The magical combination of the Kindle and insomnia

I saw a question posted on LinkedIn recently about reading habits, and it got me thinking about how my purchase of a Kindle years ago unexpectedly increased the amount of reading I do.

Mind you, that wasn’t at all the reason for the purchase. My wife and I got Kindles at the same time, and the primary reason was simply to slow down our prolific purchases of good old-fashioned books. We both love books, and we’d collected more and more through the many years of our marriage, filling multiple bookcases along the way.

We also moved around quite a bit, and with each move the books were packed into dozens of boxes that then had to be unpacked in our new home, and loaded again into those numerous bookcases. That was quite a pain.

But it just got to a point where too much wall space was being taken up by bookcases. My wife and I both love libraries, but we don’t necessarily want to live in one.

So we got ourselves Kindles. And yes indeed, our purchase of physical books tapered off noticeably. A success!

I quickly noticed a couple other things.

First, there’s a huge number of books available on Kindle for free or for very little money, books that are very well worth reading but which I doubt I’d have ever read in real book format. The complete works of HP Lovecraft… the Warlord of Mars series by Edgar Rice Burroughs… the collected writings of John Muir… the complete works of Jack London… memoirs by trappers in the Old West, gold prospectors during the Klondike rush, and scouts for the British during the Boer Wars… and dozens of first-hand accounts by those who fought and won WWII, whether infantry grunts, sailors, bomber crewmen, tankers, submariners, or fighter pilots. And on, and on, and on…

Second, the Kindle is fantastic for reading in the middle of the night, which was a tremendous boon for me, a lifelong insomniac. I turn the brightness down low, park it on my bedside table, and when I wake up in the middle of the night nobody else is awake to disturb me, and my wife can sleep on peacefully right there next to me while I read until I’m ready to go back to sleep.

The combination of these things has been tremendous. I read probably two to three times as much now as I did pre-Kindle. And I read a lot before.

 

Thanks for doing your effing job

My title above is a phrase some coworker friends of mine and I used with some regularity years ago (except our language was usually in “full color,” profanity and all – I’ve grown up some since then). We were all of a mind that nobody should expect a pat on the back for doing the basics – showing up on time, getting the work done, satisfying our customers and delivering the bottom line. So it was a joke we’d toss out to each other every so often when someone would praise a person on the team for doing what we saw as just the regular job.

We were wrong.

We absolutely should praise people, thank people, give people a pat on the back, and the like, just for doing their basic jobs.

But that’s why we pay them, my past self and my friends from back then would have said. And that’s true – our coworkers spend their time away from their families and friends and favorite pursuits to do their jobs (what Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises called “submit[ting] to the disutility of labor”), and they get money for it. It’s a basic business contract. But how does that contract on their part absolve us of common decency – of demonstrating courtesy and gratitude – on our part? It’s all too common for people to expect others to deliver top performance, work long hours, sacrifice personal time and commitments, all to do a job, yet they never bother to say thanks. There’s something deeply wrong with that.

What’s more, I’ve never once worked in a place where nothing was said when things went wrong. Reactions to errors and dropped balls and missed opportunities have varied widely in my experience, from extreme verbal abuse, angry tirades and severe discipline in some places to mild disapproval and efforts to “error-proof” things in others. But never, ever, ever has there been a place where mistakes or accidents were just part of the job and went without some mention or acknowledgement. Isn’t there also something deeply wrong with always having some form of imposed discomfort when things don’t go well, yet never having the opposite number when folks do good work – even if that good work is simply just them “doing their job?”

Finally, wouldn’t the world be a much better place if we all showed gratitude for all our many blessings? Today there’s a constant cacophony of complaints from all sides. You and I can help turn that tide. You’ve heard the old saw about eating an elephant; this is the same work – it takes one thank-you at a time. Today’s a good day to start.

So please take note: I say this with all sincerity to everyone whose work impacts my job and my life: thank you for doing your effing job. Seriously.

Tariffs and trade

Jeffrey R. Carter is one of my favorite bloggers. His posts at his site Points and Figures are always thought-provoking and well-written.

Usually I agree just about 100% with him – we’re very aligned in our perspectives on business, society and politics.

For his post this morning, “Bull$%^& Numbers,” things weren’t much different. I did feel, though, that he missed some important considerations.

I agree with him that the trade deficit is a pretty useless figure. In fact, the only discernible use I’ve ever witnessed it having is as a cudgel to beat up Republican presidents. No matter how awful the figure, if a Democrat hold the highest office in the land, you pretty much won’t hear about it. That’s fair proof that most economists and politicians also think it’s useless except as a political weapon.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Jeffrey’s point on this: “The only thing it tells me is that American consumers are getting a better deal by purchasing imported goods.” And he touches on the government subsidies and theft of intellectual property that are endemic in our trade with China. (Both of these factors, by the way, demolish the free trade argument others are making – because trade is only free if there are consistent rules for each side, which has certainly not been the case in our business with China in forever. People who are screaming about us igniting a trade war are either obtuse or willfully misleading; we’ve been in a decades-long trade war with China, one that they declared and in which we’ve almost universally disarmed ourselves – until now.)

But the very important point I think is missing from Jeffrey’s post is the obvious question: WHY are people getting a better deal by purchasing imported goods, and specifically those from China?

Now, I’m a big believer in Ricardo’s law of comparative advantage – if China is a better manufacturer of something than we are domestically, both we and they benefit if we buy that something from them. Where I get heartburn over that is when China’s advantage is either because of overweening regulation of our domestic manufacturers (which is a very real and very serious problem) or because of their totalitarian government stealing from people to prop up their manufacturers, or forcing people to work as virtual slaves, so that their manufacturing costs are artificially lowered. I’ve spent my whole career in manufacturing, so to see us hollow out our domestic production because of stupid laws on our end or communist-inflicted misery on theirs really galls me.

And we HAVE hollowed out American manufacturing. Some of that was “own goals” – steelmakers and the car companies, for example, were their own worst enemies for a long time. But a lot of it was done TO our manufacturers. Come spend a day with me and I’ll teach you about the thicket of safety and environmental regulations (for example) we domestic manufacturers have to navigate, which I’m 100% certain our Chinese competitors don’t. “Flyover country” was a lot more vibrant before our elites on either coast decided our government bureaucrats could make their own laws.

I’m heartened by President Trump’s efforts to slow down the regulatory Leviathan. I hope it’s the start of an honest look at how we rebuild our heartland communities that have been devastated by “free trade” that isn’t anything like free.

Jeffrey, you’re right. Tariffs are stupid. And they may well blow up in our face. But disadvantaging hardworking Americans just to kowtow to the Chinese is stupider still, so I sincerely hope we’re going to put a stop to that.

Warehouses are Waste – Right?

Charles Kantz, a supply chain consultant, posted the following questions on LinkedIn today:

Are DC/Whses going to disappear?

If there is so much effort put into planning and improving lead times while reducing inventory along with planning out the supply chain, why is there a need for warehouse and DC’s here in the US?

Shouldn’t it be a fraction of the current space you have within your operation?

Shouldn’t goods flow based on the models and therefore emulating a direct distribution or a JIT process?

I thought these are great questions, and they deserved more attention than what I could reasonably cover in a comment to his post. So I promised this blog post in reply.

As I said in a brief initial response to Mr. Kantz’s first, most basic question, no – DCs and warehouses will not be going away. For one thing, many companies use them as their basic retail fulfillment centers (think Amazon). Additionally, they remain a critical and irreplaceable piece of the supply chain for most other firms.

That being said, there are certainly some – perhaps many – DCs that can and should go away. Mr. Kantz’s other questions really frame up the opportunities well. Better general supply chain science and huge leaps in technological and digital solutions offer a multitude of ways to optimize inventories. Unfortunately, though, there’s a popular Lean notion that “inventory is waste” that’s led many leaders to launch slash-and-burn inventory reduction efforts without fully understanding the impacts to the business, and without investing in concrete improvements that are needed to underpin those reductions. (I coined the phrase I used in my initial comment, “Inventory is waste – until it isn’t” as a sardonic push-back against this glib notion. Insurance is also “waste,” yet we all have it nonetheless.)

One of Mr. Kantz’s other commenters, Operations & Supply Chain Manager Stephen Battle, mentioned the word strategy. He hit the nail on the head; it’s vital to make your supply chain an integral part of your business strategy, and as part of doing so, to design it to optimize its efficiency while ensuring proper support for what makes you money. Inventory levels – and therefore the need for warehouse space – should be determined by a thorough, end-to-end assessment that considers all of the following:

  • Sales volume ranges and seasonality
  • Growth potential
  • Production capacities and lead times
  • Transportation time
  • Existing infrastructure
  • Existing procedures and technologies for supply chain management
  • Total costs
  • Opportunity cost and working capital cost of inventory
  • Inventory carrying costs
  • Potential disruptions to supply (and costs of lost sales that those imply)

That last point is critical. Who foresaw the Japanese nuclear catastrophe? The lost sales from that event would have paid for plenty of working capital for plenty of years. No, you can’t carry enough inventory to counter any possible disruption, nor would that make economic sense – but you should make an assessment of predictable lost sales from weather events, economic problems, and even political strife, to determine how much safety stock makes good economic sense.

And again, once you’ve used good data and good analysis to set your inventory levels, they shouldn’t change unless the business fundamentals themselves change, or you’ve invested in improvements in one or more of the areas mentioned above that would then justify modifying your inventory positions. Otherwise, leave those warehouses alone.

Read this book: The Boys of Winter by Wayne Coffey

I can’t quite say I couldn’t put this book down. I started reading it yesterday afternoon, and though I really didn’t want to, I forced myself to put it down at 11 o’clock last night, just after US captain Mike Eruzione scored to put his team ahead of the Soviets, 4-3.

I picked it up again this morning, and just finished it. I wouldn’t have believed before reading it that you could make an almost moment-by-moment recap of a hockey game so absolutely riveting, but Wayne Coffey does it by weaving the personal stories of the entire 1980 US Olympic hockey team right into the fabric of that impossible win against the USSR on February 22, 1980.

There are so very many wonderful (and also very many not-so-wonderful) stories he tells. I’ll share just this one:

There were 12 hockey teams at the Olympics, 20 players per team, 240 players in all. Steve Janaszak was the only one of them who did not play. The closest he got to action was when Craig got dinged by a Mike Eruzione shot in warm-ups before the West Germany game – and then allowed two soft goals in the first period. Janaszak had the hardest and most thankless role on the team, having gone from standout goalie to spare part, All-American to skate sharpener. Brooks had forewarned him that this could happen, and Janaszak appreciated the heads-up. He stayed ready and positive, the epitome of a team player, putting aside his own agenda for the larger good. One of the first things Jim Craig did in the final press conference was to publicly thank Janaszak and acknowledge his contributions to the team. Then the two Olympic goaltenders, the Olympic poster boy and the answer to a trivia question, embraced.

“In his own way, Janaszak was as important as Craig, because of the way he handled not playing,” Lou Vairo said. “The way he supported him and the team and the coach’s decision was something special. Imagine if he was a whining, miserable creature in that position? He was perfect.”

“I had the best seat in the arena and in the locker room for the greatest sporting event of the twentieth century,” Janaszak said.

The book is crammed full of similar stories of sacrifice, commitment, love and courage. The game itself is an inspiration for the ages. Wayne Coffey multiplies that by dozens with his stories of the people who made it a reality.

Another Boy Scout business lesson: bullying in the workplace

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” – Archbishop Desmond Tutu

This past weekend I took the freshly updated Youth Protection Training for Boy Scouts of America, a requirement for all their adult leaders. It was superb.

And I found myself thinking of a recent article I wrote about the need to apply the Boy Scout Law in the business world, and how I was seeing yet another part of the expectations for the Boy Scouts that it’s high time we apply in the workplace as well.

It was the session on bullying that really hit home. The BSA’s bullying web page begins this way: “The idea that a Scout should treat others as he or she wants to be treated—a Scout is kind—is woven throughout the programs and literature of the Boy Scouts of America.”

Why should we expect any less than that in our workplaces?

And yet we do, particularly when it comes to leadership behaviors. The BSA defines bullying as:

  • Verbal – name calling, teasing, belittling
  • Social – spreading rumors, leaving the target out of activities, breaking up or manipulating friendships
  • Physical – hitting, pushing, shoving, physical coercion
  • Group – intimidating, ostracizing
  • Criminal – injury, assault, sexual aggression
  • Cyber bullying – using digital technology (social media, mobile phones, computers, etc.) for any of the above

 

In my own workplaces, I’ve personally experienced four of the six categories of bullying listed above. Now, I’ve worked in manufacturing my whole career, and I’ve been in places where rough behavior was unfortunately sometimes tolerated at lower levels. But that being said, the most pervasive and destructive forms of the bullying I’ve endured have been from managers and above. Some of it has been simply outrageous, from my long-ago immediate supervisor who doctored dates on an e-mail to try to frame me for regulatory commitments he’d made then missed, to a Fortune 500 VP who targeted me for retribution for taking notes in a meeting where other participants criticized his group’s performance on a project. (!!!) But most of it’s been just rotten behaviors when times get tough or things don’t go the way they’d hoped.

The problem is that bad behavior that’s no longer tolerated at lower levels is allowed and excused for senior leaders and executives. As I’ve written many times, the recent firestorm of sexual harassment accusations is just the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger problem of atrocious behavior. Not only are there all those other areas of abuse listed above, but it’s also a problem that includes both sexes.

Please understand I’m talking about a minority of leaders who routinely behave this way. (And everyone stumbles every so often; this isn’t aimed at “fixing humanity” either.) But it’s the same way with kids; it never was anywhere close to a majority of them who were bullies in the past, and now we’re focused on not allowing even the small minority to terrorize other children. My BSA Youth Protection Training made clear that we in the Scouting community simply will not tolerate bullying of any kind.

Again, then why should we tolerate such behavior in our workplaces? Shouldn’t we have at least the same expectations for acceptable behavior and treatment of others for our business leaders as we have for our children?

I think there are several problems involved. One is the attitude that adults should be able to take care of themselves. And that attitude is just as wrong in general bullying and mistreatment as it is in sexual harassment. First, leaders and those with power should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. And it’s obtuse beyond measure to miss that lots of people will think twice about pushing back against misbehaving leaders who hold their livelihood in their hands. And finally, as my BSA training pointed out, too often mistreated people blame themselves for their treatment, thinking they somehow deserve it.

Another problem is the lack of accountability for those who are supposed to enforce the rules. I believe it’s a very rare situation where an abusive leader who’s been around for years is in any way an unknown quantity for anyone around him or her, and yet neither leaders at higher levels nor HR is aware of the abuse? It’s awfully hard to believe, and yet if we take the sexual harassment epidemic as a bellwether, there has been no discussion that I’m aware of as to how to fix that breakdown. If you’re in HR or a high-level leadership spot and you enforce rules less stringently for your executives and upper managers, you’re a big root cause.

And the final problem is lack of courage and responsibility in peers. If one of your fellow leaders is a bully, are you calling it out? Are you first pointing out to that individual that the behavior is unacceptable, then escalating it to higher levels and HR if it’s not corrected? Because, if not, that’s another way we get those rare abusers who believe the rules and laws don’t apply to them: when those around them always take the easy path and look the other way.

Bullying by leaders in the workplace should be less acceptable than bullying by children. Yet it isn’t, not by a long shot. And it’s high time we fix that. As with our Boy Scouts, it simply should not be tolerated.

The Boy Scout lesson for business leaders

I came across this article by Bob Sutton about abusive behavior by business leaders just the other day, and it inspired me: what if, instead of the apparent free rein they have to behave any way they please, we expected the same of our corporate executives as we expect of Boy Scouts?

For some reason, for decades now it seems our basic, universal childhood lessons of civility and good behavior are suspended once a person becomes one of the powers-that-be in the business world. I wrote about this at length recently. So I was pleased to see the aforementioned Bob Sutton article on the same subject, written for the global management consultancy McKinsey, no less.

His piece got me thinking about the expectations my fellow adult Scout leaders and I set for our boys in Troop 292 – the same expectations as for all Boy Scouts, specified in the Boy Scout Law: A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent. (We recite this at the beginning of every single Troop meeting.) I wondered: shouldn’t we have the same values in the business world – for everyone, yes, but especially for higher-level leaders, who are supposed to lead by example first and foremost?

So let’s take a look at the Boy Scout Law for Leadership.

A Leader is:

  • Trustworthy – you can’t lead effectively without establishing solid trust with those you’re supposed to be leading. You do this by being scrupulously honest and ethical, and by sharing as completely as you possibly can where the organization is going and how your people can best help to get it there. Most of all, you gain trust by trusting others first. And finally: do what you say you’re going to do!
  • Loyal – this is one of the biggest modern-day failures of leadership. We lead people, not numbers. When we callously cut headcount, when we overload those who work for our success, when we kowtow to the powers above us at the expense of our people, we richly deserve the resulting business failures. Also: our personal politics do not apply to our business! We owe loyalty to all of our team members and all of our customers, not just the ones who share our personal ideological leanings.
  • Helpful – this is a no-brainer; if we’re not fulfilling this one, we’re not leading.
  • Friendly – again, we lead people. We may not be best buddies with them, but every one of them deserves to be treated as a valued team member and an irreplaceable human being.
  • Courteous – as I asked in an earlier article about leadership civility (the one linked to up above), just when did we decide that the Golden Rule is great everywhere except the workplace? Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect – especially those whose everyday efforts pay our way. Mind your manners always, and for God’s sake, be on time!
  • Obedient – this one has to be off-base, right? No, it isn’t. As leaders, we signed up to take care of our people. Obedience to them is making sure we provide them with the resources they need to succeed at what we ask them to do. It means acknowledging that those closest to the work are the true experts, and oftentimes have better ideas for doing the job and improving the work than we do. And it means truly appreciating the time and effort they put in each and every day.
  • Cheerful – as with the point about Courtesy, this is another application of the Golden Rule. It’s also a good way of leading by example – particularly in remaining cheerful when the chips are down. None of us is a ray of sunshine 100% of the time – but we leaders we owe it to our people to keep our negative emotions at bay.
  • Thrifty – as leaders, sometimes we spend lots and lots of money. That’s often a good thing, as with investment to grow the business. But if you’re laying people off and simultaneously refusing to suspend your free cars for executives program, that’s really, really wrong. If you’re demanding “world-class” performance while paying below-market wages and slashing investment, that’s even more wrong. If you’re having a back-up corporate jet come along behind the one you’re flying on your company trips, that’s contemptibly wrong.
  • Brave – sometimes it takes tremendous courage to protect our people, to get them the proper resources they need to do what we’ve asked them to do, and to stamp out wrongdoing in our organizations. Sometimes it means risking our own jobs. But that’s what we’ve signed up to do as leaders.
  • Clean – I’ve commented extensively elsewhere about the current sexual harassment scandals being the tip of an iceberg that encompasses all sorts of elite misbehaviors, all rooted in the notion that laws and rules are for “little people.” Our society desperately needs to return to the age-old principle that our elite – business leaders in particular – should model the best ethics and morals, not the worst.
  • Reverent – I personally believe that to achieve the ideals represented by the other points above, we also need a return to faith – a belief that we serve something a lot bigger than our own precious existence and ego. And equally important as this personal belief is a profound respect for the deeply held beliefs of others, especially of those we lead.

 

As I mentioned earlier, these 12 points are the code of behavior for our Boy Scouts. Their ages range from 10 to 17. So this certainly shouldn’t be too much to ask of highly-paid adults.

Another fascinating bit of WWII history, courtesy of Cornelius Ryan

After watching the movie A Bridge Too Far again recently, my thoughts turned once more to one of my favorite historians – the man who wrote the book on which the movie is based, Cornelius Ryan. Poking around on the Internet, I was pleased to discover a book of his I’d never read: One Minute to Ditch! It’s a collection of articles he wrote about a variety of dangerous and deadly events. I ordered up a copy and read it immediately. It didn’t disappoint (other than leaving me wanting more of his stories…)

Most interesting to me, as an avid WWII history buff, was a very moving tale from that war I don’t remember hearing before. I’m reprinting it here in its entirety with permission from Mr. Ryan’s daughter, Victoria Ryan Bida. My thanks to her for her kindness.

 

The Major of St. Lô

By Cornelius Ryan

In the little French town of St. Lô, the elders often gather on the bridge over the river Vire to talk about that which elders know most about – the past. And at this time of the year, now that the apple orchards are in blossom once again and the sun drenches the countryside, there is much to remember. Was it not another time like this, back in 1944, when the invasion began across the beaches only a few miles away? How many brave men died in the hedgerows? And who would believe now that twelve years ago all that remained of St. Lô was a pile of rubble – the aftermath of the invasion’s greatest battle? So it goes. But as always, when they talk of the war, the conversation soon turns to the day the town was liberated after 43 days of battle, and to the story of their own personal hero, the American soldier they call the “Major of St. Lô” – a man they never knew.

And if in the telling there is much brandishing of canes and much quivering of down-swooping Norman mustaches, it is only because some point has not been emphasized enough or some detail has been momentarily forgotten. For it is the story of the “Major of St. Lô” that the elders love best – and here on the bridge that saga has been interwoven with legend and the legend has become inseparable from history.

The kerosene lamp hissed quietly. In his battalion command post Major Thomas D. Howie eased his stocky frame into a more comfortable position against the earthen wall. Outside it was dark, but war has no real night. Along the 40-mile American beachhead heavy guns flashed intermittently; streams of tracer bullets waved up into the clouds, and flares hung here and there in the sky.

In the command post – an oversized foxhole with the remains of a barn over it as a roof – the major and his company commanders sat watching Captain William Puntenney, of Phoenix, Arizona, Howie’s executive officer, mark up the battalion situation map. Working on the map’s plastic overlay with a grease pencil, Puntenney quickly sketched in the 29th Division’s latest positions. “That’s the picture, Major,” he said.

The front lines remained much the same – Howie could see that at a glance. Here a field had been taken or lost; there a ditch or sunken road had been captured or recaptured. But the advance of the 29th, “the Blue and the Gray” Division, through the bloody hedgerows of Normandy could be measured in yards. Major Howie’s unit – the 116th Infantry’s 3d Battalion – had gained less than 100 yards in 24 hours. But it was within three miles of the division objective – St. Lô.

Howie ached to take St. Lô, as did every battle-weary soldier in the division, right up to Major General Charles H. Gerhardt, the commanding general. Once the town with its vital network of roads fell, the full force of American armor could begin to maneuver and the longed-for breakout might be achieved. For beyond the pile of rubble that had once been a town the hedgerows ended and the plains began.

The Germans appreciated what St. Lô’s loss would mean. Until their front could be reinforced, the Allied forces had to be contained in their shallow bridgehead, their backs to the sea. And what better place to fight for time than in these natural trenches of Normandy, where mounds of earth topped by a jungle of bushes surrounded every field? The German high command had issued the order: “Starre Verteidigung.” (“Stand fast.”)

But to Tom Howie the capture of St. Lô had become a personal matter. The men of the 3d Battalion had fought almost continuously for 41 days without rest – from the moment they hit Omaha Beach on the misty morning of June 6th. That morning the thirty-six-year old major (a former English literature teacher and athletic director at Staunton, Virginia, Military Academy) had captured a machine-gun post, singlehanded. Howie felt that casualties alone had earned his men the right to be first into St. Lô. And when they took it, maybe the whole battered division would be relieved.

Tonight, in the smoky closeness of his command post the major had little time to think about relief. His foot soldiers were dug in near Martinville, a hamlet straddling a dirt road leading into St. Lô. And the fighting had been toe to toe all day. The 3d Battalion and the Germans laced one another’s hedgerow positions with machine-gun fire, tossed hand grenades across the narrow fields, fired rifles at one another at almost point-blank range.

But a mile to the south, on the outskirts of La Madeleine, a small village near St. Lô, Major Sidney Bingham’s 2d Battalion was in much greater trouble. The Second had been hit with everything the Germans could throw at them – from artillery bombardment to tank assault. Now they were surrounded and cut off. Out of food, short of ammunition and with casualties mounting, their situation was hourly becoming more desperate.

Major Howie studied the new attack order before him. He had many vital decisions to make within the next few hours. The Third had been ordered to attack directly through the Germans’ tough Martinville line. Howie was going to the rescue of Bingham’s lost battalion.

While other units of the division were to attack on either side of his battalion, Howie’s men had been given the toughest assignment. The Martinville line had held them up for days; now they were being asked to drive through it fast and advance more than a mile. Although all the other officers present knew how Major Howie itched to capture St. Lô, none saw the bitter disappointment for him in the attack order. After relieving the lost battalion, Howie’s unit was ordered to stand fast and hold the La Madeleine positions. Bingham’s men were to push on to St. Lô.

Howie outlined his plan: the battalion would make a silent attack, using bayonets and hand grenades—nothing else. “We’re going to give the jerries a touch of steel,” he said quietly.

At the end of the briefing, Howie asked his executive officer, Puntenney, to stay behind. When the two were alone, the major spoke: “Bill, take a look at these boots. I’ve had the same shoes since I left the States. Look at ‘em! I’ve marched and fought in ‘em for days. But I’ll be damned if I’ll make one more attack without a new pair.”

“Where in the world am I going to get you a new pair now?” said the surprised exec.

“Bill – I don’t care where you get ‘em, but get ‘em,” the CO barked.

Puntenney left the dugout to carry out the order.

In the dank blackness of their foxholes, Howie’s men quietly sharpened their bayonets and sweated out the dawn. In his own lighted dugout Tom Howie read his Bible, as he did every night, and wrote a letter home. Earlier he had written his wife, Elizabeth, and their six-year-old daughter at Staunton: “I have no physical reason for thinking so, but I’ve always felt that your prayers would be answered and that we’d have a grand reunion some fine day.” Now, he wrote to another member of his family: “There is no need to worry about me….” He did not mention the impending attack.

It began at 4:30 A.M. A thick early-morning fog carpeted the area when Howie – in a new pair of boots – and his veterans fixed bayonets and rose quietly out of their foxholes. Ahead of them the German hedgerows lay quiet, as though anesthetized. In silence the helmeted figures slipped quickly from their hedgerow positions and disappeared into the fog.

They raced across the cut-up fields, soft earth deadening their footsteps. Nobody spoke. They darted into the hedgerows. Bushes rustled. Twigs cracked sharply. There was a startled shout. Suddenly all along the German line there were quick shouts, muffled screams, the compressed blast of grenades, the abrupt stuttering of Schmeisser “burp” guns—the awful commotion that soldiers make when they are surprised into death.

The first German positions fell fast. Howie’s men were through and beyond before the enemy knew what had happened. Deftly, quickly, the men of the Third hit the next line of outposts, and the next. In this way, with surgical preciseness, the major’s battalion cut through the Martinville line in less than an hour. Shortly before 6:00 A.M. Howie’s men made contact with Major Bingham’s 2d Battalion east of La Madeleine.

Down the road, not more than a mile away, lay bombed and shelled St. Lô, the shattered spires of the Cathedral of Notre Dame reaching defiantly out of the heaping ruins. To Howie’s cocky infantrymen, huddling in their foxholes, St. Lô seemed only a bus stop away.

The staffs of the two battalions immediately conferred. The linkup, at best, was only temporary. Although the 29th Division’s dawn attack along the St. Lô front had been successful, with troops now almost astraddle the heights overlooking the town, it would be some time before supply lines could be opened. Howie’s men had brought communications, ammunition, medical supplies, rations and – more important – themselves. La Madeleine could be held, but it was obvious that the relieved 2d Battalion was exhausted. After three days of almost continuous assault its ranks had been decimated. Bingham’s men could not push on to St. Lô. The job was up to Howie – if regimental headquarters agreed.

Howie waited impatiently for his communications to be set up. Speed mattered now. If the Third pressed on before the Germans fully recovered from the attack, Howie felt sure his men could make St. Lô. But the Germans wouldn’t sit still for long, especially with a strong force sitting on their doorstep. Both Howie and Bingham knew better.

So did Major General Gerhardt back at division headquarters.

All night Gerhardt had sweated out the advance of his men. Previously he had told his assistant division commander, Brigadier General Norman (Dutch) Cota, to assemble an armored task force and hold it in readiness to dash into St. Lô from the north. Now, as he stood before his big war map with Cota, he thought about this powerful trump card. Had the time come up to send Task Force “C” storming into St. Lô?

“You better get ready, Dutch,” he said. “Sometime within the next twenty four hours, you’ll be on your way. It’s near the end, but it isn’t over yet. Jerry’s going to counterattack hard wherever he can.” He tapped the map with a forefinger. “And particularly here. They’ll throw everything they’ve got at La Madeleine.”

At La Madeleine the lull had already ended.

Far away, the trained ears of the infantrymen heard the shrill birth of the first barrage of mortar shells. They held their breath, listening in the strange hypnotic way that soldiers listen to determine direction by sound. Down they crouched in their foxholes. The barrage screamed toward them like a hundred express trains all converging on a lonely station. The earth shuddered. Bursting shells fine-combed the ground above them. Then it was over and the next shelling began.

Howie crawled from foxhole to foxhole. “Keep down.” he yelled at his men. “Keep down. We’re getting out of here soon. We’ll get to St. Lô yet.”

Doubled up, dodging from foxhole to foxhole in between shell bursts, he returned to his command post. His company commanders were waiting for him.

“Have you got regiment?” he demanded.

Somebody handed him a phone. Above the noise Howie tried to quickly explain the position.

“The Second can’t make it,” he yelled into the phone. “They’re too cut up. They’re exhausted. Yes – we can do it. We’re in better shape. Yes – if we jump off now. Okay.” A big smile crossed his face.

“See you in St. Lô,” he said.

He slammed the phone down and, still smiling, turned to his company commanders. “Well, you heard it,” he said. “We’re going in. Where’s the map?”

Almost deafened by the incessant mortar shelling, Howie’s officers gathered around as the major gave the order for the attack on St. Lô. None of them heard the incoming whine of the mortar shell that ended the conference.

The shell burst a few yards away. In that millisecond of destruction, most of the officers were picked up by the blast and slammed to the ground unhurt. Captain Puntenney, standing on the dugout step, was hurled bodily into a hedgerow. Dazed and shaken, he extricated himself from the bushes and saw Howie standing upright a few yards away. The major had his arms in front of him, holding his body. Puntenney rushed over. “My God, Bill, I’m hit.” Howie said.

Puntenney carried him to the bottom of the dugout and held him for a few minutes in his arms. He didn’t get much wear out of these boots, thought Puntenney as he lowered the body of his CO into the dust.

Several hours later, at division headquarters, the operations officer, Lieutenant Colonel William J. Witte, gave the news to General Gerhardt. “General,” he said, “Tom Howie is dead. The 3d Battalion attack never really got going.”

Gerhardt said nothing. He was sad and terribly angry – sad, because of his fondness for Tom Howie and angry because of the awful casualties his division was suffering. His silent anger infected everybody in the headquarters. Somehow Tom Howie’s death crystallized all the courage and all the heartbreak spilled over in the battle of St. Lô.

Gerhardt called General Cota. “Dutch,” he said, “one of the last things Tom Howie said was, ‘I’ll see you in St. Lô.’ We’re going to fulfill that promise. Take Tom Howie with the task force – he’s going to lead the 29th into St. Lô.”

The next day in St. Lô the townspeople heard a rumor. A powerful column of American tanks, it was said, was heading for the town.

At first they did not believe the story, for there had been many such rumors since the invasion began. But this time it was true. Far off, along the road leading into St. Lô from St. Clair, they heard the rumble and clank of tanks mixed in with the thunder of the enemy’s exploding shells. And so in the cellars, in the crypt beneath the church, in all those places where families had survived the bombs and the shells the news spread swiftly. People spoke in whispers, in fear perhaps that they still might be wrong. “They are coming,” they said. “Today is the day.”

The sounds of the tanks and the exploding shells grew closer. Now, in ones and twos the townspeople left their shelters; they climbed the walls of rubble, stood behind shuttered windows or crouched in doorways oblivious of the dangers. They had waited too long to miss this moment.

The approaching column was clearly marked by a great cloud of dust which bowled along, reaching above the trees lining the road. Here and there black smoke tinged with flame spiraled up through the dust from burning and exploding vehicles. Overhead, clusters of shells whistled toward the road as the Germans stepped up the tempo of their artillery barrage. But under the rain of bursting shells the great cloud of dust came rolling steadily forward and suddenly it rolled into the outskirts of St. Lô. The Americans had arrived.

General Cota’s task force poured into the town in an apparently endless column. Prowling tanks swarmed through the streets overrunning the German rear-guard antitank positions; self-propelled guns swung into position and began answering the incoming artillery fire; infantrymen climbing through the rubble routed out the last snipers; and the townspeople threw flowers and from hiding places produced bottles of wine which they had saved for this great day.

In their happiness some cried and others remained dazed, unable to believe that the town had been liberated. But in the midst of it all, as the townspeople watched they saw a strange procession threading through the town.

Slowly down the main street rolled an olive-drab ambulance surrounded by an honor guard of armored cars. The column drove through the debris, passing the men and machines who had captured the town, passing under the limp blue and gray flag of the 29th Division now hanging in victory from a second-story window. And as the townspeople watched, hushed and incredulous, the little procession turned into the shell-pocked main square and came quietly to a stop before the shattered Cathedral of Notre Dame.

The ambulance doors opened and a detail of men carefully lifted down a stretcher. Struggling upward, they climbed to the top of a great mound of brick and stone before the ruins of the cathedral. And there, to lie in state on this altar of rubble, they placed the bier with the flag-covered body of Major Thomas D. Howie.

Standing today on a pedestal of concrete, near the bridge over the river Vire, there is a bronze bust of Major Thomas D. Howie. It was erected by the townspeople of St. Lô, and at this time of the year the base of the statue is covered with flowers. The townspeople honor not only the memory of Major Howie, but also the 7,000 men—almost half the 29th Division’s fighting strength —who were killed or wounded in the battle for the town.

The elders shrug their shoulders and try to explain the sentiments of the townspeople this way: “L’homme n’est rien, I’oeuvre est tout.” (“The man is nothing, the work is everything.”) But they look admiringly at the statue and in the same breath they say wonderingly: “Such determination this man had – surely there was some French blood in his veins.”

 

“The Major of St. Lô,” © 1956 by Cornelius Ryan.

Two Scout heroes

Last week, in the Webelos Den I lead, we learned about heroism. One part of the program was to discuss a Scout hero. I figured there had to be some good examples among Eagle Scouts. Sure enough, Bing.com led me to the story of Marine Sergeant (later Colonel) Mitchell Paige, who won the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1942 for his bravery in battle on Guadalcanal in WWII.

As I searched various sites for details to share with our Scouts, I discovered another thread to the story. While Sergeant Paige was indeed a Scout hero, he wasn’t technically an Eagle Scout when he won the Medal of Honor. You see, he’d completed all the requirements for his Eagle rank, but hadn’t yet received the award before he signed up with the Marines and was shipped off to the Pacific. He just figured the award would be waiting for him when he got back from the war.

But it wasn’t. And I guess life took over and he simply forgot about following up to get the Eagle rank he’d earned at age 17.

Fast-forward fifty or so years. Colonel Paige, now retired, had become involved in ferreting out Medal of Honor winner imposters (yes, disgusting as it is, there really are such people) and in stamping out the flow of fake medals. While doing so he met Special Agent Thomas Cottone Jr. of the FBI, who was also involved in stopping the sale, theft, and illicit manufacture of the Medal of Honor. Eventually Special Agent Cottone – an Eagle Scout himself – discovered from Colonel Paige that he’d earned his Eagle rank but never received the award.

Getting the Eagle award isn’t easy, even after you’ve completed all the required advancement work. Proof of those accomplishments must be submitted, along with letters of recommendation, unit leader and council verifications, and an Eagle Scout application, to the Boy Scouts of America. After the passage of over five decades, obviously all that documentation for Colonel Paige no longer existed, and his Scout leaders had long since passed away.

So Special Agent Cottone spent the next five years investigating Colonel Paige’s Scouting history, making numerous contacts in his hometown of Charleroi, Pennsylvania. He eventually assembled enough documentary evidence to request the award on behalf of Colonel Paige.

Fifteen years ago, in March 2003, 67 years after he’d earned it, 84 year old Colonel Mitchell Paige was finally awarded his Eagle Scout rank.

Sadly, he would pass away just eight months later.

I shared this story with three different groups of Webelos at our meeting last week, and I choked up every time. What an amazing testimonial it is for my boys of the kind of love, honor and commitment that are part and parcel of the Scouting community, and of the different faces of heroism.

I wound up with two Scout heroes to highlight with my Webelos: one a highly decorated war hero, and the other a hero for his tireless efforts to recognize his fellow Eagle Scout. And, together, both are also heroes for their work to preserve the integrity of our nation’s highest award for valor in combat.

 

If you like what you’ve read here (or even if not!), let me know in the comments, or send me an e-mail at jim@vinoski.net. Please share! And please feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn.

©2018 James M. Vinoski. All rights reserved.

In which I celebrate Godly masculinity

I was disgusted last Saturday to read about some virtue-signaling nitwit who said Hollywood should stop making movies like Dunkirk, because they reinforce a negative version of masculinity.

Now, there’s stupid. We’ve always had lots and lots of that.

Then there’s dangerously, malignantly, criminally stupid. We seem to have more and more of that.

And that’s just what this previously mentioned nitwit is. Think about what he’s saying: that the impossibly brave men who saved Western civilization (and whose fortitude, I feel compelled to point out in this same week as the International Day of Holocaust Remembrance, unwittingly created a last tiny thread of hope for the entire European Jewish race) demonstrated a manliness (honor… courage… sacrifice… and a willingness to die to protect the tribe…) that must now be stamped out. (By the way, here’s a bit I wrote a short while back about the uncommon courage on display at Dunkirk – even by non-combatants!) (And here’s one I wrote about the broader war on men.)

Well, the good news is that I’ve seen just one more reference (a viciously caustic one) to this Grima Wormtongue since then, so perhaps he’s crawled back under the same putrid rock he briefly emerged from. And who knows, maybe his staggering misandry will start the long-overdue process of upending the whole putrescent notion of “toxic masculinity.” A man can hope…

But in the meantime, I’ll not link to anything else about that vermin’s utterances.

I have lots of other links to share, though. Because my positive reaction to that clown’s verbal bowel movement was to dig out my DVD of the 1977 war movie A Bridge Too Far for viewing that very night.

First, and most important: the movie is an adaptation of a brilliant popular history of the same name by Cornelius Ryan, one of my favorite historians. It’s his story of WWII’s Operation Market Garden, a plan by British Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery to drive across Holland, seize a series of towns and vital bridges, and establish a conduit across the Rhine to Germany’s industrial heartland, the Ruhr, thus ending the war in a few more months (this was in late summer and early fall, 1944, so those of you who know your history are already aware that the operation failed.)

Now, back to the movie. Talk about a star-studded cast: Laurence Olivier, Sean Connery, Maximilian Schell, Ryan O’Neal, Robert Redford, James Caan, Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins, Gene Hackman, Liv Ullman, Elliott Gould, and a very young John Ratzenberger. It was directed by Richard Attenborough. (Midway through the movie, there’s a scene where a British Airborne unit is laughed at by a group of escapees from a nearby insane asylum that had been bombed earlier. Attenborough has a cameo as one of the lunatics.)

This has been one of my favorite films since I was a young boy. I remember vividly how much I loved the score the first time I heard it; I still do. Listen to the whole thing here – but if you don’t have the 14-odd minutes, at least watch this scene, which features not only key sections of the music but also a flight of C-47s the likes of which you’ll never see in real life. What I love about the music is how it artfully conveys the emotions: stirring and martial at first, when the participants believe they’ll be ending the war early, then slowly turning more somber and eventually sad, as all hope for that rosy scenario is lost.

The film was scored by John Addison. I never knew until this past weekend that he fought in Operation Market Garden, as a tanker with the XXX Corps of the British Second Army. So yes, I guess he indeed knew the emotions of the time intimately. He used them to make a beautiful piece of music.

It’s not a beautiful movie, though. I read something once that said Attenborough had made a very anti-war war movie in A Bridge Too Far. (All of them should be in some way, shouldn’t they?) But I don’t see it as much anti-war as anti-triumphalist. It’s that rare humble and brutally honest look at a setback, a failure, for the eventually victorious saviors of civilization.

Still, the healthy masculinity that saved the world for real back in the 1940s is every bit as much acted out here as it is in a more positive adaptation of another Cornelius Ryan book, The Longest Day. I’ll save that one to salve the pain of the next malignant moron’s destructive utterances.

 

If you like what you’ve read here (or even if not!), let me know in the comments, or send me an e-mail at jim@vinoski.net. Please share! And please feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn.

©2018 James M. Vinoski. All rights reserved.