I don't normally take up this page with my book reviews. There are plenty of other venues for that and you can find my reviews on Amazon.com and sometimes on my FaceBook pages. I picked up this book because it had a tank on the cover. There are far fewer war novels written in the U.S. about tanks than there are submarines or fighter pilots. The UK does far better by its tankers in the fiction world than we do, I blame that on Tom Clancy. But this book caught my interest because its author, Oliver B. Patton, was a Class of 1944 West Point graduate and career Army officer, retiring with the rank of Brigadier General. During the Battle of the Bulge, he was a lieutenant in command of a rifle platoon in the hard-luck 106th Infantry Division, much of which was overrun and destroyed in the initial German attack of that Battle. Lieutenant Patton was badly wounded and captured by German forces. He spent the rest of the war as a German PoW, in either German hospitals or prisoner-of-war camps.
“The Silent Snow” is the last of five historical novels he wrote after his retirement from the Army, the other four all set on the American frontier. This is not the story of the Battered Bastards of Bastogne or a paean to General George S. Patton’s Third Army tankers. Instead, this is the story of a lieutenant, separated from his unit in the 106th Infantry Division as it is being overrun in the unexpected German assault. As such it draws heavily upon the author’s experiences in the original battle, though his principal character spends much of the book evading capture as the war rages on in the Ardennes Forest battlefield. Patton’s own story is available online for those interested in it at http://www.freewebs.com/106thinfantry-part2/oliverbpatton.htm.
Patton presents a workmanlike narrative told in a clear readable style. The story told here is not a full-up war novel, but an account of what happens (or happened) to the men and women who experienced this portion of the Second World War. The book benefits greatly as it reflects Patton’s personal experiences, offering the reader both familiar and some surprising aspects of what was one of the greatest battles fought by U.S. forces during the war. Patton also makes clear the degree to which the American forces were a citizen-army made up of average Americans who wanted most of all to go come again but knew that that road ran through Berlin as they said.
Patton would go on to serve in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars and was wounded again in Korea. He served as assistant chief of staff for XXIV Corps in Vietnam and as Assistant Chief of Staff for Army intelligence at the Pentagon in the late 1960s. He received three Purple Hearts and three Bronze stars during his active military service. His writing career began in retirement. Upon his death in 2002 he was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
There are not that many works of war fiction that can claim to be authored by an actual veteran of the battle or conflict being written about. For that reason alone, The Silent Snow is worth reading for the general reader interested in the stories surrounding the Battle of the Bulge. It should also interest to scholars examining the historiography of the battle and the nature and evolution of its numerous literary offspring.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
A Monumental and Apparently Overlooked Memorial from Gloversville, New York
Last August, I was driving my mother around New York’s Mohawk Valley area while we pursued some leads for our family genealogy. But the most exciting find of the trip was this outstanding Civil War memorial in Gloversville, New York. I had to stop the car, investigate, and take photographs.
My wife and I have long made an informal study of what we call “our glorious fallens” – the war memorials erected by communities across the US, Canada, the UK, Russia, etc. – in which a community remembers and salutes those of its members who have gone to war. The monument in Gloversville ranks as one of the top five that we have found though it appears to have escaped wider notice in spite of its obvious quality.
The monument features three figures of soldiers – a central standard bearer, and two flankers. The one on the standard bearer’s right is on one knee and alert to the signs and sounds of battle, but the left, the man has apparently been hit and is slumping to the ground and his left hand clutching at his sack coat. This is remarkable grouping for the overwhelming majority of town/city Civil War memorials feature only one figure.
The monument itself was disappointingly short on information with regard to the sculptor, the sponsor(s), and even the date upon which it was erected and/or dedicated. Its principal inscription reads:
“IN MEMORY OF THE MEN WHO OFFERED THEIR LIVES IN DEFENSE OF THEIR COUNTRY”
The only lead was the markings to indicate that it had been cast at the Gorham Foundry – manufacturers of the work of numerous famous and less well known artists from the US and abroad. The National Gallery of American Art in Washington DC has microfilm copies of the records from the Gorham company and I was able to spend an unfortunately fruitless afternoon looking for further information there.
My wife and I have long made an informal study of what we call “our glorious fallens” – the war memorials erected by communities across the US, Canada, the UK, Russia, etc. – in which a community remembers and salutes those of its members who have gone to war. The monument in Gloversville ranks as one of the top five that we have found though it appears to have escaped wider notice in spite of its obvious quality.
The monument itself was disappointingly short on information with regard to the sculptor, the sponsor(s), and even the date upon which it was erected and/or dedicated. Its principal inscription reads:
“IN MEMORY OF THE MEN WHO OFFERED THEIR LIVES IN DEFENSE OF THEIR COUNTRY”
The only lead was the markings to indicate that it had been cast at the Gorham Foundry – manufacturers of the work of numerous famous and less well known artists from the US and abroad. The National Gallery of American Art in Washington DC has microfilm copies of the records from the Gorham company and I was able to spend an unfortunately fruitless afternoon looking for further information there.
James Morrison, of the Gloversville Historian’s Office, sent me a copy of the story of the monument from The Morning Herald of July 12, 1917 which offered a few more bits of information. Governor Whitman of New York led the array of dignitaries present for the dedication of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument in Monument Square in the community of Gloversville, New York, though the occasion was marred by poor weather. Ironically, given the name, the memorial features only the three soldiers discussed above.
The only indications as to sponsorship were references to the memorial being a gift from the citizens of the city to its veterans, and to a General Committee apparently responsible for the project’s realization. Also present was the former Commander of the New York Grand Army of the Republic General Loud, and representatives of the local Ansel Denison Post, G.A.R. But again, the article gave no name for the sculptor and no definitive statement regarding the identity of the memorial’s sponsor.
So I am sharing my photos and what information I have on this splendid monument in the hopes that perhaps collectively we can illuminate the mystery and provide the recognition that this monument deserves. My next leads would appear to be in the City Records of Gloversville and possibly in the surviving records of the G.A.R. Ansel Denison Post.
Monday, October 29, 2012
"Argo F*** Yourself"
In the recent film “Argo” there is a scene as the embassy in Tehran is being stormed by the Iranian students in which an embassy security officer explains to the Marines that they are not to shoot because if any of the Iranian attackers are killed it is likely that the Marines and embassy staff would be killed in the ensuing violence or in a subsequent show trial, or they could start a war between the United States and Iran. At last someone explained the reality of protecting a diplomatic/consular mission on another nation’s soil.
Today, in the 21st Century, the United States Government is in the business of building fortresses – only we call them embassies (or consulates general, or consulates) – and we are building them around the world, more than 294 worldwide. At best they are protected by a relative handful of U.S. Marine Security Guards, agents of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security from the U.S. Department of State, a series of passive barriers of varied design, and by the police and ultimately the armed forces of the country in which the building is located.
Under Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the protection of an embassy is the responsibility of the government hosting that embassy, diplomatic, or consular mission. This responsibility has been reinforced by subsequent other international agreements reflecting the growing use of terror against diplomats by various groups around the world. In a sense, this reflects the same imbalance of capabilities noted by Nelson – no embassy in the world can hold out against a sustained and determined attack given its limited space, manpower, and defense capabilities. What security force or passive defenses any embassy has are to be used only as a stop gap measure until the arrival on the scene of the forces of the host government.
Britain’s greatest naval hero, Lord Nelson, reputedly declared that, “A ship’s a fool to fight a fort.” Of course, he spoke at time when the largest warships were less than a football field in length and carried a limited amount of hot for their hundred plus guns (divided into two batteries one along each side of the ship). By contrast, a fort with uninterrupted supply lines giving it access to a potentially limitless supply of ammunition for its guns, which could be both more numerous and more powerful than those carried aboard the ships of the day.
As much as I enjoy studying the works of Vauban, the master of fortification, and walking around surviving examples, the reality is that the 20th Century and aviation brought an end to the dominance of forts and fortresses. France’s Maginot Line is generally considered to be its final high water mark and proof of the folly in building and defending stone and concrete monuments. The mantra for today’s armed forces with their full arsenal of land, sea, and air assets is that if you can see it you can kill it. “Find it, fix it, kill it.”
In 1531 Machiavelli wrote that fortresses “are not needed by those that have good armies…but fortresses without good armies are incompetent for defense.” The problem hasn’t gotten any better over the last five centuries. George Patton reminded us of this in 1944 looking at Germany’s Siegfried Line (the West Wall). He declared “it a monument to human stupidity. When natural obstacles—oceans and mountains—can be so readily overcome, anything that man makes, man can overcome.” Embassies, however, have no armies to defend them other than the police and troops of the government hosting them.
We need embassies to maintain the ties that prevent us from needing to use armies, but we need to recognize that the protection of these buildings and the personnel within them are in fact the responsibility of the government to which they are accredited. The U.S. spent $187 million on its new embassy in Rabat while it spent $247 million in Kiev. And yet it is impossible for the United States to build an impregnable embassy. Governments that fail to fulfill that responsibility must be held to account for their failure. That is the way to defend these buildings and these personnel.
Today, in the 21st Century, the United States Government is in the business of building fortresses – only we call them embassies (or consulates general, or consulates) – and we are building them around the world, more than 294 worldwide. At best they are protected by a relative handful of U.S. Marine Security Guards, agents of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security from the U.S. Department of State, a series of passive barriers of varied design, and by the police and ultimately the armed forces of the country in which the building is located.
Under Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the protection of an embassy is the responsibility of the government hosting that embassy, diplomatic, or consular mission. This responsibility has been reinforced by subsequent other international agreements reflecting the growing use of terror against diplomats by various groups around the world. In a sense, this reflects the same imbalance of capabilities noted by Nelson – no embassy in the world can hold out against a sustained and determined attack given its limited space, manpower, and defense capabilities. What security force or passive defenses any embassy has are to be used only as a stop gap measure until the arrival on the scene of the forces of the host government.
Britain’s greatest naval hero, Lord Nelson, reputedly declared that, “A ship’s a fool to fight a fort.” Of course, he spoke at time when the largest warships were less than a football field in length and carried a limited amount of hot for their hundred plus guns (divided into two batteries one along each side of the ship). By contrast, a fort with uninterrupted supply lines giving it access to a potentially limitless supply of ammunition for its guns, which could be both more numerous and more powerful than those carried aboard the ships of the day.
As much as I enjoy studying the works of Vauban, the master of fortification, and walking around surviving examples, the reality is that the 20th Century and aviation brought an end to the dominance of forts and fortresses. France’s Maginot Line is generally considered to be its final high water mark and proof of the folly in building and defending stone and concrete monuments. The mantra for today’s armed forces with their full arsenal of land, sea, and air assets is that if you can see it you can kill it. “Find it, fix it, kill it.”
In 1531 Machiavelli wrote that fortresses “are not needed by those that have good armies…but fortresses without good armies are incompetent for defense.” The problem hasn’t gotten any better over the last five centuries. George Patton reminded us of this in 1944 looking at Germany’s Siegfried Line (the West Wall). He declared “it a monument to human stupidity. When natural obstacles—oceans and mountains—can be so readily overcome, anything that man makes, man can overcome.” Embassies, however, have no armies to defend them other than the police and troops of the government hosting them.
We need embassies to maintain the ties that prevent us from needing to use armies, but we need to recognize that the protection of these buildings and the personnel within them are in fact the responsibility of the government to which they are accredited. The U.S. spent $187 million on its new embassy in Rabat while it spent $247 million in Kiev. And yet it is impossible for the United States to build an impregnable embassy. Governments that fail to fulfill that responsibility must be held to account for their failure. That is the way to defend these buildings and these personnel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
