, as the list of books that have been written about him shows, is interest in him dead even today.

Fredericus Antonius (to use his full Dutch name) van Meegeren was born in 1893 in the city of Deventer to a Catholic family. From early on he displayed artistic talent and wished to become an artist, a tendency his father, a high school teacher, did everything (well, almost everything) he could to break. He nevertheless succeeded in making it through various art schools (including one for architecture) and picking up at least one highly prestigious award. Success, however, was slow in coming, a fact that van Meegeren attributed–with good reason it would seem—to his realistic style. At a time when Impressionism, Expressionism, Cubism and any number of other isms were all the rage, who cared about a painter who was still in many ways following Eugene Delacroix?

Following a period in which he was so out of funds that he, his wife and son were forced to live with his grandmother, during World War I van Meegeren made his living mainly by teaching high-ranking ladies to paint—one of his students was the future queen of the Netherlands, Juliana. This line of business in turn helped him obtain commissions for portraits, the kind of work that has always been well rewarded if not always highly appreciated by the critics. Still being excluded from the first rank of painters rankled. Partly in order to prove himself in his own eyes, partly to avenge himself on the critics, and partly to make money in 1930-32 he started experimenting with the kind of techniques that would enable him to fake the work of the great seventeenth-century Dutch masters, including, above all, Johan Vermeer. It was anything but easy; canvas, paint, brush strokes, signature, the cracks that appear when old paint dries up, the nails that held the canvas to the frame, and many other details all had to be painfully studied and reproduced with sufficient accuracy to fool the best experts in the land.

In doing all this, van Meegeren was greatly helped by the fact that, following one of his teachers, he always prepared his own paint and had often worked as a restorer. In 1932 he was ready. From this point on his unleashed a steady stream of supposed masterpieces, selling them with the aid of agents who, following on his instructions, always told prospective clients that they had been put on the market by mysterious highly-placed men and women who did not wish to have their identities disclosed. Paintings by Vermeer apart, they included works by Frans Hals, Pieter de Hooch and Gerard Terborch. As each one was offered for sale it was submitted to experts for evaluation. Many were certified as genuine and sold for sums that ranged from the hundreds of thousands of dollars into the millions. For van Meegeren the resulting publicity was a boon, encouraging him to produce more fake masterpieces which in turn were sold and generated publicity and so on. Amidst all this he also continued producing his own paintings carrying his own signature. Soon the point came where he no longer cared to follow his income, or so he told the Dutch tax authorities when they later took him to task. He also exchanged his first beautiful wife for two successive younger, equally beautiful, ones; bought property all over; moved into one mammoth villa after another; and lived it up in lavish parties thrown for the great and wealthy of the land.

World War II found van Meegeren, who had just returned from the Riviera, living in he Netherlands. Again using middlemen he contacted, or was contacted by, the representatives of Herman Goering. Known primarily as Hitler’s deputy (though the position was disputed) and as the creator of the Luftwaffe, Goering through a combination of bribes and requisitions, the latter primarily from Jews, had grown into one of the richest  men in all Europe. Like Hitler himself he invested some of his ill-gotten gains in art. It was destined for Karinhall, the enormous private residence the Nazi leader had built northeast of Berlin and named after his late Swedish wife.

As already, mentioned, the war having ended the Dutch ministry of justice lost no time in investigating van Meegeren’s affairs. Its agents, however, were up for a surprise; the artist whom they suspected of having collaborated with the enemy now claimed to be a forger who had made a fool of his German client, selling him every kind of fake and making millions on the deals. As to tax evasion, he claimed that he had long reached the point where the additional million no longer made a difference, with the result that he did not bother to write down the sums he received.

While the presiding judge, obviously a very conscientious one, tried to find his way through the mess, outside the courtroom people demonstrated for or against the hero/traitor Han van Meegeren. The verdict was guilty of forgery and the sentence, the lightest the judge had it in his power to give: one year in prison. Even this van Meegeren, who died of a heart attack in 1947, did not have to serve. Still the controversy around him and his paintings refused to die. In 1967 another commission of inquiry was set up, with the result that some paintings were again declared to be genuine and others to be the work of van Meegeren himself.

How many of the paintings presently in various museums and presented as masterpieces but really produced in the ateliers of modern fakers such as van Meegeren is impossible to say. Better turn our attention from the often saucy details of the story to the more important questions it gives rise to. In doing so I follow the discussion of the author of I was Vermeer, the Irish writer and translator Frank Wynne, albeit in much simplified form. They are as follows:

  • What is beauty? Is it something innate to certain things, or is it merely a question of publicity and consensus?
  • What, if anything, does the fact that an object is beautiful (or not) have to do with the identity of its author?
  • What does the market price of a work of art have to do with its intrinsic value?
  • Supposing a “genuine” work of art cannot be distinguished from its faked copy, why should the first be valued at a hundred times the value attached to the second?
  • Given how profitable many aspects of the trade in art can be, can we trust the experts who are called upon to evaluate it?
  • Can an artist fake his own work, as van Meegeren seems to have done more than once? Or must every object he produces be considered an original, even if it is identical with others he created?

So many questions, so few answers.