Refreshing My Look Ahead (Back)

[Another LONG post…  You’ve been warned!  (LoL)    —    KMAB]
The Third World War:  August 1985  (1978©)   —   book review
This review is for the fictional portrayal (as a “future history”) of a “realistic” invasion of NATO allied European countries by the Warsaw Pact in August of 1985.  The book was “written” primarily (et al) by (Ret.) British General John W. Hackett in consultation with a number of experts gathered to discuss how such an invasion might occur, what might lead up to it and what might be the end-of-war results.  The “advisors” were listed as:  John Barraclough (Air Chief Marshal), Kenneth Hunt (Brigadier), Ian McGeoch (Vice-Admiral), Norman Macrae (a deputy editor at “The Economist“), John Strawson (Major-General), and, Bernard Burrows (British Diplomatic Service).
The book was a best-seller in England back in 1978.  It was published in the U.S. in early 1979 as a hardback and then released as a paperback in 1980.  I initially read the paperback version.  I believe it was shortly after I was released from the Active Reserves, but my memory isn’t that precise anymore.  In any case, this review is of a re-reading of the book after my reading of “2034: A Novel of the Next World War” earlier this year.  (review here:  A Novel War).  The author of that book, (ret) Admiral James Stavridis, cited this book as a primary inspiration for his work.  This prompted my re-interest in the original…
During my (almost) two years in the Reserves I was assigned to a unit which tested and evaluated the readiness of National Guard units from California, Arizona and New Mexico.  The officers would establish “war-game” scenarios for the Guard officers and I (as an NCO) would embed with the line units to evaluate actual field performance.  We were artillery evaluators, so I watched Guard batteries fire cannons / howitzers, but I gained an understanding of scenario development and large scale tactical war-gaming.  This led to a post-service interest in military style board games which carried on for most of the ’80s.  I lost interest when gaming shifted to computers and became “mostly” shoot-em-up’s instead of (IMHO) about strategy.
Basically, the plot of this book is the leaders of the USSR feel their position as a superpower is being threatened by political and economic factors which are worsening (for them).  They feel there has been a significant / progressive decrease in NATO’s readiness over the last decade and this may be their last / best opportunity to remove a potential military threat (NATO) and further subjugate the buffer countries of Eastern Europe who are members of the Warsaw Pact.  The plan is a crushing invasion of Western Europe (West Germany and the low-lands) which leaves the USSR in command up to the border of France.  The invasion fails because in the years between the book’s publishing (1978) and the date of the “future-history” event (August 1985), Europe (specifically Great Britain) comes to its senses and reverses the general military decline of the late ’60s to ’70s.  The NATO forces are able to slow the advance of invasion (without the use of tactical nuclear weapons) and allows reinforcements to arrive from the U.S. just in the nick of time.
In a striking foreboding of the current (2022) invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the invasion portrayed fails because of (in no particular order of importance):
1)  an inability to dominate the air despite superior numerical assets;
2)  a failure of logistics (fuel and ammunition) by the Warsaw Pact, (it is believed the invasion will take less than two weeks AND there will not be enough time for the U.S. to resupply NATO forces);
3)  resistance by the native forces (in this case, the West German army / reserves) is surprisingly effective;  and,
4)  the centralized command and control characteristic of authoritarian political systems, does not promote the flexibility / initiative of junior officers (and NCOs) to seize military opportunities when they arise, so opportunities for significant breakouts are lost.
When the war quickly (the “war” lasts weeks) devolves into a war of attrition, failure is viewed as inevitable and hard-liners in the Politburo decide to consolidate their gains for future armistice negotiations by the use of a limited (against only one city) nuclear strike.  The result, however, is not fear and negotiation, but instead, fury and retaliation via a similar limited nuclear strike by Great Britain and the U.S. against a Russian city;  (and like falling dominoes) the Warsaw Pact allies turn on the USSR to avoid nuclear annihilation;  the Soviet military / security services stage a coup, over-throw the hardliners, and cease further combat;  the non-Russian border states (the “-stans”) declare independence from the USSR;  and, the rest of the world struggles with the effects of a new world order.  The “war” is barely a month old before it is over.  Because the book is written as a “recent” history of past events, it does not attempt to forecast / describe long term results of the war except to relate the world has to deal with unaccounted for Soviet nuclear weapons / warheads and large stocks of conventional weapons scattered around the global (mainly Africa).
Is this a “good” book?  Is it realistic as a predictor of future conflict (lethality, if not participants)?  Is it entertaining or interesting?  Do I recommend this book?  With the exception of the final question, the answer to all of these is (are):  yes to so-so…
The book is not a “good” novel.  There are no specified individual characters driving the action, so you cannot (as a reader) identify and grow with anyone.  In this sense, although fictional, the book is written with more of an academic or journalistic feel.  It is very much an military style “after-action” report.  If you are comfortable with this writing style, you will enjoy the writing / book.  If you are not, you will not.  I did.  Was the book able to realistically describe combat and the results (devastation) of war?  Yes!  Although, saying this, there was an obvious Western bias of vivid description of the destruction of the British city and virtually nothing about the similar (or much worse) destruction of the Russian city.  (Very much:  “Yeah, we took out one of theirs as payback…”)  Is the book entertaining or interesting?  This is the toughest question because every reader’s tastes varies so much… I was not “entertained”;  but, I did find the book interesting.  I particularly “enjoyed” the parts the authors get terribly wrong, because as a reader I (we) have 40+ years of hind-sight.  There is no China – Japan alliance;  the Shah is no longer in charge of Iran (or, rather, wasn’t in 1985);  South Africa did not fall to external forces;  and, East Germany did not resist consolidation with West Germany after the fall of the USSR.
Final recommendation:  strong recommendation.  I think most veterans (particularly my age group) will find this book relatable.  I think most civilian “military” readers / historians – and quite a few regular historians – will, too.  For political science readers, the “states” interests, goals, and stances will seem Machiavellian / Kissinger-ian (is that a real word?).  Yet, they ring true – even 40 years later.  It is entirely obvious why this book could seem as an inspiration for a future – updated version (a la “2034“), and I believe (I read) this book served as a similar inspiration for several of Tom Clancy’s works which followed.  At any rate, I do remember “enjoying” the initial read from “way-back-when”, and don’t feel the re-read was less so.  My reaction to “2034” was reinforced:  this version is much better than the more recent book.  If you have read “2034“, I recommend you read “WW3:1985” for the comparison value, if nothing else.
Final disclaimer:  I purchased this book at normal / sale price (for an old / used book) and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review.
.
On This Day In:
2021	I’m An Optimist
	Talent Is A Ticket To Ride
2020	Works For Me
	Rivers Versus Waterfalls
2019	Better To Do
	News: Drunken Party Girl Saves Seoul
2018	Keep Moving
2017	Fighting Good
2016	Size Matters
2015	Maybe The Best Thing
2014	Ready To Be Fried?
2013	A Real Lover
2012	Winning Wars
2011	A Different Lesson

Read Full Post »

Perseverance

“Papillon” (1973)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the prison / escape historical drama “Papillon“, starring Steve McQueen in the title role as Henri Charrière (aka: Papillon) and Dustin Hoffman as his friend and fellow prisoner Louis Dega.  Papillon is french for “butterfly”, which is the medium size tattoo character he has on his chest.  He has been sentenced to life without parole for murdering a pimp.  He insists he is only a safe-cracker and that he was framed for the murder.  The Dega character has been sentenced for forgery and embezzlement.
Before I forget to mention it, there is an outstanding supporting role of a prison warden (for solitary confinement) played by William Smithers.  In this movie, the system is the villain, but he makes an exceptional focal point for the “system”.
They get on a ship from France to French Guiana / Devil’s Island.  Papillon saves Dega’s life and contracts to protect Dega in exchange for Dega funding Papillon’s escape.  After several acts of bravery, Dega trusts that Papillon is a true friend and probably innocent of his conviction for murder.
Blah, blah, blah…  Brutality, betrayal, torture, escape attempt, solitary, torture, betrayal, solitary…  you get the point.  There are three things to take from this film:  man’s inhumanity towards our fellow man;  friendship;  and, the indomitability of some men’s spirit.  In the end, Papillon escapes and “outlives” his prison.
So, is this movie any good?  Is it entertaining?  Is it worth seeing?  If you are a fan of either McQueen or Hoffman, I believe this movie is a MUST see.  McQueen plays a different role / character than normal – he doesn’t settle for “cool”.  He acts.  Hoffman really “just” plays Hoffman, but he does it very well and it’s kind of a mini-display of many of his doddering roles in other films.  That sounds like a put-down, but it’s not meant in that spirit.
Is it an entertaining movie?  No.  Try as I might to find joy in the progress and eventual success, I did not.  The movie is just too long and there is only so much punishment you can watch before you start to feel victimized too, and I don’t watch movies to feel victimized (too).  I won’t say it was boring.  It just felt plodding.
Is it worth seeing?  Again, it depends…  It is supposed to based on a real life experience, it does have two good actors in two above average performances, and finally, it is a story about perseverance and the triumph of the human spirit.  So, yeah, I guess it is “worth” viewing.
Final recommendation:  moderate.  The acting is good.  The end result of the movie is satisfying (spoiler:  he gets away).  But the movie really just felt almost as suffocating as the prison, so it would be hard to give it a higher rating.
Two final notes:  First, there has been a remake, in 2017, but the reviews were pretty bland, so I’m not sure I’d spend another two hours on this story.  And, second, I don’t remember this “movie”, but I feel as if I definitely must have seen it before because I distinctly remembered the last ten minutes (the satisfying bit of the movie).   Coconuts, anyone?
.
On This Day In:
2019	Insha’Allaha Bukra
	No More Tears (Or Fog)
	Too Busy Thinking About My Baby
2018	Lost Time
2017	Are You Talking To Me?
2016	Here, Desire Is Purified
2015	Hopefully Just Visiting
2014	Fond Memory?
2013	Distress, Hope, Trust
2012	Creating Interlocking Fragility
2011	Four Stories And A Gospel
	What Have You Burned Lately?

Read Full Post »

We Should Never Give Up On Our Dreams

“Leap!” (2017)  (U.S.)  /  “Ballerina” (2016) (France)
Today’s movie review is for an animated, “rise-to-fame” / dance, kids movie which was originally released in France / Europe in 2016 and then released in English / America in 2017.  The story is of two orphans who escape an orphanage to seek their fame in Paris.  The young girl wants to be a Ballerina and the young lad wants to be an engineer / inventor.  By hook and by crook, they both get their wish.  And the boy gets the girl’s heart along with it…
As most anyone who follows this blog for any length of time will realize, I am all about this sentimental, rags-to-riches, ugly duckling to swan story / genre.  As a former computer programmer I am also predisposed to “liking” an animated film or one with technical special effects.
So, does this movie work as a kids film?  How is the animation?  How is it as an adult film (will the average adult enjoy it)?  Good.  So-so.  And, probably.  Will kids like this film.  Yes, up to about the age of 6 to 8, I think they will, particularly if their parents have filled them with dreams that anything is possible.  But the animation is only “good”?  Yes.  Basically, that’s about it.  Most of everything possible has been done and probably done better in other films.  Shading, shadows, color, textures, skin tones, hair, facial expressions.  All of it has been done, and, if I’m honest, better in other movies.  That doesn’t mean it’s bad.  It’s not.  It’s just not done at “super” hi-def levels.  Also, and this really isn’t a criticism either, the movie lacks the required one or two “fabulous” take-away songs which would make it (the movie) a HIT movie.   And, maybe, it doesn’t need to be for this kind of “kids” movie to be “okay”.  Is it an adult movie?  Not really.  It’s a bit too simplistic for an adult or a “date” movie.  It is an excellent auntie / uncle or grand-parents take the niece / nephew or grand-kids to the afternoon matinée movie.  And, sometimes that’s really all a movie has to be.
It is rated PG for some “suggestive” scenes / themes and it has the requisite good and evil adults and a notable bullying child.  Like most movies for this target age group, the movie resolves hopefully for the children and leaves the adult issues mostly unaddressed / unresolved.  Again, it’s a kid’s movie, so children can “win” without “justice” for adults.
Final recommendation: moderate to strong.  For what it is, it is a “good” movie.  It doesn’t really try to be a great deal more than entertaining – in a kid-sie / hopeful way.  I enjoyed it, and it was a pleasant enough way to spend 90 or so minutes.
.
On This Day In:
2022	Why Do Republicans Still Follow A Con-Artist / Loser?
2021	Guns Or Butter
	Caught Up In The Magic
2020	Haunting Illusions
	True Color
	Crackin’ The Flags
2019	Maybe A Slight Advantage
	We Should Never Give Up On Our Dreams
2018	As I Recall
2017	Truly Generous
2016	Choose Your Destiny
2015	Fast And Firm
2014	Neither Head Nor Heart
2013	Lonely, Foolish, Love Songs
	Batting 1.000
	Coward, n.
2012	At Least A Little More Difficult
2011	Speaking Of Fear

Read Full Post »

The More Things Change…

It is a gloomy moment in history.  Not for many years – not in the lifetime of most men who read this paper – has there been so much grave and deep apprehension;  never has the future seemed so incalculable as at this time.
In France the political caldron seethes and bubbles with uncertainty;  Russia hangs as usual like a cloud, dark and silent upon the horizon of Europe…
It is a solemn moment, and so no man can feel an indifference – which, happily, no man pretends to feel – in the issue of events.
Of our new troubles no man can see the end.  …  It is no time for idleness, for trifling, for forgetfulness.  The complexion of every country, and of the world, rests at last upon the character of individuals.
—    From:  “Harper’s Weekly“;   dtd:  10 October 1857
[…The more things stay the same.    —    kmab]
.
On This Day In:
2022	The Fight Continues…
2021	Short, Swift, Haste
	Another Friend’s Passing
2020	Can We At Least Set The Bar Higher Than An Incompetent Liar In The Oval Office?
2019	Uncertain Times
	And Government Shutdowns, Too
2018	Satisfied
2017	In The Mind
2016	Dreaming
2015	The Best Medicine Is Also Contagious
2014	Eyes Off
2013	The More Things Change…
2012	The Delicate Moment Of Giving
2011	Ready, Shoot, Aim!!

Read Full Post »