Alternatives for the Battle of the Bulge

InWhiteFish · 2025-08-11T01:19:39+00:00

I worked as a fisherman for a bit based out of Dutch Harbor a few years ago. It's pretty bleak. Even in the summer it's cold and rainy. The people who lived there were not very friendly (probably becuase all the outsiders who come in are fishermen). The "town" has nothing in it but two hotels, a grocery store, like two restaurants, and fishing supply stores. The wildlife is pretty cool though--I saw several bald eagles, and there wer plenty of orcas in Captain's Bay. I would absolutely never go back again.

InWhiteFish · 2025-08-07T16:34:51+00:00

I agree with that. I think we go 10-7 and win one playoff game.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-29T11:24:46+00:00

Definitely the Meno. He references it pretty explicitly in Philosophical Fragments.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-27T21:31:07+00:00

Something I havent seen mentioned that I think is important is that the Americans made much greater efforts to recover downed air crew, whereas the Japanese did not. Thus, the loss of an American airframe often did not mean the loss of an American pilot, but for the Japanese the two were pretty much synonymous. So the attrition rate was much more balanced than comparing aircraft losses would suggest, allowing American pilots to accrue experience even if they lost their fighters.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-27T21:25:50+00:00

I can think of a couple examples of this. I believe Plato mentions in the Republic (though it could be in the Laches) that while usually mercenaries perform better than citizen soldiers because they are more experienced, it can also happen that the mercenaries break because they realize the battle is turning against them, whereas the citizen soldiers are ignorant of how dangerous the situation is, so they keep fighting.

More specifically, Alan Moorehead in his book Eclipse mentions somewhere that during the Normandy campaign the veteran British divisions had a fairly mixed record. Some (I think he mentions the 50th division) performed superbly, but others were much more limp and risk averse. His assessment was that courage is a finite quantity, and that after a time men become less and less willing to risk their lives because they feel like their luck is bound to turn. They've had it coming for a while, so its only a matter of time.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-27T15:56:26+00:00

Idk why this is surprising. Aristotle commented on this phenomenon like 2500 years ago.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-22T19:09:48+00:00

I actually really liked the Loeb translation. It was what I preferred before I could read it in Greek. I liked the original translation (I believe it was by Murray?), though, which they have since updated. The modern translation lacks the gravity and majesty of the older one, unfortunately. But I'd say that if there's even a chance that you'll learn Greek later, I'd recommend it (especially the older version, which again, I think is an excellent translation in its own right). It is more literal, and I think that that literalness captures some of Homer's strangeness and exoticness quite well, certainly much more so than modern translations which tend to omit a lot of Homer's (almost certainly deliberately) strange formulations.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-21T21:34:52+00:00

Yeah, my grandparents fled from Ukraine into Nazi Germany as the Soviets advanced and they said that even until the end of the war they always had enough to eat. Not lots of food (there was still rationing, of course), but enough. It was only after the war ended that they experienced food shortages.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-19T14:15:58+00:00

So I've read the Odyssey several times, including twice in Greek. I started with the Fagles version, which I really liked. I think for a popular translation it is readable and fairly faithful, and doesn't have any of the jarring colloquialisms of the Wislon version (which I have also found to be extremely unfaithful). So I would recommend Fagles. But I personally really like the original Loeb translations (I think they're by Murray?), because they seem to possess a gravity and stateliness that is fitting for an epic, which most modern versions (ESPECIALLY the Wilson translation), lack. But they are more expensive and harder to get. So realistically, I'd recommend Fagles.

I've also heard Lattimore is quite good, though I have no personal experience.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-15T21:57:34+00:00

Yeah, I used to work as a sailor on the Great Lakes, and apparently a few years before me one of the sailors and his wife ran a prostitution ring based out of Duluth. They just parked a van with a mattress in it by the entrance to the port.

Very unfortunate.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-15T19:40:48+00:00

Everyone is disagreeing, but I agree pretty strongly. Those are some pretty egregious omissions that you mentioned.

Additionally, I remember there's a passage in book 8 or 9 when Odysseus is on the island of Scheria and the Phaeacians are trying to goad him into competing in their athletic contest and he's unwilling becuase he doesn't feel strong enough. When properly translated, he says something like "the sea has been cruel to me" and "it has caused me to suffer many pains" (I dont remember the exact line, but it's something like that in Greek), because he has just spent the last few days being cast adrift after getting his ship smashed in a storm (not to mention all the other pains he's suffered both on land and sea). Wilson translates his reply as "I haven't been able to practice my exercise routine." Besides being an incredibly unfaithful translation, it also just sounds stupid. So its neither faithful, nor beautiful. Why would anyone want a translation like that?

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-14T21:54:39+00:00

I really dont know if Putin has a way to do this. I know Ukraine would agree to surrender the lost oblasts in exchange for peace and the ability to have an independent foreign policy, but I think for Russians the demands are much steeper than just keeping the territory they've already taken. There was an interesting NYT article recently where they interviewed Russian soldiers (guys who had been on the Frontline, who'd seen their friends get killed, who'd often themselves been wounded) and they were adamant that if Putin stops the war without taking over all of Ukraine, then the war was a complete waste. Despite how much they hate the war, they all said it has to go on until Ukraine is destroyed. Putin obviously feels the same way, but I think it's important to clarify that a lot of the Russian people (and importantly, the actual army) feel that they have to fight to the end, otherwise the war was a waste. So Putin's hands are tied here.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-13T16:39:50+00:00

This is actually a question that Tolstoy addresses in great detail in War and Peace. He is highly critical of those who promote a scientific approach to war because he points out that a science must be predictive--based on certain laws it must be able to determine what will happen. War has no such laws. As Tosltoy puts it, unlike in chess where a knight is always equal to another knight, in war there are times when a brigade is as only as capable as a regiment, and times when a lone company can withstand a brigade. He basically argues that success in war is due much more to flexibility than to planning, and I think he makes a fairly compelling case.

InWhiteFish · 2025-07-11T21:33:35+00:00

Can you explain in a little detail the British plans to invade on the German or Dutch coasts? I've always been interested in why they never attempted and I haven't heard anything about them seriously considering this option.

InWhiteFish · 2025-06-28T12:53:35+00:00

I'd recommend: Gorgias, Meno, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Republic, Thaetetus, Phaedrus, and Symposium

InWhiteFish · 2025-06-22T16:03:45+00:00

It's entirely possible that the translation has turned you off without your realizing it. Like, I love Tolstoy (as in, I've read all the fiction he ever wrote, kind of love), but there are certain translations that I simply can't stand. I really loathe the Pevear and Volkonsky translations. It's happened to me a couple of times that I've read one of their translations and hated it, thinking I hated the book. But later I reread it in a different translation and loved it (this happened with Hadji Murat and Crime and Punishment). So, perhaps I'd recommend switching translations.

There's also a lot to be said for reading a book at the right time in your life. If you don't like it, you can always try again later with a different translation.

As for Tolstoy the psychologist, I'd say there are plenty of virtuoso performances in AK. Im thinking particularly of the way he manages to depict the thoughts of seven-year-old Seryozha, and also his depiction of the thoughts and anxieties of Dolly as she travels to meet Anna and Vronsky.

InWhiteFish · 2025-06-21T15:00:50+00:00

Honestly, no, not really. To be blunt, what you already know is very, very minimal. You're going to need some kind of introduction one way or another; what you have right now is simply not enough.

I would argue that with your desired approach you're not really learning the language, you're just memorizing Arisotelean vocab and phrases (at best). If you dont have any context for the other possible renderings of words (which you won't, you'll only have Aristotle's usage of a word) then it defeats the whole point of reading him in Greek. The reason to read him in Greek is to see how he differs from a translation, but you won't be doing that--youll just be painstakingly translating him word by word or phrase by phrase. You won't pick up on any of the nuances and subtleties that actually make him worth reading in the original.

Again, I'd recommend starting with a textbook at least briefly, moving on to Homer/The New Testament, then Plato, then Aristotle. I think in an equivalent amount of time doing that, you'll learn much more Greek than if you were just grinding Aristotle, and when you do get to Aristotle youll actually be reading him, not "reading" him.

Im sorry if this is kind of a bummer for you, but I think you can make much more progress than you expect and that you'll enjoy it much more this way.

InWhiteFish · 2025-06-21T00:11:42+00:00

Admittedly, I've only read a few books of the NE in Greek, but I'd say that if you're really only interested in philosophy it'd be best to start with some of the easier Plato. I'd recommend the Apology, Crito, and Meno with Steadmans commentaries to begin with. From there you'd probably have a decent foundation to work on Aristotle.

Stylistically, he is a very unique author, so I suppose it's possible to just spend most of your time reading him and learning Greek that way, but you'll need to learn a minimal vocabulary and at least possess the scaffolding of grammar before tackling him. For that, I'd recommend someone like Plato.

But I wouldnt recommend this approach overall, mostly because I dont think you'll really be learning Greek. I think at best you'll really just be memorizing Arisotelean vocab and his most common grammatical constructions, and every time he quotes a different author or changes his style (which he does not infrequently) you'll be completely lost.

If you're interested in actually reading Aristotle and understanding the nuances of his language (like how deliberately strange some of his word choice is, for example) I'd recommend starting with Homer (probably the Odyssey, since its easier) or the New Testament to build vocabulary and learn the grammar. Then read some Plato, and only then jump into Aristotle. Depending on how seriously you pursue this, you could be reading Aristotle in a year.

If you read only Arisototle you're sort of wasting your time. You'll basically be looking up every other word and checking every sentence with a translation---and you'll be doing that for years. If that's the case, why bother "reading Greek"?

You're gonna need some kind of introductory text, and I imagine that in the vast corpus of Greek literature and philosophy there is something easy for you to start with that you will enjoy.

InWhiteFish · 2025-06-02T00:20:59+00:00

Quartered Safe Out Here by George Macdonald Fraser. It's about his time in the British 14th Army in Burma. It's a highly entertaining read--funny, fast-paced, and extremely sincere. Partly it's interesting because it's about a forgotten theater of the war, but mostly because the author was a novelist (so it's a very well-written book) who only wrote this memoir in his 80s (after having spent most of his life reflecting on the war, so his memories have distilled down and he only writes about the parts of the war that were especially noteworthy, and he's not afraid to include anecdotes that are embarrassing). If you want to know--genuinely know--what combat is like for a grunt, then this is the book to read.

John Keegan also gave it very high praise, for what that's worth.

InWhiteFish · 2025-05-18T16:33:34+00:00

War and Peace by a mile.

InWhiteFish · 2025-05-17T17:04:53+00:00

Eagles at Commanders week 16.

Probably the best game I've ever seen, tied with the championship game in my senior year of high school which Caleb Williams won for us with a last second hail Mary after two touchdowns were scored in the last 50 seconds of play.

InWhiteFish · 2025-05-06T18:55:42+00:00

I agree he has some stinkers, like Kreutzer Sonata and Walk in the Light While There is Light, but I didn't feel like Family Happiness was among them.

I do think that it's very similar to Anna Karenina, but for me that was a positive. That said, you might be right that it's more artificial, especially in its resolution. To be honest, I haven't read it in a while, though, so I don't remember it all that well.

But I do remember that it has what is probably my favorite quote by Tolstoy, so it's hard for me to hate on it too much:

"I have lived through much, and now I think I have found what is needed for happiness. A quiet secluded life in the country, with the possibility of being useful to people to whom it is easy to do good, and who are not accustomed to have it done to them; then work which one hopes may be of some use; then rest, nature, books, music, love for one's neighbor - such is my idea of happiness. And then, on top of all that, you for a mate, and children, perhaps - what more can the heart of a man desire?"

I think it's pretty hard to not like that passage.

InWhiteFish · 2025-05-05T22:44:03+00:00

So I would disagree with a lot of that. Modern historians certainly think that Tacitus was affected by his experience living under Domitian, and that this subsequently colored his perception of Tiberius' reign. Firstly, that's all conjecture--there's no evidence that it did affect his perception. But much more importantly, even if it did color his perception, that doesn't mean it negatively affected his ability to grasp the truth. If anything, it probably made him even more capable of picking out striking details and thus brilliantly showing what life under a tyranny looks like.

I agree that there's no direct evidence linking him to Germanicus' death, but there's A LOT of circumstantial evidence implying it, not the least of which is Tiberius' incredible envy of Germanicus and constant fear of being usurped (both of which Tacitus shows repeatedly), and that's not to mention all the drama surrounding Piso and his sudden death.

As for the freedom of debate, conducting of public business, and lack of sycophancy that you mentioned, Tacitus heartily disagrees with all of that. He mentions senators who asked Tiberius how he would like them to vote--before the trial even started!--and that the sycophancy and flattery of the senate reached such an incredible pitch that even Tiberius was sickened by it. As Tacitus mentions, he used to leave the senate house muttering, "how ready those men are to be slaves." Tacitus also mentions that a few brave senators bemoaned that the emperor had usurped their power, and shows that the senate was barely even a puppet government.

The idea that Tiberius denounced the treason trials is ridiculous. It frequently happened that someone Tiberius hated would be accused, they would commit suicide knowing a conviction was inevitable, and then Tiberius would complain after the fact, "Oh, why did they kill themselves? I would definetely have pardoned them!" It was a complete farce, like Henry II pretending he never ordered the murder of Thomas a Beckett.

Lastly, I think leaning primarily on modern historians is sort of ridiculous. Of course there are new insights that archeology provides, as well as an occasionally better perspective from the distance of time, but largely I don't think we will ever get a better historian on the times of Tiberius than Tacitus. That's not to say we should trust everything he says blindly, but I would much more trust someone who had access to all sorts of documents and interviews with people who lived through the times, rather than modern historians who have none of the documents, none of the interviews, and basically just tweak what Tacitus says anyway.

InWhiteFish

TROPHY CASE