The New York Times Book Review and Military History

There isn't any.  Or very little.  I mean, the Fourth of July weekend (Issue dated Jul 3, 2016);  Nothing.  This also being the centenary of the Battle of the Somme (July 1, 1916), you would expect at least a brief note about current World War One publications.  Or even an essay about their absence.  There was an Op-Ed in the paper itself on July 1st about Tolkien on the Somme,  but without a certain amount of context and background history it really has no more relevance (or interest) than any other piece of literary theory.
World War One remains one of the defining events of the recent past. Hitler and the Nazis, still the touchstone for evil were a direct consequence of the flawed peace process in 1919.
Shouldn't an educated person pretend to have some knowledge of these events?
Among other things, it is the "worst case"  on why we should care about European Unity.

Operation Barbarossa: June 22, 1941

Just wanted to note that today is the 75th “Anniversary” of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

This was one of the pivotal events of the twentieth century.  While the “net effect” was two of the most reprehensible dictatorships the world has ever seen tearing at each other, at a tragic cost of their own populations, it also shifted the balance of power in the global struggle against Fascism. 

Without the Red Army, the Allies would have had a much harder struggle to defeat Nazi Germany (The American War in the Pacific was never in “Doubt”, it was a matter of American Resolve).

A simple Google search will bring up several informative web sites and articles, I just wanted to note the date.

Allied Victory in World War II is one of the basic foundations of our liberal society, without it we would be living in a VERY different world.

Occupied (Norwegian TV series)

I've been trying to watch this since it popped up on the "New Things" list on Netflix. 

OK, I can suspend disbelief for parts of Jo Nesbo's setup, the US pulls out of NATO?  Really?  Even a President Cruz with his strings being pulled by the Kochtopus would have trouble getting that one past well, everyone else in Washington.  The only thing more awkward than having allies is NOT having any allies.  NATO is deeply embedded in our national security infrastructure, we are in the process of DELIVERING F-35's to Norway.

I have personal connections and interest in Norway, although I know diddly about their current domestic politics.

Being approximately half way through the series, I'm bored.  It should be fascinating to me, due to my personal interest in Scandinavia (The Swedes just going along with the Russians?  When they are trying to raise their military budget because of recent Russian activity?), and not just as a place we (The United States) should look to for better examples of how to structure our society, instead of say Somalia or Zimbabwe, which seem to be the examples the Plutocrats want to emulate.  The Water Supply in Flint Michigan anyone?

The series is just so . . . lame?

One of the few shows I have binge watched was Lillehammer.  They don't even have a decent theme song, no (folksy) Fiddle music (Like Lillehammer)?  Now that said "Norge" to me.

Part of the problem is, I just can develop no real interest or identification with any of the principal characters.   The Russians could round them all up and ship them off to the Gulag for all I care.

And the Norwegian Defense establishment is entirely missing.  Hey, surely they could dig some people out of retirement familiar with resistance planning from the bad old 1980's.  Yes, I am SURE in the 1980's there were SERIOUS plans for that.  And I visited the "Resistance Museum" (About the WW II Resistance Movement) in Oslo in 1979(?)   Do they not take Junior High Trips to things like that any more?

It's the entire absence of the defense establishment from the political process that contributes to the epic fail on the disbelief.  Or any real popular involvement, lefty save the planet tree huggers may be more common in Norway than in the USA, they may even be a plurality in Norway, more so than Tea Party Republicans have a genuine majority in the US anyways, (no matter what the Right Wing media says). But what would the mushy middle our there on Constitution day in their native costumes feel about the whole situation?

Leftist Delusions about the Pentagon Budget

This is a generic rant (mostly copied from a comment I made on another blog) about the Generic Lefty idea that there would be plenty of money for their causes if we would just cut the Pentagon's bloated budget.

Er, NO.

Sorry folks, whenever there is a natural disaster anywhere in the world (or peacekeeping, or whatever) the first thing other countries do is look around for a contribution or participation by the US Military.  Yes, there is Bloat and waste, but that seems to be a feature of any complex organization.  Bureaucracies make decision for their own twisted rationale (Why does every University need a Dean of Minority affairs?).  Nice work if you can get it.

A real world recent example is the Pentagon's decision to close the C-17 Production Line (176 of a planned 300?), but if you do NOT know off the top of your head what a C-17 is and it's role, you are not qualified to make a meaningful comment.

Cutting the Pentagon Budget would more than likely lead to LESS resources for all the OTHER things the world relies on the US Military for.  We remain the essential great power.  Would you rather rely on China for services in a humanitarian crisis?

So let's just raise taxes on the Plutocrats, and use that money to rebuild our infrastructure.  Their are plenty of underemployed National Guardsmen (and women) who would be happy to help run a CCC type organization, like their grandfathers did in the 1930's.

Lefty Fantasies about getting money from the Pentagon Budget are as delusional as Right Wing ones about the savings to be wrung out of fraud in the welfare system.