#neville erickson | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

genuine-history-blog · 6 years

Text

Best World War II Non-fiction History Books

ABRAMSKY, C. (ed.), Essays in Honour of E. H. Carr ('The Initiation of the Negotiations Leading to the Nazi-Soviet Pact: A Historical Problem’, D. C. Watt) Macmillan, 1974

ABYZOV, VLADIMIR, The Final Assault, Novosti, Moscow, 1985

ALEXANDROV, VICTOR, The Kremlin, Nerve-Centre of Russian History, George Allen 8: Unwin, 1963

ALLILUYEVA, SVETLANA, Only One Year, Hutchinson, 1969

Twenty Letters to a Friend, Hutchinson, 1967

AMORT, R., and JEDLICKA, I. M., The Canan's File, Wingate, 1974

ANDERS, LIEUTENANT-GENERAL W., An Army in Exile, Macmillan, 1949

ANDREAS-FRIEDRICH, RUTH, Berlin Underground, 1939-1945, Latimer House, 1948

ANON, A Short History of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Sofia Press, Sofia, 1977

ANON, The Crime of Katyn, Facts and Documents, Polish Cultural Foundation, 1965

ANON, The Obersalzberg and the Third Reich, Plenk Verlag, Berchtesgaden, 1982

ANTONOV-OUSEYENKO, ANTON, The Time of Stalin, Portrait of a Tyranny, Harper & Row, New York, 1981

BACON, WALTER, Finland, Hale, 1970

BARBUSSE, HENRI, Stalin: A New World Seen Through One Man, Macmillan, New York, 1935

BAYNES, N. H. (ed), Hitler’s Speeches, 1922-39, 2 vols, OUP, 1942

BEAUFRE, ANDRE, 1940: The Fall of France, Cassell, 1968

BECK, JOSEF, Demier Rapport, La Baconniére, Brussels, 1951

BEDELL SMITH, WALTER, Moscow Mission 1946-1949, Heinemann, 1950

BELOFF, MAX, The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, Vol Two, 1936-1941, Oxford, 1949

BEREZHKOV, VALENTIN, History in the Making, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1983

BIALER, S., Stalin and His Generals, Souvenir Press, 1969

BIELENBERG, CHRISTABEL, The Past is Myself, Chatto & Windus, 1968

BIRKENHEAD, LORD, Halifax, Hamish Hamilton, 1965

BOHLEN, CHARLES E., Witness to History, 1929-1969, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1973

BONNET, GEORGES, Fin d’une Europe, Geneva, 1948

BOURKE-WHITE, MARGARET, Shooting the Russian War, Simon 8: Schuster, New York, 1942

BOYD, CARL, Magic and the Japanese Ambassador to Berlin, Paper for Northern Great Plains History Conference, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, 1986

BUBER, MARGARETE, Under Two Dictators, Gollancz, 1949

BUBER-NEUMANN, MARGARETE, Von Potsdam nach Moskau Stationens eines Irrweges, Hohenheim, Cologne, 1981

BULLOCK, ALAN, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Pelican, 1962

BURCKHARDT, CARL I., Meine Danziger Mission, 1937- 1939, Munich, 1960

BUTLERJ. R. M. (editor), Grand Strategy, Vols I-III, HMSO, 1956-1964

BUTSON, T. G., The Tsar’s Lieutenant: The Soviet Marshal, Praeger, 1984

CALDWELL, ERSKINE, All Out on the Road to Smolensk, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York, 1942

CALIC, EDOUARD, Unmasked: Two Confidential Interviews with Hitler in 1931, Chatto & Windus, 1971

CARELL, PAUL, Hitler’s War on Russia, Harrap, 1964

CASSIDY, HENRY C., Moscow Dateline, Houghton Mifilin, Boston, 1943

CECIL, ROBERT, Hitler’s Decision to Invade Russia, 1941, Davis-Poynter, 1975

CHANEY, OTTO PRESTON, JR., Zhukov, David & Charles, Newton Abbot, 1972

CHAPMAN, GUY, Why France Collapsed, Cassell, 1968

CHURCHILL, WINSTON S., The Second World War. Vol. I: The Gathering Storm, Vol. II: Their Finest Hour, Vol. III: The Grand Alliance, Penguin, 1985

CIENCIALA, ANNA M., Poland and the Western Powers, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968

CLARK, ALAN, Barbarossa, Hutchinson, 1965

COATES, W. P. and Z. K., The Soviet-Finnish Campaign, Eldon Press, 1942

COHEN, STEPHEN (ed.), An End to Silence (from Roy Medvedev’s underground magazine, Political Diary), W. W. Norton, New York, 1982

COLLIER, RICHARD, 1940 The World in Flames, Hamish Hamilton, 1979

COLVILLE, JOHN, The Fringes of Power, Downing Street Diaries, 1939-1955, Hodder & Stoughton, 1985

COLVIN, IAN, The Chamberlain Cabinet, Gollancz, 1971

CONQUEST, ROBERT, The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties, Macmillan, 1968

COOKE, RONALD C., and NESBIT, ROY CONGERS, Target: Hitler’s Oil, Kitnber, 1985

COOPER, DIANA, Autobiography, Michael Russell, 1979

COULONDRE, ROBERT, De Staline a Hitler, Paris, 1950

CRUIKSHANK, CHARLES, Deception in World War II, CUP, 1979

DAHLERUS, BIRGER, The Last Attempt, Hutchinson, 1948

DALADIER, EDOUARD, The Defence of France, Hutchinson, 1939

DEAKIN, F. W., and STORRY, G. R., The Case of Richard Sarge, Chatto 8: Windus, 1966

DEIGHTON, LEN, Blitzkrieg, Jonathan Cape, 1979

DELBARS, YVES, The Real Stalin, George Allen 8: Unwin, 1953

DEUTSCHER, ISAAC, Stalin. A Political Biography, CUP, 1949

DIETRICH, OTTO, The Hitler I Knew, Methuen, 1957

DILKS, DAVID, (ed.), Diaries of Sir Alexander Cadogan 1938-1945, Cassell, 1971

DJILAS, MILOVAN, Conversations with Stalin, Penguin, 1963

DOBSON, CHRISTOPHER and MILLER, JOHN, The Day We Almost Bombed Moscow: Allied War in Russia 1918-1920, Hodder & Stoughton, 1986

DOLLMANN, EUGEN, The Interpreter, Hutchinson, 1967

DONNELLY, DESMOND, Struggle for the World, Collins, 1965

DOUGLAS, CLARK, Three Days to Catastrophe, Hammond, 1966

DRAX, ADMIRAL SIR REGINALD PLUNKETT-ERNLE-ERLE-, Mission to Moscow, August 1939, Privately, 1966

DREA, EDWARD J., Nomohan: Japanese-Soviet Tactical Combat. 1939, Combat Studies Institute, Leavenworth Papers, January 1981

EDEN, ANTHONY, Facing the Dictators, Cassell, 1962

The Reckoning, Cassell, 1965

EDMONDS, H.J., Norman Dewhurst, MC, Privately, Brussels, 1968

EHRENBURG, ILYA, Eve of War, MacGibbon & Kee, 1963

EINZIG, PAUL, In the Centre of Things, Hutchinson, 1960

EISENSTEIN, SERGEI M., Immoral Memories, Peter Owen, 1985

ENGEL, GERHARD, Heeresadjutant bei Hitler 1938-1943, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt,

Stuttgart, 1974

ERICKSON,J., The Road to Stalingrad Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1975

The Soviet High Command, Macmillan, 1962 ‘Reflections on Securing the Soviet Far Eastern Frontier: 1932-1945’, Interplay, August-September 1969

EUGLE, E., and PAANEN, L., The Winter War, Sidgwick 8: Jackson, 1973

FEILING, KEITH, The Life of Neville Chamberlain, Macmillan, 1946 FESTJOACHIM C., Hitler, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1974

The Face of the Third Reich, Weidenfeld 8c Nicolson, 1970

FISCHER, ERNST, An Opposing Man, Allen Lane, 1974

FLANNERY, HARRY W., Assignment to Berlin, Michael Joseph, 1942

FLEISHER, WILFRID, Volcano Isle, Jonathan Cape, 1942

FOOTE, ALEXANDER, Handbook for Spies, Museum Press, 1949, 1953

FRANCOIS-PONCET, ANDRE, The Fateful Years, Gollancz, 1949

FRANKEL, ANDREW, The Eagle’s Nest, Plenk Verlag, Berchtesgaden, 1983

GAFENCU, GRIGOIRE, The Last Days of Europe, Frederick Muller, 1947

GALANTE, PIERRE, Hitler Lives and the Generals Die, Sidgwick 8: Jackson, 1982

GARLINSKI, JOZEF, The Swiss Corridor, J. M. Dent, 1981

GIBSON, HUGH (ed.), The Ciano Diaries, 1939-1 943, Doubleday, New York, 1946

GILBERT, MARTIN, Finest Hour, Heinemann, 1983

The Holocaust, TheJewish Tragedy, Collins, 1986

Winston Churchill, The Wildemess Years, Macmillan, 1981

GISEVIUS, HANS BERND, To the Bitter End, Cape, 1948

GORALSKI, ROBERT, World War II Almanac, 1931-1945, Hamish Hamilton, 1981

GORBATOV, ALEKSANDR v., Years Of My Lips, Constable, 1964

GORODETSKY, G., Stahhrd Cripps’Mission to Moscow, 1940-42, Cambridge U.P., 1984

GREW, JOSEPH C., Ten Years in Japan, Hammond, Hammond, 1945

GREY, IAN, Stalin, Man of History, Weidenfeld 8c Nicolson, 1979

The First Fijiy Years. Soviet Russia, 1917-1967, Hodder 8c Stoughton, 1967

GRIGORENKO, PETRO G., Memoirs, Harvill, 1983 GRIPENBERG, G. A. (trs. Albin T. Anderson), Finland and the Great Powers, Univ. Of

Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1965

GUDERIAN, HEINZ, Panzer Leader, Ballantine Books, New York

GUN, NERIN E., Eva Braun, Hitler’s Mistress, Frewin, 1968

HALDER, COLONEL-GENERAL FRANZ, Kriegstagehuch, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1963 Hitler als Feldherr, Miinchener Dom-Verlag, Munich, 1949

HALIFAX, LORD, Fulness of Days, Collins, 1957

HARLEYJ. H. (based on Polish by Conrad Wrzos), TheAuthentic Biography of Colonel Beck, Hutchinson, 1939

HARRIMAN, W. A., and ABEL, 13., Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin, 1941-1946, Random House, New York, 1975

HASLAM,J., The Soviet Union and the Struggle/or Collective Security in Europe, 1933-1939, Macmillan, 1984

HAUNER, MILAN, Hitler. A Chronology of His Life and Time, Macmillan, 1983

HAYASHI, SABURO (with ALVIN D. coox), Kogun, The ]apanese Army in the Pacific War, Marine Corps Association, Quantico, Va., 1959

HEIBER, HELMUT, Goebbels, Robert Hale, 1972

HENDERSON, SIR NEVILE, Failure of a Mission, Hodder & Stoughton, 1940

HERWARTH, HANS VON (with FREDERICH STARR), Against Two Evils, Collins, 1981

HESSE, FRITZ, Das Spiel um Deutschland, List, Munich, 1953 Hitler and the English, Wingate, 1954

HESTON, LEONARD and RENATO, The Medical Case Boole of Adolf Hitler, Kimber, 1979

HILGER, GUSTAV (with ALFRED G. MEYER), The Incompatible Allies: A Memoir-History of German-Soviet Relations, 1918-1941 Macmillan, New York, 1953

HILL, LEONIDAS E. (ed.) Die Weizsacleer Papiere, 1933-1950, Berlin, 1974

HINSLEY, F. H. with THOMAS, E. E., RANSOM, C. F. G., and KNIGHT, R. (3., British Intelligence in the Second World War, Vol. 1, HMSO, 1979

HITLER, ADOLF, Mein Kampf, Hutchinson, 1969 Hitler’s Secret Conversations, Signet, New York, 1961 The Testament of Adolf Hitler. The Hitler-Borrnann Documents, Cassell, 1961

HOFFMANN, HEINRICH, Hitler Was My Friend, Burke, 1955

HOFFMANN, PETER, Hitler’s Personal Security, MIT, Boston, 1979

HOHNE, HEINZ (trs. R. Barry), The Order of the Death ’5 Head: The Story of Hitler’s SS, Seeker & Warburg, 1969 HOSKING, G., A History of the Soviet Union, Fontana, 1985 HYDE, H. MONTGOMERY, Stalin, Rupert Hart-Davis, 1971 INFIELD, GLENN B., Hitler’s Secret Life, Hamlyn, 1980 IRVING, DAVID, Hitler’s War, 1939-1942, Macmillan, 1983 The War Path, Michael Joseph, 1978

ISRAELYAN, V. L., The Diplomatic History of the Great Fatherland War, Moscow, 1959

JAKOBSON, MAX, The Diplomacy of the Winter War, Harvard UP, Boston, 1961

JEDRZEJEWICZ, WACLAW (ed.), Diplomat in Paris: 1931-1939 -Papers 65 Memoirs of ]uliusz Lukasiewicz, Columbia UP, New York, 1970

JONES, F. C., Japan’s New Order in East Asia. Its Rise and Fall, 0UP, 1954 Manchuria Since 1931, Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1949

JONES, R. V., Most Secret War, Hamish Hamilton, 1978

JONGE, ALEX DE, Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union, Collins, 1986 The Weimar Chronicle. Prelude to Hitler, Paddington Press, 1978

KAZAKOV, GENERAL M. I., Nad Kartoi Bylykh Srazhenii, Voenizdat, Moscow, 1965

KEITEL, WILHELM, Memoirs, Kimber, 1965

KENNAN, GEORGE E, Soviet Foreign Policy 1917-1941, Robert E. Krieger, Princeton, 1960

KHRUSHCHEV, NIKITA S., (Trs. and edited by Strobe Talbott), Khrushchev Remembers, André Deutsch, 1971

KIRBY, D. G., Finland in the Twentieth Century, C. Hurst 8t Co., 1979

KIRKPATRICK, LYMAN B. JR, Captains Without Eyes. Intelligence Failures in World War II, Macmillan, New York

KLEIST, PETER, European Tragedy, Times Press/Anthony Gibbs & Phillips, Isle of Man, 1965

KORDT, ERICH, Nicht aus den Akten: Die Wilhelrnstrasse in Frieden und Krieg, Stuttgart, 1950

KRAVCHENKO, VICTOR, I Chose Freedom, Robert Hale, 1947

KROSBY, HANS PETER, Finland, Germany and the Soviet Union, 1940-41: The Petsamo Dispute, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, 1968

KRYLOV, IVAN, Soviet Staff Officer, Falcon Press, 1951

KUBIZEK, AUGUST, The Young Hitler I Knew, Houghton, Mifflin, Boston, 1955

KUSNIERZ, B. N., Stalin and the Poles, Hollis & Carter, 1949

KUUSINEN, AINO, Before and After Stalin, Michael Joseph, 1974

KUZNETSOV, N. G., ‘In Charge of the Navy’ (from Stalin and His Generals, ed. Seweryn Bialer), Souvenir Press, 1969

LEACH, BARRY A., German Strategy Against Russia, 1939 - 1941, OUP, 1973

LEHMAN, JEAN-PIERRE, The Roots of Modern Japan, Macmillan, 1982

LENSEN, GEORGE ALEXANDER, The Strange Neutrality. Soviet-Japanese Relations During the Second World War 1941-1945, Diplomatic Press, Tallahassee, Fla., 1972

LEONHARD, WOLFGANG, Child of the Revolution, Collins, 1957

LEWIN, RONALD, Hitler’s Mistakes, Leo Cooper, 1984 Ultra Goes to War, Hutchinson, 1978

LITVINOV, MAXIM, Notes for a Journal, André Deutsch, 1955

LITYNSKI, ZYGMUNT, I Was One of Them, Cape, 1941

LOSSBERG, BERNHARD VON, Im Wehnnachtfuhrungsstab, Nolke, Hamburg, 1947

LUKACS JOHN, The Last European War, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977

LYONS, GRAHAM (ed.), The Russian Version of the Second World War, Leo Cooper, 1976

MACKENZIE, A., The History of Transylvania, Unified Printers 8: Publishers, 1983

MACKIEWICZ, STANISLAW, Colonel Beck and His Polity, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1944

MACKINTOSH, M., Juggernaut. A History of the Soviet Armed Forces, Seeker 8t Warburg, 1967

MACLEAN, FlTZROY, Eastern Approaches, Cape, 1949

MACLEOD, COLONEL R., and KELLY, DENIS (eds.), The Ironside Diaries, 1937-1940, Constable, 1962

MAISKY, IVAN, Memoirs of a Soviet Ambassador, Hutchinson, 1967 Who Helped Hitler?, Hutchinson, 1964

MANCHESTER, WILLIAM, The Arms of Krupp, Michael Joseph, 1969

MANVELL, ROGER, and FRAENKEL, HEINRICH, Hitler, the Man and the Myth, Granada, 1978

MEDVEDEV, ROY, All Stalin 3 Men, Blackwell, Oxford, 1983 Let History Judge, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1971 Khrushchev, Blackwell, Oxford, 1982 On Stalin and Stalinism, CUP, 1979

MERSON, ALLAN, Communist Resistance in Nazi Germany, Lawrence & Wishart, 1985

MORAVEC, FRANTISEK, Master of Spies, Bodley Head, 1975

MORLEY, JAMES W. (ed.), The Fateful Choice: Japan ’s Road to the Pacific War, Columbia UP, New York, 1980

MOSLEY, LEONARD, On Borrowed Time, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1969

NEKRICH, A. M., 1941, 22 Iyunia, Nauka, Moscow, 1965

NOLLAU, GUNTHER, International Communism and World Revolution, Hollis & Carter, 1961

NOWAK, JAN, Courier from Warsaw, Collins/Hamill, 1982

OTETEA, ANDREI, The History of the Romanian People, Scientific Publishing House, Bucharest, 1970

OVSYANY, IGOR, The Origins of Word War Two, Novosti, Moscow, 1984

PAASIKIVI, JUHO KUSTI, Am Rande einer Supermacht, Behauptung durch Diplomatie, Hosten Verlag, Hamburg, 1966

PARKINSON, ROGER, Peace for Our Time, Hart-Davis, 1971

PAYNE, ROBERT, The Rise and Fall of Stalin, W. H. Allen, 1966

PETROV, VLADIMIR, June 22, 1941. Soviet Historians and the German Invasion, Univ. of S. Carolina, 1968

RACZYNSKI, COUNT EDWARD, In Allied London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962

RADO, SANDOR, Sous le Pseudonym Dora (Dora Jelenti), Julliard, Paris, 1972

RAEDER, ERICH, My Life, US Naval Institute, Annapolis, 1960

READ, ANTHONY, and FISHER, DAVID, Colonel Z, Hodder & Stoughton, 1984 Operation Lucy, Hodder & Stoughton, 1980

REISCHAUER, EDWIN O., The Japanese, Harvard UP, 1977

REITLINGER, GERALD, The House Built on Sand, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1960

RIBBENTROP, JOACHIM VON, Zwischen London und Moskau: Erinnerungen und letzte Aufzeichnungen, Stuttgart, 1955

RICH, NORMAN, Hitler’s War Aims: Ideology, the Nazi State and the Course of Expansion, Norton, New York, 1973 Hitler’s War Aims: The Establishment of the New Order, Norton, New York, 1974

RINGS, WERNER, Life with the Enemy, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1982

ROKOSSOVSKY, K., A Soldier’s Duty, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970

ROOS, H., A History of Modern Poland, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1962

ROSSI, A., The Russo-German Alliance, Chapman 8: Hall, 1950

ROTHSTEIN, ANDREW, and DUTT, CLEMENS (eds.), History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow

RUBINSTEIN, ALVIN Z. (ed.), The Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union. The Search for Security 1934-41, New York, undated

RUSSELL, WILLIAM, Berlin Embassy, Michael Joseph, 1942

RYABOV, VASILI, The Great Victory, Novosti, Moscow, 1985

SALISBURY, HARRISON E., A journey for Our Times, Harper 81. Row, New York, 1983 The Siege of Leningrad, Seeker & Warburg, 1969

SCHAPIRO, LEONARD, The Government and Politics of the Soviet Union, Vintage Books, 1978

SCHMIDT, PAUL, Hitler’s Interpreter, Heinemann, 1951 SCHRAMM, PERCY ERNST, Hitler: The Man and the Military Leader, Allen Lane, 1972 SCHREIBER, H., Teuton and Slav, 1965

SCHWARZ, PAUL, This Man Ribhentrop, julian Messner, New York, 1943

SCOTT, JOHN, Duel for Europe, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1942

SEATON, ALBERT, The Russo-German War 1941-45, Arthur Barker, 1971 Stalin as Warlord, Batsford, 1976

SEVOSTYANOV, PAVEL, Before the Nazi Invasion, Progress, Moscow, 1984

SEYMOUR, CHARLES (ed.), The Intimate Paper of Colonel House, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1926

SHACHTMAN, TOM, The Phony War 1939-1940, Harper & Row, New York, 1982

SHIRER, WILLIAM, Berlin Diary, Bonanza Books, New York, 1984 The Nightmare Years, 1930-1940, Little, Brown, ‘Boston, 1984 The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Secker & Warburg, 1960 The Collapse of the Third Republic, Literary Guild, 1966

SHOSTAKOVICH, DMITRI, Testimony, Hamish Hamilton, 1979

SIPOLS, V. J., Secret Diplomacy. Bourgeois Latvia in the Anti-Soviet Plans of the Imperialist Powers, 1919-1940, Riga The Road to Victory, Progress, Moscow, 1985

SMITH, HOWARD K., Last Train from Berlin, Cresset Press, 1942

SOMMER, ERICH F., Das Memorandum, Herbig, Munich, 1981

SOUVARINE, BORIS, Stalin-A Critical Survey of Bolshevism, Longmans, Green, New York, 1939

SPEER, ALBERT, Inside the Third Reich, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970

STALIN, J. V., The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, International Publishers, New York, 1948

STERN, J. P., Hitler. The Fuhrer and the People, Fontana, 1975

STONE, NORMAN, Hitler, Hodder & Stoughton, 1980

STORRY, RICHARD, A History of Modern Japan, Penguin Books, 1960 Japan and the Decline of the West in Asia 1894-1943, Macmillan, 1979

STRANG, LORD, The Moscow Negotiations 1939, Leeds UP, 1968 Home and Abroad, André Deutsch, 1956

STYPULKOWSKI, Z., Invitation to Moscow, Thames & Hudson, 1951

SUKHANOV, N. N., The Russian Revolution, 1917, CUP, 1955

SUVOROV, VIKTOR, Soviet Military Intelligence, Hamish Hamilton, 1984

SYROP, KONRAD, Poland in Perspective, Robert Hale, 1982

SZEMBEK, JAN, Journal, 1933-1939, Léon Noel, Paris, 1952

TANNER, V., The Winter War, Stanford UP, 1957

TARULIS, ALBERT N., Soviet Policy Toward the Baltic States, 1918-1944, Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1959

TAYLOR, A.J. P., The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin, 1961 The Second World War, Hamish Hamilton, 1975

TAYLOR, FRED (ed.), The Goebbels Diaries 1939-41, Hamish Hamilton, 1982

THAYER, CHARLES, Diplomat, Harper, New York, 1959

THOMI, ABRAHAM, The Dream and the Awakening, Gareth Powell Associates, Sydney, 1977

TOKAEV, G., Comrade X, Harris Press, 1956

TOLAND, JOHN, Adolf Hitler, Doubleday, New York, 1976

The Rising Sun. The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945, Cassell, 1970

TROTSKY, LEON, My Life, Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1960

Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence, Harper, New York, 1941

TUOMINEN, ARVO, The Bells of the Kremlin, Univ. Press of New England, 1983

ULAM, ADAM B., Expansion and Coexistence. Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917-73, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1974

Stalin, the Man and his Era, Allen Lane, 1974

UPTON, A. F., Finland 1939-40, Davis-Poynter, 1974

Finland in Crisis, 1940-1941, Faber & Faber, 1964

The Communist Parties of Scandinavia and Finland, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1973

URBAN, GARRI S., Tovarisch, I am not Dead, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980

VANSITTART, LORD, The Mist Procession, Hutchinson, 1958

VARDYS, V. STANLEY (ed.), Lithuania Under the Soviets 1940-1965: Aggression Soviet Style 1939-1940, Frederick Praeger, New York, 1965

VIGOR, P. H., Soviet Blitzkrieg Theory, Macmillan, 1983

VOLKOV, FYDOR, Secrets from Whitehall and Downing Street, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1980

VORMANN, NIKOLAUS VON, Der Feldzug in Polen, I93 9, Weissenburg, 1958

VORONOV, N. N., Na Sluzhbe Voennoi, Moscow, 1963

WALLER, BRUCE, Bismarck at the Crossroads, Athlone Press, 1974

WARLIMONT, WALTER, Inside Hitler’s Headquarters, 1939-45, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1964

WATT, DONALD CAMERON, Too Serious a Business, Temple Smith, 1975

WATTS, RICHARD M., Bitter Glory: Poland and its Fate, 1918 to I 939, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1979

WEINBERG, GERHARD L., World in the Balance, Univ. of New England, 1981

WEIzsACKER, ERNST VON, Memoirs, Gollancz, 1951

WELAND, JAMES EDWIN, Thejapanese Army in Manchuria, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dissertation, University of Arizona, 1977

WELLES, SUMNER, A Time for Decision, Harper, New York, 1944

WERTH, ALEXANDER, Russia at War, E. P. Dutton, New York, 1964

WHALEY, BARTON, Codeword Barbarossa, MIT, Boston, 1974

WHEATLEY, RONALD, Operation Sea Lion, CUP, 1958

WHEELER-BENNETT, JOHN W., The Nemesis of Power: The German Army in Politics, 1914 - 1945, Macmillan, 1953

WISKEMANN, ELIZABETH, Europe of the Dictators 1919-1945, Fontana, 1966

WOODWARD, LLEWELLYN, British Foreign Policy in the Second World War, HMSO, 1962

WUORINEN, JOHN H, A History of Finland, Columbia, New York, 1965

YAKOVLEV, A., Purpose of My Life. Notes of an Aircraft Designer. Progress, Moscow, 1974

YEREMENKO, MARSHAL G. K., Vospominaniya i Razmyshleniya, Novosti, Moscow, 1970

YOUNG, KATSU, Thejapanese Army and the Soviet Union 1 93 9-1 941 , Univ. of Washington, 1958

ZARIK, 0., German Odyssey, London, 1941

ZHUKOV, GEORGI I., Memoirs, Cape, 1970 . ZOLLER, ALBERT, Douze ans auprés d’Hz‘tler (Memoirs of Christa Schrc'idcr), Julhard, Paris, 1949 .

ZUKER-BUJANOWSKA, LILIANA, Liliana ’s Journal, Warsaw 1939-1945, Piatkus, 1981

#history books #books #ww2 books #bookworm

7 notes · View notes

thecounterplan · 6 years

Text

There Are No “Never Trump” Republicans Anymore

(Image: The New Republic)

#NeverTrump isn’t a real political category. It’s a rhetorical strategy designed to give the GOP a pre-emptive chance to absolve itself once Trump is out of office.

It seemed for a moment in the arduously long, reality TV charade that was the 2016 election -- which, like all recent US presidential elections, took place over what felt like years instead of the one it was supposed to be -- that conservatives in the Republican Party were really going to fight the rise of Donald Trump. In March 2016, with Trump’s candidacy looking quite likely, Mitt Romney gave a speech in Utah condemning Trump on all fronts. “After all,” Romney said, reasonably, “This is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter’s questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.” Within just one year, captured in a now-infamous photo, Romney would meet with Trump in a fancy restaurant, where on the agenda was the possible scenario of Romney coming onboard the Trump cabinet. Romney didn’t get the job, which is probably for the best, but he did get spectacularly dragged by Trump, who by inviting him to dinner and then giving him nothing in return (except, one expects, the promise of tax cuts that would massively benefit people like Romney) made him out to be a “cuck,” to use the parlance of the Trump crowd.

The National Review, the long-standing conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley, took what appeared to be a bold move in devoting a whole issue to opposing Trump’s nomination for the GOP. (The cover is the splash image at the top of this piece.) Popular conservative commentators like Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson, and Mark Helprin launched attacks at Trump from all angles, declaring him an opportunist taking advantage of a party with a long-standing intellectual and cultural tradition that Trump, according this argument, exploits solely for his personal gain. Hell, Beck even correctly presaged that if Trump were to win, “there will once again be no opposition to an ever-expanding government.” (I can think of dozens of families torn apart by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement [ICE] who would agree with Beck -- although probably for different reasons.) Beck even later confessed to fomenting the political paranoia that in part produced Trump. The National Review frequently peddles in party-loyalty lines of reasoning and the vacuous rallying call of “As long as it’s not the liberals!”, so it was surprising to see them adopt a firm anti-Trump stance so early into the primaries in January 2016. It appeared, for a moment, like a cautious self-reckoning on the part of these major conservative figures and, perhaps, the movement itself.

Two years later, in his Blaze studio, Beck sported a Make America Great Again hat and declared that he would happily vote for Donald Trump in 2020.

I could go on. “This person said Trump would ruin conservatism.... barely into his presidency, they’re already defending his every move!” is a story so common now that each new iteration feels like something barely worth mentioning.

The behavior of the conservative political scene made sense at first, even amongst those who expressed worry about Trump. People like Ben Shapiro made a big stink about how they could never vote for Trump, but then once in office, with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, Shapiro and his colleagues in right-wing media weren’t going to use the boost in social and political capital afforded to their end of the political spectrum to damage the president. The Shapiros of the world expressed their misgivings about Trump -- he’s a liar, he’s really a New York liberal at heart, etc -- but they knew that in order to get any modicum of legislation out of their newfound control in Washington, they’d have to go through Trump. I remember tracking the posts and op-eds by the conservative commentariat in the first half year of Trump’s presidency and finding the temperature of the room pretty consistent: they could all tell he was bad news, but they weren’t about to sound the alarms just yet. After all, there are still libs to own -- and “owning the libs” is really all that can be said of the ��philosophy” behind people like Shapiro, as Nathan J. Robinson so brilliantly put it -- and maybe if the GOP could ride Trump out and pick up a Gorsuch here, an Obamacare repeal there, the giant gamble of 2016 will have all been worth it.

Indeed, these “turning point” moments, where ostensible #NeverTrumpers realize just how good a conservative he is, are pretty easy to predict. The second Trump lands the GOP a mostly unqualified political win, like he did by appointing Neil Gorsuch to replace the Supreme Court seat vacated by the passing of Antonin Scalia and totally stolen from Merrick Garland, suddenly the #NeverTrumpers see the light. Immediately after it was announced that Anthony Kennedy would be stepping down, giving Trump the chance to fill another Supreme Court seat, conservative YouTuber Steven Crowder stated on Twitter, “I was pretty clearly a skeptical-optimist once Trump was nominee. And I readily admit now, that despite personal disagreements, @realDonaldTrump is absolutely the right man for THIS job at this time in history.” Like the conservatives in the executive and legislative branches of government, Crowder’s sudden enthusiasm for Trump makes sense, for now the GOP has a better shot of enshrining their increasingly unpopular policies through the least democratic of the three branches of government. (This is not to say that the Democrats haven’t liked the democratic insularity of the Supreme Court when it works to their advantage, as many astute commentators have pointed out in the wake of Kennedy’s departure announcement. Over-reliance on the judiciary, like so many problems with the US government, is a bipartisan problem.) And unlike the grueling and ultimately futile attempt to wholesale repeal Obamacare in Trump’s first year, the president’s general lack of professionalism -- to say nothing of human decency -- didn’t stop Gorsuch from getting his lifetime seat. Sure, Trump sounded weird when he introduced Gorsuch as his nominee; it seemed as if he skipped the part of Schoolhouse Rock where the Supreme Court gets explained. But at the end of the (supposed to be) perfunctory confirmation hearings, Gorsuch picked up where Scalia left off, and Trump, in the eyes of the GOP, couldn’t mess that up.

Since Trump will almost certainly get to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Kennedy -- anyone who thinks the likes of Susan Collins will fall out of the Senate ranks on the confirmation vote must have been asleep the past two years -- I fully expect that additional Trump skeptics will decide that in the end even the thin veneer that is their “Trump criticism” isn’t worth keeping up if it means that Roe v. Wade gets repealed. Shapiro, who in what seems like a half-joke offered himself up as a Supreme Court nominee to Trump, Tweeted,

There are so many interesting things about Shapiro’s characterization of how the two major parties have interacted with the Supreme Court, including the pervasive conflation of “Democrats” with “the Left” that renders the “criticism” and “comedy” of people like Shapiro and Crowder unintelligible most of the time. First and foremost, conservatives have been happy to use the highest court in the land to produce legislation (see Second Amendment jurisprudence, which over the course of the 20th century reads increasingly like NRA ad copy rather than sound legal scholarship) and even invent whole new nonsensical ontological doctrines (like the notion that money is speech). Secondly, Shapiro continues in the regrettably persuasive rhetorical trend of framing originalism, a doctrine that is as “forced into” the Constitution as any living document theory, as simply “returning the court to its constitutional boundaries.” Thirdly.... ah, crap, I’ve gone off topic. Some arguments are so bad that they must be rebutted immediately. I digress. I quote the Tweet merely to say: for all of his anti-Trump posturing, I get the sense he will end up intellectually prostrating just like the rest of his colleagues in conservative media. To quote George V. Higgins, whose slept-on 1974 novel A City on a Hill reads like a study of the cronyistic governance we now find ourselves under, Shapiro “is like the rest of the horses: they’re getting thirsty, but they won’t drink till they’re ready.”

Despite these ongoing series of conversions to the Trump cause, the phrase #NeverTrump, originated by conservatives in 2016 who refused to vote for Trump even after he became the GOP nominee, persists in the discourse. After a series of Tweets in which he contradictorily described “preventing illegal immigration” as “not racist” while also describing such policy as “slowing massive demographic change,” Andrew Sullivan qualified his opinions on immigration policy with this admission: “Trump is not Hitler; I am not Neville Chamberlain; i’m a passionate Never-Trumper who wants to solve a problem that is empowering white nationalism everywhere.” Writing for Bloomberg, Albert R. Hunt calls the post-Kennedy retirement moment as “a hard time” for “Never Trump Republicans.” Emerald Robinson’s analysis of Never Trumpers in the present moment offers a similarly glum prognosis: “The Never Trump intellectual crowd has no momentum and no popular following these days.” Just two years ago, the thought that the host of The Celebrity Apprentice could come to define contemporary conservatism seemed laughable, even following his 2016 win. Most had the sense that Trump would fumble through whatever time he had in office, either until he was voted out, removed from office for any number of reasons (violations of the emoluments clause or Russia, take your pick), or if he got bored and quit. But in 2018, President Trump is finally winning.

“Never Trump” does, to some extent, accurately characterize the internecine squabbles amongst the conservative side of American politics. Some have been openly critical, and some, like George Will, have even called on Americans to vote for the Democrats to hold the Republicans to account. (Some have decided not to run for re-election in 2018, having successfully completed their life’s work of kicking poor people further down the curb to further enrich the already money-drenched upper strata of American society. Er, I mean, to spend time with their families.) But the term really should have died on November 8th, 2016. Since that day, the category of “Never Trump” has dwindled. What we really have that comes closest to “Never Trumpers” in the present day are “conservatives who occasionally criticize Trump.” Perhaps it’s just me, but I feel that “Never” carries a firm, imperative force that occasional criticism cannot live up to -- especially when that criticism becomes increasingly occasional. Admittedly, my point here is not novel: conservative commentator Jonah Golberg pronounced the Never Trump movement to be “nevermore” and over just a month after the Trump/Clinton election. Yet the name persists. Why?

One must question what “never” means in this context. Leading up to the election, the name made sense: it identified conservatives who would never vote for Trump. Clear enough. But once Trump won, what could “never” be describing? Never talk to him? Never support his policy decisions? Never identify with a party that christens Trump its leader? However one defines the “never” of “Never Trump” in the post-2016 political landscape, one thing unites all possible definitions: none of them accurately account for what the conservative movement in America has done to “counter” Trump. Anyone watching what’s happened to the GOP after 2016 could not come to any other conclusion that the GOP is Trump. That supposedly bold National Review issue feels like it was written decades ago.

As David Roberts convincingly argued earlier this year, the kind of Never Trump editorials that still get published by the “moderate” class of conservative -- your Sullivans, your Brookses, your Stephenses -- aren’t actually representative of the conservative movement by and large. The things that the Republican base likes about Trump -- his brashness, his vulgarity, his tough-guy attitude -- are anathema to the virtues prized by the conservative commentariat: civility, reason, balance. A columnist like David Brooks wants to present conservatism as a stable and philosophically considerate tradition: present-day conservatism in the GOP base wants to own the libs.

Now, I’m generally not the kind of person to tell someone that they can’t identify themselves politically however they wish. Moreover, though I grew up in an extremely conservative city, I no longer am a conservative myself, and as such I can’t say I have the insider’s knowledge of the movement as a whole. But I do feel comfortable in pointing out inconsistency, and like Goldberg I have a hard time accepting the continued usage of Never Trump outside of the very narrow conception “would never vote for Trump.” With Trump as president, and the GOP as his party, conservatives who still ally with the Republican party must ask themselves: “What does never really mean?” Without a bold proposal like Will’s call to vote for Democrats in the 2018 midterms, “never” in the current-day “Never Trump” reads a lot more like “Never Trump... until he does something we like.” Had there been a mass exodus of Republicans following 2016, maybe with the formation of a new conservative party, Never Trump would have felt like a true movement in the real sense, not merely a single “yes or no” choice at the ballot box. If one truly identifies as “Never Trump,” they have to maintain a pretty intense level of cognitive dissonance to continue identifying with the party that is increasingly being emblazoned with the all-caps, gold-colored name of Trump.

Some of the Never Trump crowd position their “never”-ness in superficially reasonable terms, as Shapiro attempted to in a recent interview with Bill Maher (11 minutes of unbearable smug which I would subtitle: “Alasdair MacIntyre was Right”). The argument goes something like this: “Look, I’m going to be level-headed about Trump. I’ll criticize him when he does something bad, and I’ll praise him when he does something good.” At first pass, this seems reasonable: it doesn’t have the intensity of a dogmatically negative or positive view of Trump, and it exhibits a rational standard of treatment. No one’s perfect, so you should criticize them when necessary, but when those same people do good, they should be rewarded. Sensible, no?

Not in the case of Trump. The same motivation that caused The National Review to publish its Against Trump issue is the same reason why Never Trump can’t exist in a world where “Never Trumpers” are either (a) still largely supportive of the Republican party or (b) likely to eventually turn over to Trump if he gives the party and its base enough of what they want. What the authors in the Against Trump issue saw in Trump -- the same thing that Romney and Shapiro and other conservative commentators saw -- is that if Trump was to become associated with the Republican party, its image would be irrevocably damaged. The reasons for this are obvious: the party of “family values” would be nominating a sleazy, New York media mogul who bragged about cheating on his wives (he’s now on his third); the party of the “heartland American people” would be backing a big-city Hollywood figure with numerous instance of screwing over the employees of his companies; the party that markets itself as having a philosophical heritage dating back to the Founding Fathers would be asking a guy with a comically paltry vocabulary to espouse its ideology; the party most committed to supporting the troops would have as its spokesman a guy who mocked a leading GOP senator who spent time as a POW in Vietnam for “being captured”; and, most damningly of all, the party which claims a monopoly on faith in America (and by faith I mean Christianity) would be throwing its weight behind a guy who embodies everything that Jesus Christ teaches against, what with his unrepentant egotism and love of gold idols. Nominating Trump, the Never Trump Republicans rightly recognized, would not merely be a political failing: it would be an act of hypocrisy whose magnitude had never been seen in the modern GOP, a moral collapse of such catastrophic proportions that anyone who continued to tie themselves to the GOP after a Trump nomination would be tacitly admitting that their political principles are easily expendable if short-term political gain can be actualized.

Well, Trump got the nomination, and rather than take a bold stance against that moral collapse of the GOP, the Never Trump crowd... waited. Never Trumpers knew that with all three branches of government under GOP sway -- with the takeover of the judiciary imminent -- that even an incompetent political figure like Trump could possibly manage some real conservative victories. Maybe those tax cuts would go through. Maybe Roe would be overturned. After a rocky start, the GOP started accruing political wins, gaining some traction in the process. Never Trumpers criticized the GOP on many occasions, but writing posts or issuing stern condemnations (cf. Senators McCain, Collins, and Flake) isn’t the same thing as holding one’s political party to account, particularly if, like those aforementioned Senators, they end up voting for all of the things the Trump-led GOP wants anyways. A quick look at FiveThirtyEight’s helpful data which tracks how often the current group of Senators votes in alignment with Trump is telling with regard to the political reality of Never Trump as a real movement:

That’s the lowest end of Republican support for Trump. Libertarian Rand Paul, who fashions himself an outsider in his own party, votes with the president two-thirds of the time. Republican “Trump critics” like Lindsey Graham and John McCain follow the party line at a rate even higher than that, as does “Conscientious Conservative” Jeff Flake. (Most interesting of all to me is the data showing several Democrats voting half or nearly half of the time with Trump, a clear reminder to the DNC that it isn’t the #resistance that it thinks it is, and to the conservative pundit class that the Democrats aren’t a far-left party, or even a left party.) 40 of the 51 Republican members of the Senate vote with Trump over 90 percent of the time. If that isn’t empirical proof that the Republican party isn’t the party of Trump, I don’t know what is. Perhaps the Never Trumpers could have never stopped the GOP embrace of Trump; in fact, I think that was always the likely scenario. But the turn from Against Trump to the full-throated endorsement of Trump in the GOP doesn’t just highlight the party’s desperate grasp at power as its popular support continues to dwindle: it shows the Never Trumpers that their political party was never really what they thought it was. Trump, as a friend of mine put it, didn’t say anything new to change the Republican party: he merely “said the soft parts loud and the loud parts soft.”

Now, at this point I’ve largely staked my claims on hypocrisy and moral failings. As I wrote in my inaugural piece for this website, hypocrisy lost any moral force it might have ever had in Washington a long time ago, so merely saying to a political party, “Hey, you’re not living up to your ideals!” doesn’t do much politically and feels cheap at the level of accusation. For me, the reason why we must sternly rebuke any attempt to keep the Never Trump brand active in political discourse is because of the obvious rhetorical strategy inherent to it: namely, once Trump is out of office, it gives Republicans a built-in apology tour, one that I regret to say will likely be persuasive to many people.

At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul Ryan nonspecifically admonished his party to realize the err of their ways in the GW Bush years: “The Republican victories that began in 1980 were inspired here at CPAC. But as a conservative, I admit my party took success for granted. The Republican Party disregarded its roots - losing direction, sacrificing principles and failing to offer a vision relevant to most Americans.” After the rise of the Tea Party and the subsequent Republican electoral successes in the 2010 midterms, it became immediately unclear what policies Ryan thought represented the GOP’s abandonment of its principles. The policies that characterize the Bush years -- military interventionism and the expansion of the imperial United States, supply-side economics, to name a few -- remained party orthodoxy in 2010 onward, albeit in a much more intense, anti-government incarnation than had existed before. Still, the GOP may not have really tried to course-correct in the way that Ryan suggested in 2009, but at the time Ryan’s words made sense, given Barack Obama’s sweeping 2008 electoral victory and the general feeling that Bush would go down as one of the worst presidents in recent memory, in large part for the perpetual warfare his administration brought to the Middle East and the increasingly invasive security state. I remember people applauding Ryan’s words back then, and it’s easy to see why. After a massive failure, you should own up to it. For a minute it seemed like Ryan, then a rising star in his party, was actually doing that.

Flash-forward to when Trump is out of office, whenever that might be. I can already see the reams of teary-eyed mea culpas that will wallpaper the op-ed sections of magazines and newspapers nationwide: “We lost our way!” “We abandoned our principles!” “A few brave souls in our party spoke out, but not enough of us listened to them!” So long as the phrase “Never Trump” exists in the political discourse, it allows Republicans of all stripes to claim that the party was not monolithic under Trump, and that many did actually try to resist his agenda. If there are pleasant New York Times columnists who claim to be conservative and from time to time call Trump out for his degradation of the office of the president, the GOP can pivot to those types as speakers for “a new direction in conservatism.” The Never Trumpers can see this too: reading the work of people like Shapiro, it’s easy to detect that the minute Trump is out of office, they’ll perform some entirely undeserved grandstanding, claiming that the “rough times” are behind the GOP and that now they can focus on enacting government policies based on conservative principles -- all the while relishing those victories the party won under Trump.

Never Trump Republicans don’t exist anymore. To label oneself a Republican in 2018 is to take on the burden of knowing that whatever policy wins you claim between 2016 and 2020 are largely owed to Trump being in office. Remember, the reason why Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016, to the shock of just about every prognosticator on both sides of the political spectrum, was precisely because he bore no resemblance to nice-guy party rubes like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. As was the case in the Tea Party-dominated 2010 elections, in which a gaggle of largely inexperienced (politically speaking) small-government types took over Washington, the Republican base was tired of Republicans. With Trump, those voters have gotten what they wanted in 2016: to remake the party in Trump’s image. (Note that the title of this article and the thrust of my argument is that there are no Never Trump Republicans; this does not mean that there couldn’t be Never Trump conservatives, though in order to be consistent politically those conservatives would either [a] need to form a new coalition and caucus with the Democrats, which shouldn’t be too difficult given how much to the right Democrats have drifted since Bill Clinton’s first term, or [b] form a new party entirely.)

A simple if absurd analogy can help boil down my point here. Suppose a presidential candidate knocks on my door tomorrow to let me know about their vision for America, which looks a lot like mine. To name a few policies: they’d eliminate the Electoral College, they’d advocate for Medicare for All or some other form of universal healthcare, and they’d set in place much easier and more direct policies for immigration and asylum seeking. All of it sounds great, and I’m almost immediately on board with them. But then, right as they’re preparing to wrap up their pitch, they say, “I will also personally ensure that every single person named Ryan in the United States is executed by public hanging.”

Now, for 99 percent of their spiel, I’m on board. It’s only the whole Ryan-killing business that really puts me off. But the Ryan-killing thing is a massive, unacceptable moral catastrophe, one that would not even be worth it if this candidate actually was able to pass all of those policies that are so important to me. Even if my primary political identity was centered on those policies passing, it would be unacceptable for me to align myself with someone who would in the process of pursuing those other policies murder countless innocent people. If the political party I identified with (full disclosure: I’m an independent) saw it fit to nominate this person for the presidential ticket, I would renounce my membership immediately. I could not associate with such a party, even if I agreed with it on the overwhelming majority of things. This is why comments like Crowder’s “despite personal disagreements, @realDonaldTrump is absolutely the right man for THIS job at this time in history,” or Shapiro’s “I’ll criticize him when he’s bad and praise him when he’s good” strategy are extremely disingenuous. Not coming to a consensus on whether or not the 1997 John Woo action film Face/Off is “so bad it’s good” or just straight-up good is a “personal disagreement,” one that doesn’t necessarily impinge on other agreements you might have with a person or group. The things one has to own up to with Trump -- and since he was christened the party’s president, yes, Republicans must own up to it -- cut deeply against the party’s ethos, to a degree that the very credibility of the party itself is completely rubbished. If you’re willing to call that a “personal disagreement” that you’d put up with to get a Supreme Court seat, then you’d put up with just about anything.

When it comes to Trump, of course, the hypothetical Ryans of America can rest easy, unless they happen to be trying to seek asylum for Mexico or are any woman that has to live with the fact that the man deemed worthy to lead the country has profoundly little respect for women, and has on multiple occasions made sexually creepy comments about his adult daughter. But the party leadership of the GOP and their supporters in the media class should have stopped resting easy the moment Trump won the party’s nomination. RNC delegates should have been faithless if they really believed the core worldview of the Republican party: small government, family values, the Judeo-Christian tradition, among many others. Trump believes in none of that. Above all else, he believes in himself, and to believe in Trump is to believe in wealth, and accruing it in whatever means is most expedient. (As it turns out, treating a private, for-profit property you own into a “Winter White House” that gets directly funneled taxpayer money is a pretty good way to do that.) By nominating Trump and spurning the principles that it touts as its intellectual and moral tentposts, the Republican party showed the world that it stands for nothing other than political gain. Such a (tacit) admission may seem old-hat, given just how cynical most people’s view of politics actually is, but even my cynical eye was stunned by everything about Trump and his ascendancy. Surely, I thought, if the GOP actually greenlit Trump’s candidacy, there would have to be defections unlike any we’ve seen before in either the Democratic or Republican parties -- not enough to totally cripple the GOP, mind, but defections nonetheless. But then they didn’t happen, and that’s when I knew.

From the moment Trump won that fateful night in November 2018, “Never Trump” disappeared as a real description of anything resembling a moderate conservative wing of the GOP. Now, Never Trump exists as a rhetorical and intellectual life raft for a party that finds itself simultaneously with all the political power it could possibly want and out to sea. Once Trump is gone and the rest of the party leaders are left thrashing in the choppy waters they’ve caused with their recklessness, they will cling on to “Never Trump” in the hopes that it will get them back ashore and in the good graces of the American public. Some will welcome them back out of sympathy. Some may even think, seeing the people bobbing amongst the waves, that the GOP will have learned the error of its ways. But none of us should be so naive. While forgiveness is a virtue, if moral and intellectual consistency mean anything at all, they would tell us that there comes a point at which a political party crosses a line from which it can never come back. By accepting Donald Trump, the GOP communicated that there are no lines which it would cross in order to advance its political agenda, even if that means fundamentally betraying their self-professed core convictions. It is our task as responsible citizens of a republic to remind the Republican party that there are no take-backs in Faustian bargains. Nor should there be.

#Donald Trump #NeverTrump #Mitt Romney #Ben Shapiro #The National Review #Glenn Beck #Jeff Flake #Susan Collins #Republican Party #GOP #Steven Crowder #John McCain #conservatism

2 notes · View notes

pcssessivc-blog · 7 years

Text

surnames:

a abbott abernathy adair adams adkins alexander allen allison andersen anderson andrews archer armstrong arsenault ashby ashworth atkinson austin ayers

b bailey bain baker baldwin ball ballard banks barnes barnett barr barrett barry bartlett barton bateman bauer beck bell bennett benson bentley benton bird bishop black blackburn blackwell blair blake bolton bond bowen bowers bowman boyd boyle bradford bradley bradshaw brady brennan brewer briggs brooks broussard brown bruce bryant buchanan buckley bullock burgess burke burnham burns burton butcher butler byrne

c cahill caldwell calhoun callahan cameron campbell cannon cantrell carey carlson carney carpenter carr carroll carson carter carver casey cassidy castillo castro chandler chaney chapman chase chavez christian christie church churchill clancy clarke clay clayton clifford cobb cochran coffey cole coleman collier collins combs compton conley connell connolly conrad conway cook cooke cooley cooney cooper copeland corbett costello coughlin cowan cox coyle coyne craig crawford crockett cross crowley cruz cunningham curran curtis

d daley dalton daly daniel daniels daugherty davenport davidson davies davis dawson day dean delaney dempsey devine diaz dickey dickinson dillon dixon dobson dodd doherty dolan donahue donaldson donnelly donovan dougherty douglas dowd downey doyle drake drew driscoll duckworth dudley dugan duncan dunlap dunn dwyer

e eaton edmonds edwards egan elliott ellis emery erickson evans

f fallon fanning farley faulkner ferguson fernandez finch finn finnegan fischer fitzgerald fitzpatrick fitzsimmons flanagan fletcher flores flynn foley forbes ford foster fowler fox franklin fraser freeman frost fry fuller

g gallagher galloway garcia gardner garner garrett garrison garza gauthier gentry george gibbons gibbs gibson gilbert gill gillespie glass gonzales goode goodwin gordon grace grady graham grant graves gray greene greer gregory griffin griffith gunn gustafson guthrie

h hackett hagan hahn hale haley hall halsey hamilton hammond hampton hancock hanley hanna hansen harding hardy harper harrington harris harrison hart hartley harvey hastings hatch hawkins hayden hayes haynes healy heath henderson henry hensley hernandez hewitt hickey hickman hicks higgins hill hodges hoffman hogan holbrook holden holland hollis holloway holman holmes holt hood hooper hopkins hopper horton houghton houston howard howe howell hubbard huber hudson huffman hughes hull humphrey humphries hunt hunter hurley hurst hutchinson hutchison

i ingram

j jackson jacobs james jamison jarvis jensen johnson jones jordan joyce

k kane kearney keating keegan keene kehoe keith kelleher keller kelly kemp kendall kennedy kent kerr kidd kilgore kincaid king kinney kirby kirk kirkland kirkpatrick klein knight koch koenig krause

l lacroix lafferty lake lamont lancaster lane larkin larsen law lawrence lawson leblanc lee leslie levesque lewis lindsay little lloyd lockhart long lopez love lowe lucas lynch lyons

m macdonald macgregor mackay mackenzie mackinnon maclean macleod macmillan macpherson madden maher mahoney maldonado malloy malone maloney manning marsh marshall martin martinez mason massey matthews maurer maxwell may maynard mcallister mcbride mccabe mccaffrey mccain mccall mccann mccarthy mccartney mcclellan mcconnell mccormack mccoy mccullough mccurdy mcdaniel mcdaniel mcdermott mcdonald mcdonough mcdowell mcgrath mcgraw mcgregor mcguire mchugh mcintosh mcintyre mckay mckee mckenna mckenzie mckinley mckinney mckinnon mcknight mclain mcleod mcmahon mcmillan mcnally mcnamara mcneill mcpherson mcqueen mead meadows medina meier melton merritt meyer middleton miles miller mitchell molloy monaghan monroe montgomery moody mooney moore morales moran moreno morgan morris morrison morrow moss mueller munn munro murdock murphy murray myers

n nash neal nelson neville newton nichols nicholson nielsen noble nolan norris north norwood

o o'brien o'connell o'connor o'donnell o'grady o'hara o'keefe o'leary o'neal o'neill o'reilly o'rourke o'sullivan ogden oliver olson orr ortega ortiz owens

p page palmer parker parks parrish parsons patterson patton payne pearson penn pennington pereira peters peterson phillips pierce pike piper pittman pollard pollock poole porter potter powell power powers pratt preston price prince pritchard proctor pruitt purcell putnam

q quinlan quinn

r rafferty ralston ramirez ramos ramsey randall rankin ray reece reed reeves regan reid reilly reyes reynolds rhodes richards richardson riley ritchie rivera roberts robertson robinson roche rodgers rodriguez rollins romero rooney rose ross rossi roth rowe roy russell russo ryan

s salisbury sampson sanders sandoval santiago saunders sawyer schaefer schmidt schneider schofield schroeder schultz schwartz scott sears serrano sharp shaw shea sheehan shelton shepherd sheridan sherwood shields short simmons simpson sims sinclair skinner slattery sloan smart smith snow snyder somerville soto sparks spears spence spencer stack stafford stanley stanton steele stephens stevens stevenson stewart stiles stokes stone strickland strong stuart suarez sullivan sutherland sutton sweeney

t taylor temple tennant thomas thompson thomson thornton thorpe thurston tierney tilley timmons tobin todd torres townsend trevino tucker turner

u underwood upton

v vance vaughan vega vogel

w walker wallace walsh walton ward ware warner warren watkins watson weaver webb weber weeks wells welsh wentworth west whalen wheeler whitaker white wiley wilkinson williams williamson willis willoughby wilson wood woodard woodruff woods woodward wren wright wyatt

y yates york young

z ziegler

51 notes · View notes

thefuzzystudentbirdus-blog · 6 years

Text

When planning our session, we discussed various activities and sports we could potentially host such as:

· Cricket

· Rounder’s

· Football

· Bench ball

· Mini Olympics

· Handball

· Netball

· Walking netball

After discussing these different sports, we decided to go with the mini Olympics. One of the reasons we chose this was because we both agreed that it would be something different and by doing this chosen activity we would be focusing on working on the ABC’s of fitness which are agility, balance and co-ordination.

‘The preference of recreative activities for a healthy and active life-style reduces obesity and minimizes smoking habits by increasing the mental health more and more and becomes efficient in raising healthy and conscious individuals’ (Altinkok, 2016). This shows that the ABC’s are important especially for children because by implementing these within their fitness regimes whilst they are young there is more of a chance of them leading a healthier lifestyle.

Before we began to design our event we both had to take certain precautions to ensure that we were protected and could legally go in to carry out our event with the children, both members of our team renewed our DBS checks to ensure we were safe guarded. ‘Safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility and everyone at a setting should act in a timely and coordinated manner to respond to any concerns about the welfare of a child’ (Safe guarding, 2018). This shows the importance of having a DBS check that has been confirmed as well as safe guarding for children this is because a coach needs to be able to identify when a child is in distress and is not comfortable, along with this a coach should be aware of the signs to look for that would indicate that a child is not happy.

When designing our event, we originally planned to deliver our session at a local primary school which St. Michael with St. Johns C.E primary school. We first made a list of all the equipment we would need:

· Bibs

· Cones

· Hurdles

· Tennis balls

· Tennis rackets

· Benches

· Footballs

After this was done we made a list of the different races/ events that we could possibly use in our event these were:

· Normal sprints

· 3-legged race

· Relay race

· Ball and racket race

· Wheelbarrow race

Once all the events and the equipment was organised we decided that we would need to do safety checks for the equipment that was used. Motley health (2018) states ‘In every case it’s important to use correct equipment that is in good condition’. Safety checks on equipment in sports is very important, this is because if the participants use equipment that is defective there is a high chance that during skill based drills or actual game play the children could seriously injure themselves due to the poor quality of equipment.

Prior our event, we made sure that there were no drinks allowed in the sports hall because if there was to be any spillages, that would be a high risk towards the participants. The equipment that we used were appropriate, we made sure that the goal posts were in the correct position and that both of the fire exists were clear because if there were to be a fire, the participants would be able to leave the premises carefully and safely through the fire exits.

After we had completed the designing of the event itself we reached out to the school to organise a meeting to decide on a date that would be appropriate for the school and for me and my partner. Unfortunately, the school declined our offer due to their partnership with Blackburn College and the students they had given placement positions to.

After receiving the schools reply we had to instead move to our contingency plan. Erickson and McConnell (2017) state that contingency plans need ‘A more balanced understanding if we are to have fair and realistic expectations of what public authorities can do to prepare for crises, disasters and catastrophes’. Contingency plans are important because should an organised event be cancelled for one reason or another the coaches in question would have to instead turn to their contingency plan and put that into effect s as to ensure they have a set plan of activities that they are ready to coach.

Our contingency plan was to hold a football session at Blackburn youth zone. Equity was important regarding our coaching event this is because we decided that when playing all players should regardless of their skill, age, gender, ability or disability would receive equal attention and would receive enough guidance to ensure the benefitted from the experience.

Reflection stage:

Knowles, Gilbourne, Borrie & Neville (2001) propose that ‘through reflective practice coaches could access, make sense of, and learn from the relevant knowledge in action that would allow them to learn how to actually do sports coaching’. This shows that reflection is important for coaches for all professions as it allows them to analyse the session for area which could possibly require improvement. It is important for any individual to look at the areas for improvement because those areas for improvement could become an opportunity for a coach to make their session better for the future.

Schön (1983) suggests that ‘reflection in action is reflecting on the incident during the session itself rather than reflecting on how you would do things after the session is finished and reflection on action is reflecting on how practice can be developed (changed) after the event’. We reflected in and on action during the event when more children decided to take part and we had to assign them to teams and it was required that the teams needed to be mixed up to ensure skill level fairness in both teams. In the end, the teams were fair and they were mixed up so that the team was not uneven. It is important that when you are delivering a fun event, that the teams are fair because you would not want the participants to become distressed or become disruptive, as it can have a negative effect on the game, which is why we made sure that the teams were fair and that everyone was included.

˫�@�6��_P�5�

0 notes