Hiroshima Nagasaki: How We Learn to Love the Bombs

Many peaceniks from the Left blame the US for everything. Now they even don't get the idea that the US has every right to disarm Iran, North Korea, and many other countries. One of their favorite argument is:

"The US is a hypocrite since they already nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore they don't have the right to prohibit others from acquiring nukes!"

That means they never read history. Or choose to ignore it. Here, let me enlighten you guys: 

The Terror of Imperial Japan

Hey, peaceniks, if you think USA is nasty and hypocritical, just try dealing with the Imperial Japanese of the 1930s & 1940s! They raped and massacred the whole city of Nanking, and created a systematic sexual slavery across their vast territories! Yes, let me stress it again: SYSTEMATIC SEXUAL SLAVERY! Got that? Oh, they also spouted that we have to support their empire, since they were creating "The Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Yeah, they had the nerve to declare sexual slavery as "prosperity"!

None of us buy that b.s. We in Indonesia have a saying "350 years under the Dutch is nothing compared to 3.5 years under the Japanese." Heck, my own grandpa told me the stories how the Japanese stole EVERYTHING from his house, even every single nails and bolts.

And don't let me start about their war mentality. They are baffled by the idea that any surrendered enemy combatants has to be treated with respect. Hey, who can blame them? In their honor-based culture, "surrender" is the apex of disgrace. That's why they keep fighting and fighting, AND RAPING in between. That continued even after the Allied started sending waves and waves of B-29 bombers in mid 1944. The destruction of their fleet, and the end of their oil supply from Southeast Asia in October 1944 didn't convince them to surrender either. Any sane government would throw the towel after that, but nope. To hell with sanity and the well-being of their people, the Imperial Japan keep fightin since their priority is THEIR HONOR!

USA vs Others?

Hey, with that mentality, how can you protest when the US finally nuked their cities? They had it coming. Others wouldn't be that nice. Let's say the Japanese faced nuclear-equipped Russians instead of Americans at that time. The Russians are never as squeamish as the Americans. To ensure the maximum effect of the atomic bombs, they would start nuking Tokyo and Kyoto, the political and cultural capital of Japan. If they have more bombs, they would nuke Osaka, Kobe, and other major cities too.

And now you peaceniks think that Americans is immoral? What other options they have? Here, let me show the other options to you:

A) Stop the war by agreeing "peace" with the Japanese, accepting their terms.

The Japanese were eager to keep China and many other "Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Good luck telling that with a straight face to the Chinese. They would be enraged! They would continue their war against Japan. People in other area like Indonesia would either die in millions because of the harsh treatments, or die in millions because they finally rebel, but the Japanese use superior firepower to massacre them.

B) Asking the Japanese to surrender unconditionally and immediately, renouncing all of their conquest.

Do you live in a fantasy world where "HONOR" were never a part of Japanese culture? Like I said before, they would do EVERYTHING to avoid losing face, even keepin a losin war goes on and on. What's next, asking lions to be vegans?

C) Just keep bombin and blockadin Japan until they surrender

The famine in Japan would be amplified. There would be outbreak of nasty diseases. Japanese would die in millions, slowly, excruciatingly. 

Oh, same thing would happen in their colonies too. That means, another millions would die in China, Indonesia, Indochina, etc.

Oh, the Russian actually planned to invade Manchuria, Korea, and Northern Japan. That means not only Manchuria and North Korea, would fall into communist hand. South Korea and Hokkaido would be grabbed by the communist. Say hello to the "People's Democratic Republic of North Japan." Say hello to total domination of Korea Peninsula by Kim Il Sung's dynasty.

D) Direct invasion to Japanese Homeland

US Navy and Army planned this invasion because they were unaware of the atomic bombs until last minute. They knew the invasion would be ... nightmarish at best. Not only thousands of Allied's and Japanese sailors and soldiers would die, millions of Japanese civilian would perish too. Hey, they already taught their CHILDREN to use a sharp bamboo spear to disembowel Allied soldiers! Those who can't fight would choose suicide instead of surrendering to the Allies. We know that because that was what happened in Saipan and Okinawa. The civilian population plunged to a cliff WITH THEIR BABIES in their hands, instead of surrendering. I can say 5 millions civilians dead already sounds optimistic.

Oh, since the Allies busy with the invasion, nobody would dare to question the Russians when they rolled to South Korea and Hokkaido.

As you can see, the other options are FAR WORSE than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. It was THE BEST CHOICE among several nightmarish options. The root of the nightmare is the honor-based Japanese culture. Even the peace party in Japan couldn't convince everyone else. They need Hiroshima-Nagasaki, AND Soviet invasion to silence the war party. Blamed Tojo, Hirohito, and other Japanese militarists, not Truman or the US. 

Don't like that? C'est la vie, life is not consisting of easy black-white option. Grow up and stop whining about  your never-exist childish dream. Hard choices have to be made, and we will be damned if we close our eyes and fool ourselves that all choices are easy.

The Big Blue Fleet

One of the most memorable thing in the movie Red Cliff is the epic feeling that radiated from the silver screen when they show Cao Cao's battle fleet on Yangtze river. Warship after warship were pumped, covering the horizon like one big blanket, all ready for action, in battle formation! Hell yeah!

Hey Hollywood  why not emulate that? I have one candidate: the big blue fleet or the 3rd/5th fleet or as I call it in my previous writing, "the FUCK YEAH Fleet" during the second world war! Make a movie about their exploit in the 2nd world war! You can begin with the battle of Philippine Sea, and end it with the fight against Kamikazes off Okinawa! Or no, make it a trilogy. The first one is going to cover the Fifth Fleet under Spruance in the Battle of Philippine Sea/The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. The second part is going to portray the 3rd fleet under Halsey in the Battle for Leyte Gulf. The Last part is going to tell the story about the kamikazes attack off Okinawa, when Spruance starts the command, and Halsey relieve him. HOW COME NOBODY MAKE THIS MOVIE? Here are 4 reasons why it will be a fantastic movie:

1) The Size

At its peak, this fleet has 20 fleet carriers, 8 battleships, and several hundreds cruisers and destroyers. That means, they could swarmed ANY Japanese base with 1000 aircraft. Oh, since USA didn't have any massive base in Pacific at that time, they also created service squadrons, which were de facto mobile bases! They can be repaired, re-fueled, and re-supplied in any lagoon, gulf, or any other calm-water area on Pacific.

The Fuck Yeah Fleet in action!

The largest ship in the fleet, USS Iowa,
serviced by the service squadron.
Told ya  it was a mobile base.

To put into perspective, this fleet is the largest fleet EVER! No country at that time, can match the size ofthe big blue fleet. Not the British, not the Japanese, NONE! They can gather every single warship they had and they are still numerically AND qualitatively inferior in comparison with the Fuck Yeah Fleet! Oh, by the way, they are only FRACTION of the US Navy of that time. At that time, the 7th fleet actively supported MacArthur, and had more or less same size, although their ships is older and they only used the small and slow escort carriers instead of fleet carriers.

Now imagine, seeing the Pacific Ocean from a bird-view perspective ... then slowly all the badass warships appear on the screen. Slowly, we will apprehend the enormous scale of the fleet. Slowly, we will be aware that all of those ships cover the whole horizon ... and more! Imagine that happens in 3D!! No, even better ... in IMAX!! I'll pay the ticket TWICE for that epic scene alone!

2) The Message

Hey, Hollywood has created tons of money every time they make movie about America thumpin its chest. This movie will do that exactly! 

For those history-ignorant reader, do you know who the "Fuck Yeah Fleet" fightin? The nasty Japanese. You know, the one that is DESPISED by everyone in Pacific even until today? Yeah, the one responsible for "The rape of Nanking" and the one who systematically organized sex-slavery all across the Pacific. Heck, they even try to whitewash those history in their history book instead of admitting and regretting it! They, arguably, is even better choice for a villain than the Nazi Germany! It is a just war, a clear-cut war that had to be won, unlike controversial wars in Vietnam ... or Iraq. 

3) The Finance

Don't tell me you don't have enough money to finance this kind of movie. Unlike "Avatar," there is no need for you to create the world, we have lots of oceans. Oh, and since it is an "American chest-thumping" movie, you can ask the navy to finance at least part of it. And you can help the finance of USPS too! More about that later ...

4) The Title
Heck, I even have a PERFECT title for this flick! Just name it like the best book title I have ever heard: "Eagle Against The Sun"! Is it catchy? Of course! Is it symbolic.? Hell yeah! Is it badass? FUCK YEAH! 

That has been said, the movie is not without risk. I have some tips about the risks too.

Tip 1: Keep Michael Bay or anyone with same mentality from this movie!

Seriously, think to make the continuation of "Tora Tora Tora" instead of "Pearl Harbor." The point is, the history of the Big Blue Fleet is already KICK ASS, no need to create a bullshit love story as the core. Other than that, it is not only about "stuffs blowing up" it is also about history, about a fight that the United States has endured. Don't repeat the mistakes of Pearl Harbor, bullshitting everyone that the movie is about the historical event, only to focus on a love story between 3 fictional characters.

Tip 2: You can make it big or small.

If you want to make it big, make one of the admiral (Halsey, McCain, Spruance, Mitscher, Nimitz, etc.) as the main character. This will make the movie play in macro-level, just like Tora-Tora-Tora. But you can make it small too. Put a sailor in Halsey or Spruance flagship as the main character. That way you can juggle with small-personal scale and macro-scale if you need to. If you want to make it small, assume it is a parallel story to "The Pacific" NOT the continuation of "Pearl Harbor."

Tip 3: If you really insist to put a romantic story in it ...

... make it about the admiral or the sailor missed his wife/girlfriend, about they communicating via letters. That way you can promote USPS too, I heard nowadays they have financial problem. No need to put any kind of "taking your girlfriend in an illegal joyride" like in Pearl Harbor. It is even BETTER if you use ACTUAL letters for this part! Or maybe you can make the story about how admiral Halsey hate his wife if you choose to make him the main character.

Tip 4: PLEASE, make the Japanese speak Japanese!

This is the one thing that "Pearl Harbor" did right: the Japanese speak Japanese. It is not that difficult to find East-Asian movie stars who can speak Japanese, I really hope you don't screw this up!

I really hope someone can make this movie. Like I said, it will be a badass movie!

Battleships in the Pacific War

There is no God.

Because if there is one, I wouldn't be born in the 20th century and live most of my life in the 21st century. I would be born either at 4 April 1884 in Nagaoka, Niigata, or 11 May 1888 in Natlee, Kentucky, and spend the best day of my life FIGHTIN in the Pacific War during the twilight days of battleships. I could rectify the mistakes made by 2 admirals, and gives a deserving end for the battleships era. How could an omni-benevolent being torment and torture me by denying me that opportunity?`Hence: there is no God.

First case: Solomon Campaign

The 1st date is the date and place of birth of admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, the Imperial Japanese combined fleet commander during the Pacific war. He was instrumental in shaping the Pacific war, but here I just want to focus on his role in the Solomon campaign.

As I already said before, world war 2 is the twilight days of the battleships. Shortly before it, they were the most important thing in your navy. Heck, they were the equivalent of today's nuclear warhead! The rise of airpower, jet propulsion, and many other technologies end that status. But in this war, battleships were still important. They were used to provide flak curtain to protect carriers. for example. Other than that, they bombarded enemies' shore installation to smithereens. 

Now, we come to Guadalcanal, Southern Solomon. The Americans in 1942 managed to conquer the island and built a small aerodrome, Henderson Field. The Japanese were determined to take it back. Unfortunately, the Japanese Navy and Japanese Army quarrels like the Roses. The Americans managed to stand repeated Japanese naval, land, and aerial assaults.

Fed up with this stalemate, admiral Yamamoto send 2 fast battleships Haruna and Kongo to bombard Henderson Field with their 356 mm cannons. The Americans couldn't contest this bombardment since they had no comparable ships at that time. So, the mighty battlewagons rained hell over Guadalcanal. After the bombardment, the Americans were dazed, confused, and most importantly ... scared shitless. So, they repeat this follow-up this bombardment with land assault? Nope. They missed their chance, the Americans managed to recover from the bombardment, and reinforced their position. When the Japanese finally "get it," they send fast battleships Hiei and Kirishima to repeat the bombardment. But this time the Americans ships interdicted them in the "Naval battles of Guadalcanal." At the first night, the US under Rear Admiral Callaghan, challenged the Japanese using cruisers only. Despite his clumsiness, he surprised the Japanese fleet. He managed to cripple Hiei, but all the cruisers were wiped out, and he also lost his life. At  the second night, the US got battleships Washington and South Dakota to protect Guadalcanal under the command of admiral Willis "Ching" Lee. This time, they managed to sunk Kirishima without losing ships bigger than destroyers. In the end, the Japanese forces evacuated from Guadalcanal, marking the whole campaign as the "turning point of the Pacific war."

What I would have done: Operation 彼らkareraのno母hahaのno膣chitsuにni戻ってmodotteヤンキースyankiisuをwoスイープsuiipu異常ijixyouにni混乱konranしshiたta状況jixyoukixyou (Shitstorm that sweeps the Yankees back to their mother's vagina)

Note: The Japanese usually named their military operation with ridiculous name like "ichigo" (strawberry) or "Z", not this time!  

Let me ask you, what is the most famous battleship of all time? Big chance the answer is "Yamato," small wonder, it is the biggest battleship of all time, with the largest cannons, thickest armor, etc.

Check again the name of the fast battleships send by the Japanese. None of them named "Yamato" or her sister ship "Musashi". You see ... the Japanese super-battleships at that time was parked at Truk lagoon, around 1200 miles North of Guadalcanal, acting as Yamamoto's flagship. Japanese sailors DETESTED this treatment, "Why we have to die at the frontline while that big Yamato stand like a hotel in safe water?" Amen.

Yamamoto and other Japanese big shots didn't send Yamato and Musashi because they were worried that narrow seas like the one around Guadalcanal make them vulnerable to torpedo attacks. What? Seriously? 

If I was born as Yamamoto at that time I would say "Okay, just sweep those yankees using our battleships. Send Hiei, Kirishima, Haruna, Kongo, Yamato, and Musashi at the same time. I'll lead in Musashi. Kongo and all 3 sisters of hers should come first and inspect the perimeter, attack any US ships that were stupid enough to stay. If the coast is clear, Yamato and Musashi will start the hellfire with their 460 mm cannons. Once the bombardment is over, Yamato and Musashi could retreat, while Haruna - Kongo repeated their past experience, for good measures, let Hiei - Kirishima stand on guard. If Haruna and Kongo alone managed to scare them shitless, let's see how they can handle six of us now! If Haruna and Kongo alone destroyed them THAT BAD, let's see how they manage Yamato and Musashi too!"

Let's imagine what would happen if Callaghan met Yamamoto's battle fleet. Most likely he would refuse to give battle and retreat. But just consider, even in BEST CASE SCENARIO where he managed to cripple Hiei just like in reality, Yamamoto can just shrug it, sunk all US ships, then finally bombarded the Henderson Field.

That, ladies and gentleman, was HOW YOU USE YOUR BATTLESHIPS! Every military historian agree, the bombardment was the HIGH-POINT for battleship in the Pacific War. The parking of the superbattleships in Truk Lagoon was not even the low-point. Heck, they didn't even exist in the same sentence! What's the point of having such expensive ships if you only park them on safe harbor? What a waste ...

And speaking of waste ...

USS North Carolina

Battleship Nagato. From wikipedia

Second case: The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot

After the US re-conquered Solomon Islands, Papua, and Central Pacific in 1943 - early 1944, they moved to the inner defense of the Empire: the Marianas. Unlike during the Solomon campaign. This time the US already created the "Big Blue Fleet" or as I call it "the Fuck YEAH fleet!"

Why "Fuck Yeah"? How else you call it, I mean, this fleet could launch more than 1.000 aircrafts. Therefore, they DIDN'T CARE whether they fight Japanese carriers or airfields, they could overwhelm it in seconds. 

Battleship Yamato. From wikipedia.

South Dakota class

They packed punch not only because of the 1000+ aircrafts, but also because of the 7 modern battleships. At that time, they had USS Washington & North Carolina from North Carolina Class; USS Alabama, Indiana, and South Dakota from South Dakota class; and USS Iowa & New Jersey from Iowa class. These battleships were under  admiral Willis "Ching" Lee, the victor of the 2nd naval battle of Guadalcanal.

When the FY fleet moved to Mariana, it was lead by admiral Raymond Spruance, victor of battle of Midway. He checked his map, his schedule, and all intelligence data ... and he found one interesting point. His fleet could meet the Japanese fleet at night, and fight it out in a SURFACE battle instead of aerial one. He asked Lee whether that was desirable. Lee said he didn't want to fight against the Japanese in the night again. Spruance agreed with him and thus "The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" was fight as an aerial battle.

What I would have done: Operation Iron Storm

If God exists, I should have been born as that Willis "Ching" Lee. I would said:

"HELL YEAH, I really want to fight them with my own battleships! Screw the fact that there is no need to endanger the crews and the mission! As far as I am concerned, this is the last chance to see World War 2 version of battle of Jutland. As a battleship admiral, IT IS A BLASPHEMY to avoid this fight. This is no longer about the war, the mission, or the crews, this is about higher power, about our DHARMA in this cruel world! This ... is about a fitting end for an epic that already lasted for centuries! This is the final showdown for battleships!"

Spruance was a battleship admiral. He would understand, and nodded in agreement.

Willis "Ching" Lee. The man
who screws my mind, years
after his death.

Then we could have the most spectacular surface battle EVER. The Japanese got Yamato, Musashi, Nagato, Haruna, and Kongo. Imagined the final fight between the Japanese battleships and the "Fuck YEAH Fleet". It would be GLORIOUS. It would be EPIC. The Japanese would launch their floatplanes, which would routinely drop spectacular flares above the US ships. The Imperial cruisers would lead its destroyers in torpedo attacks, tryin to hit US battleships. The US would use their superior radar to direct their shots. Shells would flyin around. 460, 406, and 356 mm shells above all, penetratin belt, and deck armors. It would be ... beyond the most vivid wet dream imagined! It would be MORE HARDCORE than the most hardcore gangbang video that involve lesbians! This is a fittin end for the battleship era. An epic epilogue of such spectacular class.

SNAP!!

Sadly, all of that is only a dream. Yes, only a dream, because LEE SHRUGGED IT OFF!! The fact is, the last battleship vs battleship battle is the battle of Surigao strait. In case you don't know, that battle was about 6 old US Battleships shootin 2 old Imperial battleships, Yamashiro & Fuso, like shootin a fish in a barrel ... with auto-shotguns! 

ARGH, HOW COULD HE? This is not fair, this is the last chance of battleship vs battleship battle, and LEE SHRUGGED IT OFF! Lee has gravely sinned against the naval God, HOW COULD HE?? He should be court-martialed, sacked, and ... and ... AAARGH!! TRAVESTY! BLASPHEMY! CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY! HOW COULD HE? HOW COOOUULLDD HEEE??

Bullshit Building 15: Peter The Great Statue

Peter the Great is a badass. A naval badass to be precise. He single-handedly turned Russia into a world power by harnessing Russia's energy and directed it to the sea. He even studied how to build a ship in Holland, and worked with his hand! Afterward, He built the first Russian navy, the city of St-Petersburg, etc. Heck, he is so badass that even the communists had to admit that he is a great czar!

Then came this travesty ...

The Beginning

Moscow mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, thinks big. He was revitalizing Moscow at that time, and he thought that a big symbol would be a good idea. Then he met a famous artist Zurab Tsereteli. Same like Luzhkov, Tsereteli thinks big. Very big. EXCESSIVELY BIG! I laughed so hard that I fell from my chair after I read his wikipedia page, especially after I read these paragraphs:

"As a reflection of his controversial reputation, a satiric short story describing Tsereteli as an alien installing a beacon through his various sculptures was published by Boris Akunin in his anthology Fairy Tales for Idiots (Russian: Сказки для идиотов, Skazki dlja idiotov). The alien's name is given as Yagkfi Yeyukuyeudsh (Russian: Ягкфи Еыукуеудш), a seemingly gibberish-like combination which actually spells out "Zurab Tsereteli" when typed on a Latin QWERTY keyboard by hitting the keys where the corresponding Russian characters would be located."

"Tsereteli's works, though often welcomed by the authorities, tend to become objects of strong public criticism. His sculptures are often blamed and mocked for being incongruously pompous and out of proportion."

From The Telegraph

So, what is Tsereteli's ideas for the new-supposed-to-be-great-&-memorable monument of Moscow? A Peter The Great statue, together with reminders that he loved the sea. Oh yeah, the statue also built to celebrate the 300th birthday of Russian navy. Thus we got the 98 meter (315 ft) tall statue ...

It's a big Middle Finger ...

First, every single Russian knows that Peter the Great HATED Moscow. He moved Russian capital to St-Petersburg at first chance. He abhorred every single moment he had to spend in Moscow. Maybe because he was traumatized, since he watched many of his relatives were butchered by a mob in Moscow. Maybe because he identified Moscow with the old aristocracies, who opposed most of his reforms. Maybe because he can't pursue his love for the sea in Moscow. Maybe because all of that factors at the same time. Bottom line: he hates Moscow. So ... why built his statue in Moscow? It is just like a big middle finger to Peter, AND to Moscow.

Second, I need to inform people who don't have any clue about the geographical condition of Moscow in case it is not clear enough. Moscow is located several hundreds miles away from the nearest sea. Yup, the statue that celebrate the Russian navy was built on a land-locked city. So, this statue is also a middle-finger to the Russian navy.

From: Oddstuff Magazine

Third, most people agree that the statue is as ugly as a monkey's ass. Local Muscovites call the statue "Gulliver" since it portrayed Peter as a giant, while riding a lilliputian ship, AND gathering lilliputian of  lilliputian fleet below him. Remember the previous criticism in Wikipedia about pomposity and screwed-up proportion? This statue demonstrates that those criticisms are valid. The Artnews even quoted Tsreteli's nemesis, Marat Guelman who said that Tsereteli has confused the history of art and "Guinnes Book of Record."  So, in essence, this is also a big middle-finger for anyone who has good artistic taste.

DITCH IT!

No surprise when Luzhkov was sacked, many people were screaming to ditch this statue. The Muscovites pointed out that St-Petersburg is a far more appropriate location, since that city bear Peter's name, founded by Peter, and acted as the HQ of Russian Baltic Fleet. The people in St-Petersburg responded by saying HELL NO! Some prominent figures even so disgusted by the statue they propose to melt the statue completely. Fortunately, the city of Arkhangel, the very first Russian port, agree to accept the statue. 

Unfortunately, the cost of dismantling the statue is enormous: 6 - 17 million Dollar. Not cool. So, the city of Moscow until today is forced to live with this statue.

Sources: 

Pravda

The Telegraph

Art News

Reuters

Oddstuff Magazine

Amazing Quotes 26: Huntington's Who Are We?

"Who are we?" is the last, and arguably, most controversial book of Samuel P. Huntington. This book discusses the nature of American identity. Some accused Huntington as racist because he doesn't care about political correctness and pointed out that illegal immigration is illegal, and dangerous for American identity. I disagree with some part of this book, nevertheless, it still contains tons of thoughtful quotes such as:

We have to know who we are before we can know what our interest are.

-- page 10

Historical experience and sociological analysis show that the absence of an external "other" is likely to undermine unity and breed division within a society.

-- page 18

Competition and conflict can only occur between entities that are in the same universe or arena. In some sense, as Volkan put it, "the enemy" has to be "like us."

-- page 26

To describe America as a "nation of immigrants" is to stretch a partial truth into a misleading falsehood, and to ignore the central fact of America's beginning as a society of settlers.

-- page 46

The Protestant emphasis on the individual conscience and the responsibility of individuals to learn God's truth directly from the Bible promoted American commitment to individualism, equality, and the rights to freedom of religion and opinion.

-- page 68

While the American Creed is Protestantism without God, the American civil religion is Christianity without Christ.

-- page 107

Americans created the term and the concept of Americanization in late 18th century when they also created the term and the concept of immigrant.

-- page 133

The Americanization movement began with private organizations at the grass roots.

-- page 135

Review: Sang Pencerah

SPOILER WARNING!!

I already said it before, but I need to repeat it again: many Indonesian movies are embarrassments. Many said "Sang Pencerah" (The Enlightener) is an exception. Hey, religion is also my point of interest, so I watch this movie with quite high hope.

Oh yeah, before I watched this movie, I watched the superbly written Red Letter Media's Titanic Review. Coincidentally, some of their criticisms for Titanic are also valid here. More on that later!

First the synopsis. This is the movie about the founding of Muhammadiyah, the 2nd largest Islamic organization in Indonesia. It is a modernist movement, which was founded by Ahmad Dahlan, in late 19th century Indonesia, which at that time was under Dutch colonialism. Dahlan is the main character of this movie. He was repeatedly opposed by the existing Islamic elites, who control the largest mosque in that area, who prefer the status quo to changes thought by Dahlan. The movie essentially follow this formula:

Enlightenment -> Preaching & application -> Violent response of pro status quo Islamic leaders -> Contemplation, accompanied with violin plays -> Enlightenment again!

Rinse and repeat.

The movie tries really hard to portrait the stubbornness, the refusal of the elites to change. It tries so hard that it forget that change is not good per se. For example, Dahlan tries to modernize Islamic education system by copying Western school, complete with chairs and tables. The elites branded Dahlan as "infidel," since he used "Infidel's chairs and tables" instead of simply sitting and studying on floor, like on mosque. But Dahlan never pointed out the reason WHY they have to switch to chairs and tables. Hey, I am no Muslim, but I can pointed out that studying on floor is far cheaper, spacious, and flexible. But no, the movie only want to say "Dahlan is so progressive and smart while the elites are stupid!"

Oh yeah, speaking about the elites, the movie also without any subtlety said that "Indonesians have to unite to fight against the Dutch who sucked our land!" But on the other hand, it almost totally AVOIDS one of the main historical reason of  the founding of Muhammadiyah: to fight back Christian missionaries. Heck, in one scene, it was shown that the Dutch officials and children thought that Islam was a backward and primitive religion, BUT they quickly CHANGED their mind only after a single demonstration of Dahlan's knowledge, wittiness, and teaching capability! Oh yeah, this was done AFTER Dahlan insulted a Dutch official as "fatso". Somehow that official didn't really take that insult personally and let Dahlan become a teacher at his school! Compare that with the fact that the Islamic elites in this movie ALWAYS oppose Dahlan, and even using VIOLENCE against his followers! Now, whose reign do you prefer? The once-ignorant Dutch who CAN CHANGE their mind after a single demonstration? Or the stubborn and violent local elites? I like this one, for once this movie didn't play it safe, but ... doesn't that means that the movie weakened its own "patriotic" message? And speaking about violence by the locals ...

There is one scene that made me shakes my head in disbelieve. It is the scene after the elites warned Dahlan for the first time to close his mosque. Dahlan KNOW that the elites already send an angry mob to his mosque. When the mob tore down the mosque, he went to, then hugged his father, and playing violin in contemplation. At the same time, his wife & disciples crying, watching the mob in horror, powerless to defend the mosque.

WHAT??

He left his wife and disciples to face the angry mob by themselves?? WHAT THE HELL, HERO? Then, in the next day, NOBODY pointed out this. Nobody.

So, with all those weaknesses, is this a bad movie? Not exactly. Let me refer to Red Letter Media's Titanic review: "It was shot superbly. Small details are not overlooked, every scene is gorgeous. Every music enhanced every scene. Technically, it is an excellent movie. Too bad the plot sucks." Same here. Almost every single scene magnify the beauty of Javanese village and houses. "Sang Pencerah"'s weaknesses are all plot related. 

Another point brought by Red Letter Media about Titanic: Cameron play it safe in terms of plot. It never try to dig deeper into the character, it never try to pose a moral dilemma to them. It always pointed out that the main character is the perfectly-good human while the antagonist(s) are total monsters. "Sang Pencerah" is better here, since in the end the highest elite actually repents. But it also play it safe, it refuse to confront an "ugly truth," for example, a simple fact that Muhammadiyah is also about confrontation against Christian missions. It also preached endlessly that "the Islamic way preached by Dahlan is better than local cultures," and since most Indonesians are Muslims, I don't see anything other than "I want to play it safe!" from this fact. Just like The Lady, it tries so hard to put its protagonist on pedestal, it only slipped during the mob-attack scene. Most of the time, it choose NOT to mention that Dahlan's foot is always on the ground, never hovering.

Final verdict: 55 out of 100. Watch it if you are interested in history of Indonesia, but with a grain of salt. BTW, I also love the fact how this movie put the colonial masters in more positive light than the local elites! But I suspect only few recognize this ...

Amazing Quotes 25: Political Order in Changing Societies 3

In the first part, Huntington discussed the overall thesis of the book, and how monarchy could influence and become the part of political development.

In the second part, Huntington explained the role of revolution and military institution in the political development of a country.

In the last part, Huntington put the explanation about the role of reform and political parties, as follows:

If there is any cleavage which is virtually universal in modernizing countries, it is the cleavage between government and university.

-- Page 371

Throughout history peasant revolts and jacquieries have typically aimed at the elimination of specific evils or abuses.

-- Page 374

The urban middle-class intellectual has aspirations which can never be realized and he hence exists in a state of permanent volatility. There is no mistaking his role. The peasantry, on the other hand, may be the bulwark of the status quo or the shock troops of revolution. Which role the peasant plays is determined by the extent to which the existing system meets his immediate economic and material needs as he sees them.

-- Page 375

Traditional polities do not have political parties; modernizing polities need them but often do not want them.

-- Page 403

The more hostile a government is toward political parties in a modernizing society, however, the greater the probable future instability of that society.

-- Page 407

The institutional strength of a political party is measured, in the first instance, by its ability to survive its founder or the charismatic leader who first brings it to power.

-- Page 409

In terms of political development, however, what counts is not the number of parties but rather the strength and adaptability of the party system.

-- Page 420

The party is a modern organization. But to be successful it must organize a traditional countryside.

-- Page 434

The source of political modernity is the city; the source of political stability is the countryside. The task of the party is to combine the two.

-- Page 434

In the modernizing world he controls the future who organizes its politics.

-- Page 461, the last sentence of the book.

Amazing Quotes 24:Political Order in Changing Societies 2

Let's continue the collection of amazing quotes from "Political Order in Changing Societies." This time, let's cover chapter 4 -5.

Countries which have political armies also have political clergies, political universities, political bureaucracies, political labor unions, and political corporation.

-- Page 194

Corruption in a limited sense refers to the intervention of wealth in the political sphere. Praetorianism in a limited sense refers to the intervention of the military in politics, and clericalism to the participation of religious leaders.

-- Page 194 - 195

Independence frequently left a small, modernized, intellectual elite confronting a large, amorphous, unmobilized, still highly traditional society.

-- Page 200

... while other social forces can pressure the government, the military can replace the government. Monks and priests can demonstrate, students riot, and workers strike, but no one of these groups has, except in most unusual circumstances, demonstrated any capacity to govern.

-- Page 217

... their [the military] historical role is to open the dor to the middle class and to close it on the lower class.

-- Page 222

Even more so than other groups in society, military officers tend to see parties as the agents of disunity rather than as mechanisms for consensus-building. Their goal is community without politics, consensus by command. By criticizing and downgrading the role of politics the military prevent society from achieving the community which it needs and they value.

-- Page 244

The role of the city is constant: it is the permanent source of opposition. The role of the countryside is variable: it is either the source of stability or the source of revolution.

He who controls the countryside controls the country.

-- Page 292

Urban migration is, in some measure, a substitute for rural revolution. Hence, contrary to common belief, the susceptibility of a country to revolution may vary inversely with its rate of urbanization.

-- Page 299

Revolutions produce little liberty, but they are history's most expeditious means of producing fraternity, equality, and identity.

-- Page 311

Marxism is a theory of history. Leninism is a theory of political development.

-- Page 342

Amazing Quotes 22: Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and The State

One of the most impressive work of Huntington is "The Soldier and The State." This book analyzes the relationship between military profession and politics. This book is ALWAYS referenced whenever anyone want to speak about military institution. Some of its best lines: 

This [military] professional bias, or sense of responsibility, leads him to feel that if he errs in his estimate, it should be on the side of overstating the threat. Consequently, at times he will see threats to the security of the state where actually no threats exists.

-- Page 66.

He [the military men] is afraid of war. He wants to prepare for war. But he is never ready to fight a war.

-- Page 69.

The military ethic is thus pessimistic, collectivist, historically inclined, power-oriented, nationalistic, miliatristic, pacifist, and instrumentalist in its view of the military profession. It is in, in brief, realistic and conservative.

-- Page 79.

… for the American a war is not a war unless it is a crusade.

-- Page 151

The trouble with the United States as a country was that „we are perhaps the least military, thought not behind the foremost as a warlike one.“

-- Page 221.

Military men criticized the rash and adventurous psychology, typified by the "On to Richmond" slogan of the Civil War radicals, and urged the primacy of prudence over courage and the necessity of accepting a "patient and costly defense." Some military men almost seemed to regret that the United States had “never known a Jena or Sedan“ to curb national arrogance and complacency.

-- Page 266

The professional officer exists in a world of grays. MacArthur's universe was one of blacks and whites and loud and clashing colors.

-- Page 370.

Speaking less and smiling more than MacArthur, he [Eisenhower] appeared the embodiment of consensus rather than controversy. MacArthur was a beacon, Eisenhower a mirror.

-- Page 370

The tension between the demands of military security and the values of American liberalism can, in the long run, be relieved only by the weakening of the security threat or the weakening of liberalism.

-- Page 456

Homage to the Best Guerilla General

From Bundesarchiv

Let's start this article with a pop quiz: who do you think deserved to be called "the best guerilla leader"? I bet most of you answer with Mao Zedong from China, Vo Nguyen Giap from Vietnam, or the more romantic Che Guevara from Argentina.

Nope. They can't hold the candle to my choice: Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (1870-1964). I am sure most of you are baffled by that name, since most history curriculum sucks. So, let me inform you about the awesomeness of this badass.

Conventional War

He was born in Saarland, Germany, 20th of March 1870. He became an Imperial Germany officers and was send to German's East Africa colony, today's Tanzania. Then the first World War begun. He knew his position sucks, since the British, France, Belgium, and Portuguese colonies surrounded his territory. The governor tried to appease the Allies by trying to be neutral. Wimp. Lettow-Vorbeck had none of this and prepared his troops.

When the British forces attacked the busy port of Tanga, he kicked their ass so hard that local bees even supported him! This happened despite the fact that British forces outnumbered the Germans 8 to 1, and they also out-gunned the Germans, since only after this battle Lettow-Vorbeck managed to arm his African troops with modern rifles.

After Tanga, Lettow-Vorbeck kicked the British' arse again in Jassin. But he was aware that his inferior number would make conventional warfare unsustainable.

The Guerrilla

He switched gear and started recruiting more African soldiers, and surprise, surprise, African officers! He even proclaimed that "We are all Africans here"! As we shall see decades later, this act of egalitarianism was not based only on pragmatism.

Back to the military aspect. His plan was simple: tied up as many Allied soldiers as possible. He made sure that the Allied couldn't ignore him ... by raiding the Allies' forts, railways, and anything that matters. The Allies upped the ante, sending their badass, J.C. Smuts to lead the counter-guerrilla operation. Important note here: Smuts was also a master guerrilla too. Previously, he had lead Boer Commandos against the British in the Boer War. Lettow-Vorbeck was up to the challenge. 

Even after Smuts takeover the British command, Lettow-Vorbeck kept alluded their forces ... and kicked their ass everytime they met. Seriously, this bad-ass turned his entire army into nomadic brigands, and started a strategic withdrawal, while humiliating the Allies in every encounter. 

There is a military adage: "Amateurs speak about strategy, masters speak about logistics." The worst obstacle for Lettow-Vorbeck was exactly that: logistic. His solution: kicked the enemies' ass, and take their ammos, medicines, and foods. 

There is also another apocryphal story about Frederick the great, I believe. When one general praised him as "the best general of all time," he shot him down by saying "not exactly. I have never been tested by a strategic withdrawal." Amen. Being attacked, harassed, and surrounded by overwhelming enemy is indeed a litmus test for the quality of a general. In Lettow-Vorbeck case, maybe it was similar to Rorschach situation in the jail. Even though outnumbered and outgunned, he was the one who truly harassed the Allies, not vice versa.

In the end, Lettow-Vorbeck surrendered at 28.09.1918 because of the armistice in Europe. He was still undefeated at that time. If the war were continued, it is believed that he could manage to reach friendly territories, achieving strategic victory. Damn, he can easily get the title "The Best German General" too!

Post 1st World War

But WAIT! His bad-assery was not over yet!

He was so badass that Jan Smuts befriended him once the war is over.

He also refused to participate in politics, and heavily distrusted Hitler and his Nazi party. Remember when I said that he is an egalitarian? Looks like that was one of his reason. 

Amazingly, Hitler offered him an ambassadorial position. Lettow-Vorbeck reaction? He said "Go fuck yourself" to der Führer. Oh sorry, according to his nephew, he was NOT that polite. Yes, he insulted der Führer with the worst words imaginable and still alive! The Führer put his house under surveillance and throw other b.s. to him, but he is so badass that Hitler didn't dare to jail or kill him. If that is not an example of bad-assery, I don't know what is.

Underdog Battles 3: Battle of Longewala

Where and When: Longewala, 30 km from Ramgarh, Rajasthan Province; 4 - 7 December 1971

Who: Pakistani Army & tanks vs 120 Indian soldiers

Background:
Once upon a time, the country named Bangladesh was part of Pakistan and called "East Pakistan." One of their key identity was their religion: Islam. Unfortunately, despite their smaller number, the Western Pakistanis dominated everything. Unhappy with this situation, the East Pakistanis or Bangladeshi protested. The West Pakistanis answered that protest with an outright genocide.

From Mapzones

Like other genocide, this one also triggered a mass exodus to their neighbor, in this case: India. The Indian government picked their calculator and started to do their math: which one is more expensive, taking care of the refugees or backed the Bangladeshi up with a military intervention? Hey, a military intervention is far cheaper! So they intervened and invaded Bangladesh, while sending their navy to begin a naval blockade in the Pakistani water.


The Pakistani Strategy:
The (West) Pakistani themselves until today, are the sworn enemies of the Indians, their military was, and still is, geared to defeat the Indians. But there is one problem: the Western and Eastern Pakistani was separated by India itself! It would be nearly impossible for the Pakistanis to reinforce their eastern territory in any war against India!

So, their strategy is to attack the western provinces of India instead, and grab as many territory as possible to attenuate any territorial loss of Eastern Pakistan. The Pakistani military never kid themselves that they could conquer the whole India. They were sure that international pressure would make any war with India short, so this territorial gain functioned as bargaining chip during the peace talk.

When the Bangladeshi independent war broke out at 3rd of December 1971, they immediately put that strategy into practice. They already send their spies into the border area to get the infos about Indian army units there. Based on those intels, they plan to invade the province of Rajasthan.

From Mapzones

Unfortunately, their intels missed a small military post on Longewala, manned by 120 Indian soldiers, on the road to Ramgarh.

Unfortunately too, those intels didn't inform the Pakistani army about the terrain, the geographical obstacle, and many other details.


The Contact:
The Indian post detected the Pakistani invasion far before they reached the post. Major Kuldip Singh Chandpuri, the commander of that post realized that he was badly outnumbered and outgunned. His 120 men who didn't have any tank would fight more than 2000 Pakistani soldiers, who got 45 tanks. His superior couldn't send any reinforcement, and advised him to either stand his ground or retreated.

He assessed his situation. His men has limited means of transportation, while the Pakistani army was highly mobile. Retreating was far more hazardous than made a stand in their post, which has the higher ground, and fortified by barb wires, and other defensive works. He decided to stand his ground.


The Battle:
When the Pakistani arrived in Longewala, 30 minutes after midnight, they were reasonably confident. The Indians were outnumbered, and outgunned. Too confident. In fact, they did almost no route reconnaissance nor engineering reconnaissance before their assault. 

Their opening artillery strike killed the camels in the post. The Indians hastily laid a minefield in front of the approaching Pakistani tank. Naturally this didn't work. Okay, so far so good for the invaders ... but then the Indian started to fight back.


First, the anti-tank guns of the Indians took out a dozen Pakistani tanks. The assault stopped after they discovered a barb wire. They guessed that they are blocked by minefield. Under the fire of the Indian army, it took 2 hours for the Pakistani to bring their engineers to the front ... only to find that the minefield was non-existent. 

Second, the Pakistani tried to surrounded the post, but the soft sand terrains bogged all armored vehicles down, making them sitting duck for the Indian's anti tank weapons.

Third, the far more numerous Pakistani army actually managed to surround the base, but they never managed to get close. The Indians repeatedly shot them down from their defensive position, using everything they got. Their superior position and the conduct of the Pakistani army convinced all the Indians in the post to stand their ground firmly. Again and again they repelled the Pakistani assault.

Finally, the sun started to rise. The Indian headquarters send some jet fighters and mowed down the Pakistani army from air. The fact that the post and the Pakistani army were all located in open terrains sealed the destruction of the Pakistani army. To complete the victory, the Indian send their own tank regiment to that post, sending the Pakistani army back to their border.


Aftermath
The battle was a big tactical and strategic victory for the Indian army. Their lost was 2 soldiers, 5 camels, and one jeep. The Pakistani lost 200 soldiers and 500 vehicles, including 34 out of 45 of their tanks. The Pakistani plan to invade India from this road was over before it even begun. For his conduct in this battle, Major Kuldip Singh Chandpuri received Maha Vir Chakra, the second highest military decoration in India.

This battle really showed that history has no mercy for hubris. He who is too proud to do proper recon to got their facts straight will receive nasty surprises. Very nasty surprises.